Protestant service last night.

[Trebor135]

And what do you do with II Kings 2:23-25? Elisha is bald, kids mock is baldness, Elisha calls down the curse of God, two bears come out of the woods and maul 42 youngsters! Please! Give me a break!

I have to work on an essay, so I’ll handle just one of your questions by providing a link to this response: “Wasn’t Elisha very cruel when he sent those bears against those little kids who were teasing him about being bald?” Glenn Miller is no myopic, ignorant fundamentalist.

 

[stewstew03]

…Let’s make religion a bridge and not a barrier.

I’m confused as to whether you’re building a bridge to my beliefs or lecturing me about how “unenlightened” I am…

 

[Trebor135]

Let’s make religion a bridge and not a barrier.

How can one make a bridge of one’s religion if that religion consists of no firm and concrete beliefs–apart from “no such thing as ultimate truth exists”?

(I really must stop letting CAF distract me… I’m looking forward to your response. )

 

[Roy5]

Let’s not confuse truth with doctrines. There are all kinds of doctrines advanced by all versions of religious faith. Those who believe that the Pope and the Magisterium is infallible have no trouble, fine. Then there are those Protestants who are convinced that their particular interpretation of the Bible is the one and only valid interpretation.
I suspect that I am one of millions who have a deep faith in God, who seek to be loyal disciples of Christ, but who don't base our faith on ancient creeds and rituals, but on the Sermon on the Mount. We emphasize love of God and love of one another. As for all the theological complexities that have developed over the centuries, they have succeeded in cluttering the basic teachings of Christ with innumerable dogmas that too often overshadow the core message of Christianity. Then we get into these proud and pious debates over minor points and overlook the major ones. Thus humanity goes on killing and hating and feeling bigoted toward tribes not their own. What pain that must cause Jesus! "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?"

 

[stewstew03]

Let’s not confuse truth with doctrines. There are all kinds of doctrines advanced by all versions of religious faith. Those who believe that the Pope and the Magisterium is infallible have no trouble, fine.

Let’s not confuse the abstract with the concrete. “Doctrines” and “truth” are not necessarily mutually exclusive

Then there are those Protestants who are convinced that their particular interpretation of the Bible is the one and only valid interpretation.

It seems you fall into this category…

I suspect that I am one of millions who have a deep faith in God, who seek to be loyal disciples of Christ, but who don’t base our faith on ancient creeds and rituals, but on the Sermon on the Mount. We emphasize love of God and love of one another.

You are begging the question, and engaging in ad hominem. Catholics also have a deep faith in God. Catholics also seek to be loyal disciples of Christ. As Catholics we do not base our faith on ancient creeds and rituals; our faith rests in Jesus Christ alone. Catholics canonized the Sermon on the Mount. Catholicism emphasizes love of God and love of neighbor.

As for all the theological complexities that have developed over the centuries, they have succeeded in cluttering the basic teachings of Christ with innumerable dogmas that too often overshadow the core message of Christianity. Then we get into these proud and pious debates over minor points and overlook the major ones. Thus humanity goes on killing and hating and feeling bigoted toward tribes not their own. What pain that must cause Jesus! “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?”

And yet, you continue to make hasty generalizations, lecture us, and patronize those of us who are obviously not followers of this “true Christian faith” that you have discovered…

 

[Trebor135]

Let’s not confuse truth with doctrines.

Let’s say goodbye to the trinity and the hypostatic union, then!

There are all kinds of doctrines advanced by all versions of religious faith.

Including yours–i.e., “Let’s not make any (or many) definitive statements on what to believe.” That, itself, is a doctrine.

Those who believe that the Pope and the Magisterium is infallible have no trouble, fine. Then there are those Protestants who are convinced that their particular interpretation of the Bible is the one and only valid interpretation.

Which proves that people disagree, not that neither party might be correct.

 I suspect that I am one of millions

How does the popularity of a position have anything to do with whether it’s true or not?

who have a deep faith in God, who seek to be loyal disciples of Christ, but who don’t base our faith on ancient creeds and rituals, but on the Sermon on the Mount. We emphasize love of God and love of one another.

You’re setting up a false dichotomy between “creeds/rituals” on the one hand and “the Sermon on the Mount” on the other, when Jesus did no such thing. He was a good Jewish man, after all. Besides, after St. Paul’s conversion he is exhorted to be baptized (see Acts chapter twenty-two).

As for all the theological complexities that have developed over the centuries, they have succeeded in cluttering the basic teachings of Christ with innumerable dogmas that too often overshadow the core message of Christianity. Then we get into these proud and pious debates over minor points and overlook the major ones. Thus humanity goes on killing and hating and feeling bigoted toward tribes not their own. What pain that must cause Jesus! “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?”

