Question

[Chris_Jodrey]

I’m refraining from the temptation of contesting that post line for line…

And these types of responses, MisterX, are what lead people to have such opinions.

I wish some people would read a substantial amount of the thread before flaming - I mean posting.

If you don’t want people to think of Catholics like that, don’t act like that. It’s pretty simple. But I bet some don’t care either way. Of course, a few of you on this thread have shown your good quality, so thanks. I don’t feel quite the same way I did when I started the thread. I would, however, like to see more opinions on the topic, so feel free to keep posting and not getting off-topic.

 

[tkdnick]

Chris,
I did not read this entire thread (lots of posts) but would like to respond to your original post. Hopefully it’s still “on topic”.

Before I go point by point through some thoughts, I think it’s important to remember that we shouldn’t judge an entire religion or community based on the actions of a few. I know the entire city of Guadalajara probably doesn’t seem like a few, but when compared to the roughly 1.1 Billion Catholics in the world, it’s a very small amount.

1. Sorry you had such a bad experience on your mission. It is truly sad when people’s sole, or majority of, experience is a negative. As you mentioned there are good and bad in every religion. I struggle with the same types of things you mentioned in my own parish. I’ve considered many times just walking away, but then I always think if I don’t stand up for what is right and what is true, then who will?
2. I think some of the problems are a result of man’s fallen nature. We’re “tainted” for lack of a better term and many people fall because of this.
3. I think another problem is the general lack of education most people have about The Faith. In general, recently our church has not done near as good a job at educating people as they should. I would even venture to say not even close to the job we should be doing.
4. Lastly, if you want to improve your view of Catholics, spend some time around good, faithful Catholics. Those people who can build up, not tear down.

 

[misterX]

Chris Jodrey:

I’m refraining from the temptation of contesting that post line for line…

And these types of responses, MisterX, are what lead people to have such opinions.

I wish some people would read a substantial amount of the thread before flaming - I mean posting.

If you don’t want people to think of Catholics like that, don’t act like that. It’s pretty simple. But I bet some don’t care either way. Of course, a few of you on this thread have shown your good quality, so thanks. I don’t feel quite the same way I did when I started the thread. I would, however, like to see more opinions on the topic, so feel free to keep posting and not getting off-topic.

O I’m sorry. I guess i should have of put " I hope you don’t get “seriously offended” then say what i want, it seems according to you that’s all one need to say before entering into a tirad of ignorant dribble. But do tell me what sort image are you putting forward on the moron- er i mean mormon faith? Calling people ignorant, lazy or stupid, because they had the hide not to listen to you rant and rave and more than likely spew lies about their faith. Maybe if YOU read YOUR post, you would see all those qualities in you. Thats if you can get over the fact that your work isn’t some devine work of scripture. And speaking of reading entire works of text. You should try doing it with the bible, instead of the watered down perverted thing that you people try to call the bible. then maybe you wouldn’t be so ignorant, lazy and stupid. Just a suggestion.:tiphat:

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Thanks, nick. I do see that there are good Catholics on these boards. Actually, I was recently looking at the FAIR boards and I noticed that the replies that a lot of LDS give there are pretty nasty and satirical in nature. I’m generally beginning to believe that good, rational people aren’t the in-your-face type. Maybe that explains why the more closed-minded irrational kind are the ones you run into most often. Maybe that could also be why I didn’t find any Catholics on my mission that were good, respectable, knowledgable people. I’m sure there are some there that I never met.

 

[scylla]

There are all sorts on this board as you can see,
There are the
Sick and tired of being called “statue worshippers” Etc…, Catholics
Patient and well versed, Catholics
Fierce Bible reading faithful defenders of the faith, Catholics
Lukewarm, ignorant or mis-informed, Catholics

and all sorts in between most of us are just imperfect people trying to learn more and spread the message.

The difference I believe is Catholicism is true and it doesn’t really matter too much how it feels, as much as following truth to Christ.

We Catholics have organizations such as Knights of Columbus and the Legion of Mary which help support Catholics in their faith and bring people back to the Church. These are just 2 out of many organizations for bringing people closer to their faith, education, social services, and a host of other causes. There are places which this is much less evident than others.