I get what you’re saying–the debates can become really tedious. But given these things, we might as well just throw up our hands and become agnostic.

 

[Trebor135]

Nice thoughts Oh respected Trebor…but thoust shoudist Know that Roy does not believith that the Bible is Scripture…and that jades your thoughts…also know that Roy is a person of polls and statistics with a constant tirade of what he believes to be needed change and what the forum needs…ie a liberal approach…

Oh my…look Dick…funny funny dog…see the dog run…it gets old after awhile…

Haha. The appeal to polls and statistics in support of one’s views constitutes or leads to an argumentum ad populum. If we were having this discussion in the 1950s, when (as I’ve heard) seventy-five percent of American Catholics attended Mass each week and (I expect) most of them believed what their Church taught, Roy5 would be lamenting the widespread fundamentalist trend in U.S. society. We can never get anywhere using this kind of methodology.

I should point out the irony of a “fundamentalist” like me* being able to detect the use of a logical fallacy by a poster who acts as if he considers himself to be light years ahead of us unsophisticated peasants in rationality and wisdom… Good heavens, what is the world coming to?

*Of course, I don’t believe that creation took six literal days or that the universe is six thousand years old.

 

[Roy5]

Haha. The appeal to polls and statistics in support of one’s views constitutes or leads to an argumentum ad populum. If we were having this discussion in the 1950s, when (as I’ve heard) seventy-five percent of American Catholics attended Mass each week and (I expect) most of them believed what their Church taught, Roy5 would be lamenting the widespread fundamentalist trend in U.S. society. We can never get anywhere using this kind of methodology.

I should point out the irony of a “fundamentalist” like me* being able to detect the use of a logical fallacy by a poster who acts as if he considers himself to be light years ahead of us unsophisticated peasants in rationality and wisdom… Good heavens, what is the world coming to?

*Of course, I don’t believe that creation took six literal days or that the universe is six thousand years old.

I'm simply presenting a different viewpoint. I assume this is welcome on these forums. Wouldn't they be dull if everyone agreed?

Yes, it's true. I favor major changes in the Church, including the option of priests to marry, the ordination of women Deacons, admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to communion (minus an annulment), the right of married Catholics to follow their consciences when it comes to birth control (which they do already), and a freer atmosphere when it comes to discussion of ancient doctrines and dogmae.  

  I know few posters here agree with me, but so be it. Reform usually comes only after considerable build-up. I well my childhood when it was a major sin to worship with Protestants, and now this community has ecumenical and/or interfaith services several times a year. This suggests that changes can come about. A variety of other regulations were changed, too, such as those governing marriage to non-Catholics. Etc.

 

[stewstew03]

I’m simply presenting a different viewpoint. I assume this is welcome on these forums. Wouldn’t they be dull if everyone agreed?

I appreciate the presentation of different viewpoints, but not when they are delivered in the form of a supercilious lecture…

Yes, it’s true. I favor major changes in the Church, including the option of priests to marry, the ordination of women Deacons, admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to communion (minus an annulment), the right of married Catholics to follow their consciences when it comes to birth control (which they do already), and a freer atmosphere when it comes to discussion of ancient doctrines and dogmae.

  I know few posters here agree with me, but so be it. Reform usually comes only after considerable build-up. I well my childhood when it was a major sin to worship with Protestants, and now this community has ecumenical and/or interfaith services several times a year. This suggests that changes can come about. A variety of other regulations were changed, too, such as those governing marriage to non-Catholics. Etc.

You seem to be tolerant and receptive to just about anything – except Catholic dogma.

 

[Trebor135]

I’m simply presenting a different viewpoint. I assume this is welcome on these forums.

Sure. But, as the previous poster noted, you do it in a condescending, sneering fashion. As a result I’ve been able to identify posts which you have written without first reading the Roy5 username above them.

Wouldn’t they be dull if everyone agreed?

They would. But they’d be better if you didn’t have mockery dripping from your every word. We aren’t dealing with overly greasy pizza here.

Yes, it's true. I favor major changes in the Church, including the option of priests to marry, the ordination of women Deacons, admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to communion (minus an annulment), the right of married Catholics to follow their consciences when it comes to birth control (which they do already), and a freer atmosphere when it comes to discussion of ancient doctrines and dogmae.

  I know few posters here agree with me, but so be it. Reform usually comes only after considerable build-up. I well my childhood when it was a major sin to worship with Protestants, and now this community has ecumenical and/or interfaith services several times a year. This suggests that changes can come about. A variety of other regulations were changed, too, such as those governing marriage to non-Catholics. Etc.