I went to Mexico about 8 months ago and found many people who were very devoted to the faith and involved, yet there was also a great deal of people who didn’t give a rip one way or the other.

Either way the Church should not be looked at only as an emotional or experience type thing. What we should look for is why should I consider the Catholic Church’s claims as the Church founded by Christ which has existed for 2000 years guarding the understanding of the faith, handed down by the apostles.

Look into it and see if it can back up it’s claims. But if you are honest with yourself, watch out, you might just end up Catholic.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Either way the Church should not be looked at only as an emotional or experience type thing. What we should look for is why should I consider the Catholic Church’s claims as the Church founded by Christ which has existed for 2000 years guarding the understanding of the faith, handed down by the apostles.

Look into it and see if it can back up it’s claims. But if you are honest with yourself, watch out, you might just end up Catholic.

I think the very basis of the invitation is in question. I’ve done LDS apologetics a little, and I’ve come to the conclusion that no faith can be proven right or wrong. I wouldn’t think of trying to prove Catholicism wrong, and so I don’t think it can be proven true either. Same with Mormonism. Some things seem more rational to us than others, but I think that is largely due to personal experience rather than objective reasoning. Everyone has ideals that they match up theologies to, and if something doesn’t fit their ideal of the way things should be they generally don’t try to change their thinking to match it, but rather look for something that’s more compatible with their lifestyle or system of thought already established.

There are other factors besides intellectual ones, and they usually take presedence. Have you ever reasoned with someone of a different faith about something so simple and logical yet they refused to change their way of thinking? That’s because people do it very reluctantly. Maybe the thing is simple to you, but perhaps the other person also feels just as much as you that it is clear and obviously on their side. I have experienced this before. I would explain something so simple to someone, yet they would witlessly argue back. So even if you feel you can prove something to someone don’t be surprised if you fail. Not everyone thinks alike.

But back to topic. Yes, you are right, there are all types of people on all boards, really. It’s silly to expect them all to be geniuses, since I’m obviously not.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Chris Jodrey:

I’ve done LDS apologetics a little, and I’ve come to the conclusion that no faith can be proven right or wrong. I wouldn’t think of trying to prove Catholicism wrong, and so I don’t think it can be proven true either. Same with Mormonism. Some things seem more rational to us than others, but I think that is largely due to personal experience rather than objective reasoning. Everyone has ideals that they match up theologies to, and if something doesn’t fit their ideal of the way things should be they generally don’t try to change their thinking to match it, but rather look for something that’s more compatible with their lifestyle or system of thought already established.

There are other factors besides intellectual ones, and they usually take presedence. Have you ever reasoned with someone of a different faith about something so simple and logical yet they refused to change their way of thinking? That’s because people do it very reluctantly. Maybe the thing is simple to you, but perhaps the other person also feels just as much as you that it is clear and obviously on their side. I have experienced this before. I would explain something so simple to someone, yet they would witlessly argue back. So even if you feel you can prove something to someone don’t be surprised if you fail. Not everyone thinks alike.

Is there one Truth or not? Is ther one Gospel on not? I dont understand you. You are a missionary claiming to be sent by an actual God sent prophet and yet you claim no religion can be proven right or wrong?

The problem is you seem to be mixing emotions with proofs. If a person refuses to look at the facts all their life, thats their fault if the dont find the truth. Your confusing that with whether or not there is one true Gospel or not.