The Catholic Church distinguishes between doctrines and disciplines. It may allow priests to marry someday (I wouldn’t be against it, but I’m heading east spiritually in some fashion anyway), just as it now permits Catholics to attend Protestant services. But I don’t imagine that the Catholic Church will throw out its prohibition against the use of contraception–looking at the matter from a disinterested, non-religious point of view, one can see that it would thereby lose all credibility in its claims to teaching by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Barely-practicing Catholics and liberal Protestants would rejoice for centuries, but at some point the world, let us hope and pray, will go through a spiritual revival, reducing their numbers and influence.

As Christians we should attempt to conform our consciences to God’s will, not attempt to force His to conform to our ideas. “I want X,” “I prefer Y,” “I find Z so unreasonable as to reject it without even giving it due consideration”–these are not the responses offered by the followers of Christ, but rather those of spoiled children who expect to get everything on a silver platter.

 

[Roy5]

Trebor135

Gosh, I hesitate to disagree because I apparently will be condescending. I guess I have been too influenced by American democracy or something. I have a strong sense that laity have a right to express their views honestly. We often are told that we are the Church, so....  Are we or aren't we?

 I believe that Christians should be free to interpret their faith individually. I know that this sounds like a wicked Protestant heresy, but that's where I've moved over the years. This doesn't mean that the main doctrines are tossed aside, only that we have a perfect right to weigh them, examine them, ask questions about them, etc. The Church should not serve as an intellectual straight jacket. Now, I know how offensive this can sound, but I peronally believe millions of Catholics think like that. The fact that the Church is so adamant when it comes to doctrine helps explain why the Church has lost so much of its authority among Catholics. They are well-educated now, and many no longer jump when the hierarchy says jump. 

  One can deeply admire much about the church, its priests, its great universities, its hospitals, its organization, etc., and still insist upon thinking for oneself. How big a sin is that? I believe God gave us a brain and the Lord will hardly punish us if we use it humbly and honestly in the pursuit of truth. The notion that all the truth we need is passed along by the Church doesn't satisfy me. I have found enormous wisdom in the Upanishads, the Vedas, the Adi Granth, the Tripitaka, the Agamas, the Tao-tsang - etc. Speak of condescension, the Church certainly can practice that - and too often does - when it comes to other ancient faiths. I firmly believe that we can be good Christians, and respect other faiths. I think Christ would want that. 

  But I've 'preached' long enough. Hope you had a blessed Easter.

 

[mlz]

Roy,

I’m going to make you a challenge. Since you are well read and seem to respect intellectual pursuit to faith and morals I challenge you to read several (if not many) of Peter Kreeft’s books. You can find these at Ignatius Press (or perhaps Amazon too) He is excellent, intellectual, logical and precise toward the teaching of the Catholic Church.

If you remain open to God and read much of this author you will feel you have only touched the “tip” of the depth of the Catholic Church which is rich beyond compare!!!

Prayers,
mlz

 

[Trebor135]

Trebor135

Gosh, I hesitate to disagree because I apparently will be condescending.

Unfortunately, your track record suggests it.*

I guess I have been too influenced by American democracy or something.

Perhaps.

I have a strong sense that laity have a right to express their views honestly.

Have I said otherwise?

We often are told that we are the Church, so… Are we or aren’t we?

We are. But Jesus and his early followers never called for an individualistic free-for-all. Go read Matthew 18:15-18, Hebrews 13:17, and Matthew 23:1-3.

 I believe that Christians should be free to interpret their faith individually.

I believe that you are in error. Now what?

I know that this sounds like a wicked Protestant heresy,

It is! (Notice the emoticon.)

but that’s where I’ve moved over the years.

All right.

This doesn’t mean that the main doctrines are tossed aside,

What would those be?

only that we have a perfect right to weigh them, examine them, ask questions about them, etc.

I’ve been doing that for years. And have plans to keep reading and thinking. And expect to continue conversing with a couple kind clerics. (I was unable to resist the temptation to alliterate.)

The Church should not serve as an intellectual straight jacket.

Indeed.

Now, I know how offensive this can sound,

You’re such a fearless iconoclast! Thank heavens not of the Calvinist variety. Throwing statues of St. Mary into the river as John Knox did wouldn’t fly around here (no pun intended!).

but I peronally believe millions of Catholics think like that.

Yes. Along with millions of other Christians. They shall have to answer to God for their choices (as will I, of course).