 

[marymol]

yes, and it is good to remember too that it is The Church , the apparition of The bl. Mother at Guadaloupe that brought an end to a culture that was worshipping the serpent god, kiiling off thousands of their own in human sacrifices …most Mexicans we know are simple, docile people good , humble people …true they might also be probably also reaping some of the friuts of having been very anticatholic / anti church ,even in this century…the effects of satanic bondage from sexual immorality …yes he tries to get the ‘best’ - the priesthood of The Lord ,the catholics, so that their effective intercession can be blocked off , thus the power to convert many who are under his lie …Yet,as in days of Sodom , a few saints can make a big diffrence …and we would see in eternity The Mercy of The Father, who use the humility and love of a few of His faithful children …the pleading of The Church -‘have mercy on us and the whole world -even the misinformed mormons’ -on account of The Infinite merits of The Passion …Is it also good for every child of The Father , to live in the joy and gratitude of this ?..yes …would they…hopefully …there is time …in purgatory too and hopefully not in hell , for stubborn pride that ignore or make lies of The revelations --the evidence of what The Church has been able to do , in spite of many attacks ( from within as well…) one small example - …In India , the whole country is now in one sense ,reaping the rewards of the patient charitable work - schools, hospitals …all run by nuns and priests , even among the midst of hindus and moslems , as pure service this even though the The Church is small in numbers .and has .helped to get rid of so much pagan erors - untouchablity, feudal sysytems … …
Look at the miracles of the incorrupt saints , a St. Francis ( and the miracle whisper of the roses witout thorns) and then lovingly come - to embrace a Churh that is all love …Mercy , like The Lord … yes , a truth loving mormon can come home - toThe Father’s embrace to be able to have a new song , not a yucky taste in the mouth 'I receieve the risen Lord and my heart is full of joy …".and can intercede with all of Church, for the lost sheep, in mexico, Utah…have Mercy …

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Well, Catholic Dude, now we’re getting some where. Allow me to explain a little further.

Proof = physical evidence unto conviction.

Proof is relative. It depends on the standards you are putting it up against. You can more easily convince one person of something than you can someone else. Some demand more evidence, while others are easily swayed. In some cases the evidence proves the case pretty obviously. Few people are going to argue against “2 + 2 = 4”. But not everything is that simple. Can you scientifically prove that Jesus Christ was resurrected? Can you even prove that he really existed? Of course, in your mind the evidence makes that obvious, as it does to me, but I have conversed with people who find the evidence lacking. Again, proof is relative. Usually it takes a while for new, true ideas to sink in. Maybe you watched the program on Einstein a little while ago. It took a long time for the scientific community to accept his theories and ideas, despite all the work he had already published on it.

Science and history in general are not all-comprehensive. Don’t trust in them 100%, especially since some aspects of them contradict your beliefs. Using them as if they were scripture is a big mistake.

I believe in the Bible as do all other Christians. I always found it amazing that people would affirm their interpretations basically because of their argument, “I read it and understand it more than you or anyone else.” I got this more than a few times on my mission, and it really made me laugh. To show them how ridiculous that support was I would tell them of a good member of a different religion I knew who read the Bible more than they did, yet got different conclusions. I would say something like, “You know, there’s a Presbyterian back home I know who spends five hours a day studying the Bible. He has a PHd in theology and another in ancient Greek. He knows Hebrew because he studied in Jerusalem for ten years. He’s abviously done more than you, but he thinks differently from me and you… why do you think that is?” Usually then they would say, “Well, my pastor knows more than that guy, so go ask him,” or something like that. The cycle just keeps going. To say that anything can be absolutely proven with the Bible is just silly. It falls in the same category as what I mentioned first - that proof is relative.

There is certainly only one true Church of Christ, and we will all know which one it is by the end, but then it will be too late. God could prove it now if he wished, and in some ways he does. Without him we would be left in the dark forever. So what man can’t do, God can. Now, how can we get God to tell us is the question…

 

[marymol]

The True Church …could it be the one a Mother Teresa and her joyful, selfless sisters have devoted their lives with, caring for the A.I.D.S victims …and would unashamdemdly state , The Eucharist is the Power that help them …
JohnPaul 11 - hope you had a chance to meet him and see the face that shined .so …even in the midst of his ailments -that all you could see was that shine …and peace …
A Padre Pio…of miracles and lifechanging conversions …and countless others …The apparitions of The Bl. Mother …
A priesthood that has existed for 2000 years and not one case of the seal of the confessional having been broken …
A Church that has always tried to follow the Bridegroom by doing His will so that the fearful words -'you cast out demons cured the sick…depart from me you evildoers, for I do not know you " ? for refusing to uphold The Truth about The Eucharist …the priesthood and often has stayed in their positions with stubborn pride …division …signs of the enemy …yet The Church love and plead for them too- she has to, for The Father wills it so…