The fact that the Church is so adamant when it comes to doctrine helps explain why the Church has lost so much of its authority among Catholics.

And the argumentum ad populum… strikes again!

Any polls?

They are well-educated now, and many no longer jump when the hierarchy says jump.

I’m sure many of the devout Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox here are well-educated, too…

  One can deeply admire much about the church, its priests, its great universities, its hospitals, its organization, etc., and still insist upon thinking for oneself. How big a sin is that?

I’m quite capable of thinking for myself, thank you–I do it all the time–and yet would (if I were married) avoid contraception.

I believe God gave us a brain and the Lord will hardly punish us if we use it humbly and honestly in the pursuit of truth.

But I thought you didn’t believe that we could even really know absolute truth

The notion that all the truth we need is passed along by the Church doesn’t satisfy me. I have found enormous wisdom in the Upanishads, the Vedas, the Adi Granth, the Tripitaka, the Agamas, the Tao-tsang - etc. Speak of condescension, the Church certainly can practice that - and too often does - when it comes to other ancient faiths. I firmly believe that we can be good Christians, and respect other faiths. I think Christ would want that.

The Catholic Church, and perhaps the Orthodox Churches, believe that other religions have elements of truth worthy of admiration and praise. Christ is still king, though.

  But I've 'preached' long enough.

Haha.

Hope you had a blessed Easter.

Same to you.

*People I know have “told me off” (with good results), so if I come across as severe, rest assured that I’ve taken what I dish out.

 

[rinnie]

Brethren - Don’t worry most Catholic Christians have no hard feelings towards Protestants!

Peace to you!

Heck No, I even married one 30 years ago. He eventually turned RC, But his Mother didn’t. And we still love her.

 

[Roy5]

Trebor

  Thanks for being civil. Can't resist one little rejoinder. If you were happily married, and already had the family of 3-4 children, the number you and your spouse want and can care for, you might find that you change your mind on contraception. I don't care to debate that, but I was married (widowed, sadly) and know whereof I speak.

  I think what galls many Catholics (and others?) is that a celibate, all-male hierarchy comes up with some of these rules. Jesus never said a word about contraception. The only possible reference in the Bible is a passing weird reference in the Old Testament involving the strange custom of impregnating your brother's wife if he died without an heir. We're talking here about contraception, not abortion, of course, which are entirely separate issues. Besides, the Church allows its own variety of contraception - marital relations according to the calendar. How in accord with nature and 'natural law' is that? 

 One of the things that struck me most about a couple of the Church Fathers is how anti-female they were. Some pictured women as temptresses who could cause men to fall - and did in the case of Eve. Nonsense.

  But God bless the whole world. I simply wish that we had a broader worldview and become less stuck in our narrow tribal context. God is far too big to be contained in one religion, in creeds, even in the scriptures. Even all religions, all creeds, and all scriptures together reveal a tiny fraction of his magnificence and mystery.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

  Thanks for being civil. Can't resist one little rejoinder. If you were happily married, and already had the family of 3-4 children, the number you and your spouse want and can care for, you might find that you change your mind on contraception. I don't care to debate that, but I was married (widowed, sadly) and know whereof I speak.

  I think what galls many Catholics (and others?) is that a celibate, all-male hierarchy comes up with some of these rules. Jesus never said a word about contraception. The only possible reference in the Bible is a passing weird reference in the Old Testament involving the strange custom of impregnating your brother's wife if he died without an heir. We're talking here about contraception, not abortion, of course, which are entirely separate issues. Besides, the Church allows its own variety of contraception - marital relations according to the calendar. How in accord with nature and 'natural law' is that? .

First of all you are not speaking for anyone else but yourself, so you can not say you are speaking for many Catholics. God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply.

Contraception and abortion a.re not entirely different issues. Many contraceptives are what is called abortifacients: something that causes abortion.priestsforlife.org/postabortion/jmcontraception.htm

One of the things that struck me most about a couple of the Church Fathers is how anti-female they were. Some pictured women as temptresses who could cause men to fall - and did in the case of Eve. Nonsense…

The Church is not anti-female. The Church is always looking out for our best interests, just as a good parent does. I believe you know that, you just don’t want to admit it and are looking for arguments. That is nonsense.

But God bless the whole world. I simply wish that we had a broader worldview and become less stuck in our narrow tribal context. God is far too big to be contained in one religion, in creeds, even in the scriptures. Even all religions, all creeds, and all scriptures together reveal a tiny fraction of his magnificence and mystery.

Yeah, well. You might want to reconsider that desire for a broad view, it doesn’t look like it has too happy of an ending.

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it” Jesus, Matthew 7:13 :ehh:

 

[mlz]

Your quote: “I believe that Christians should be free to interpret their faith individually. I know that this sounds like a wicked Protestant heresy, but that’s where I’ve moved over the years.”

My response: “I want you to know that as a former Protestant that was my firm stand for years. But over the years of “jumping in and out of churches and doctrines” I found myself in a “God and me” world which turned out to be very self-centered. I never really saw it as such but now it is as clear as can be. I was in charge of doctrine and I became a sort of “pope” deciding what was moral or not moral etc. I came back to the history of the Church from the beginning and realized it could NEVER be Christ’s purpose to set up such an “individual” Church! HE is Lord and there is NOT a democracy in the Kingdom of God. I realized how very wrong I was to hold such “arrogant”, self centered view of my faith and morals. Jesus NEVER, EVER would have wanted his church to be as such. NOT that we can’t use the minds God has given us, no, but under HIS submission which He clearly laid out before He left this world which is HIS CHURCH. WE NEED THIS MORE THAN WE REALIZE. The evil one wants us to think we are “in charge”…just remember the temptations he presented to our Lord during the 40 days. That is exactly the temptations we face when called to submission to His Lordship in His Church!!! Don’t be decieved. I know the temptation well, I fell for it. I ask as an honest “thinker” yourself that you also please reflect and ask the Holy Spirit if this could be true and be willing to follow Him in whatever He directs. If you see otherwise, I remain your sister in Christ and pray for your journey to be fruitful in His Kingdom.”

My love in Christ,
mlz

A new and very happy convert to the Holy and Catholic Church!!!

 

[Roy5]

miz

 Thanks for your testimony. If you find that you can embrace Catholicism and find peace and joy and love, God bless you.

 Actually, I don't think I'm my own Pope or anything equivalent to that. Not am I confortable saying that my religion is the right one and all the rest fall short - are wrong! No, I have such reverence and awe before God that I think that the human mind simply isn't equipped to understand the majesty, mystery, and miracle of this mammoth universe. Over the years I have read volumes - even taught comparative religions in college when I was much younger. So, it's not as though I haven't investigated. My family background is mixed - paternal Catholic, maternal Protestant - so I grew up quite aware of the differences, the conflicts, the baptisms, weddings and funerals missed because Catholics were forbidden to go to a Protestant service - etc.

 Catholicism has the advantage of offering a whole set of infallible doctrines. My problem? I don't think they're infallible. But, well... I don't want to argue.

  As I sit here at my computer, I don't even know what's going on across the street. How can I pretend to know what's going on way up somewhere, beyond maybe a million or two solar systems? So, I don't claim to know. I trust in God, try to live as Christ would have us live, seek to serve others, and can wait patiently for answers to my questions. I have no problem with that. My guess is that we all are far from understanding the real world. As a result we adopt this or that religion - and that's fine. As long as we love God and one another, as Christ commanded, doctrine to me is mostly guesswork.

  What does trouble me is when religion serves as a barrier instead of a bridge. Sadly, that too often has been true - and there can sometimes be signs of it here on CAF. Too often Christians have preached love, humility and peace while promoting prejudice, arrogance and hostility. May God forgive us all.

 

[stewstew03]

 Catholicism has the advantage of offering a whole set of infallible doctrines. My problem? I don't think they're infallible.

Just curious, what is this set of “infallible doctrines”?

 

[TarkanAttila]

Roy5, have you ever met Charlemagne II? Or Al Moritz? They’re both hardcore sceptics like yourself, and devout Catholics. Did you ever ask them why they accept the teachings of the RCC? I’m sure they’d love to tell you.

I myself will tell you that I accept the teachings and doctrines of the bishops of the Catholic Church teach because it is evident in Scripture and in history that the bishops have always had the final word.

The bishops taught the people. And the people obeyed because the bishops have the authority of the Apostles. And the Apostles had the authority of Jesus Christ.

So when the bishop, or the Pope, speak authoritatively on a matter, they speak for God and Our Lord Jesus, because Jesus has given them this power, in so many places.

This is something I’ve discerned by reading Scripture. If Jesus promised that, as God, He would rise from the Dead, and indeed He did, He must have authority that would be foolish to question. And He gave this authority to His Apostles, as the very concept of Scripture demonstrates to us. (After all, who defined Scripture? Those who followed the teachings of the Apostles, and didn’t oppose them.)

Therefore, while I am not at all required to abdicate reason when accepting the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, I must remember that the bishops teaching have an authority that I don’t have, from Jesus Himself. Jesus gave me the bishops to lead me.

I’d be foolish not to follow them.