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Thank you, marymol. This is a great example. Obviously, what you have written here is more than enough evidence to support your beliefs, and so to you it is proof. However, if you were to show this to many non-Catholics, I doubt you would have much success. Sure, there have been good people in Catholicism, as there are in all world religions. Few people would consider that proof of anything though. Yet, to you it is, and that’s great.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Chris Jodrey-

Proof = physical evidence unto conviction.

Proof is relative. It depends on the standards you are putting it up against.

These are some tough questions. Im not quite sure how to answer them.
I understand what your saying in a sense, I mean, even in the Bible when Jesus did miracles right infront of people some still refused to believe, so I understand what your saying there.
At the same time, why did Jesus do miracles if some people would still refuse to believe if they saw it with their own eyes? Was Jesus not trying to prove to them who he was?

You stumped me, but Im still confused on how you justify your own position then. You went out to show people in mexico why LDS was true. Why would you then say the truth cant be proven, arent you hanging yourself with the rope you made? Even in the Revelation of Joseph Smith he says he looked at the various protestant denominations and found them to be false. On what basis did he say that if truth and proof is relative?

You can more easily convince one person of something than you can someone else. Some demand more evidence, while others are easily swayed. In some cases the evidence proves the case pretty obviously.

Just because you convice someone doesnt mean what you conviced them of was the truth. If you pointed to a cup and told someone it was a tree and they believed you, then what? Is truth relative or is there some standard by which people agree?

All things cant be true, contradicting views cant be the truth, that means only one view can be the truth. If multiple contradicting things can be the truth then the idea of truth is false. Now setting out from square one to prove which view is correct is where I get stuck.

Few people are going to argue against “2 + 2 = 4”. But not everything is that simple.

What makes 2+2=4? There has to be some solid standard by which all people can agree that 2+2=4. What happens if someone refuses to accept 2+2=4? Was it because we didnt prove it or because they didnt want to accept it?

Im not really able to explain much past my first paragraph. This is one of those, how do you prove God exists type questions.
Maybe if you start a thread with this question you will get better replies. Should I start a new thread? Im interested in this, philosophers and other great minds had to have had answers to the question of if proof is relative.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Hey, Catholic Dude.

At the same time, why did Jesus do miracles if some people would still refuse to believe if they saw it with their own eyes? Was Jesus not trying to prove to them who he was?

Do you really think that Jesus expected them all to believe? After the X number time I’m sure he caught on that most of those Jews were pretty dang closed-minded and stiff-necked. We are judged according to the light we’ve received. The Jews were given signs yet still refused to believe, sealing their destruction. At the last day there will be no excuses.

This might be a good place to mention that although we have our perceptions of what constitutes proof, so does God, and his opinion is the one that matters. But, I don’t think he considers the understanding of man to be proper proof of religious truth. Besides, we all have different levels of intelligence. I don’t think it would be fair of God to let someone get duped just because of lack of education or wit. Again, we will all be accountable, no cop-outs.

You stumped me, but Im still confused on how you justify your own position then. You went out to show people in mexico why LDS was true. Why would you then say the truth cant be proven, arent you hanging yourself with the rope you made? Even in the Revelation of Joseph Smith he says he looked at the various protestant denominations and found them to be false. On what basis did he say that if truth and proof is relative?

Notice when he made that statement. Up until his first vision he believed that there was some church that was true. His question wasn’t, “Are any of these true?” but it was, “Which one of these is yours?” The answer was that none of them are true, and he trusted God’s answer.

I find it interesting that some atheists accuse Christians of believing anything they’re told, yet those same intellectuals always trust to the ideas of men (philosophy, science, history, anthropology, etc) just as religiously.

So, the answer isn’t in men or their reasoning, but in God. I bet that if you think about it you’ll have to agree with me on that.

Just because you convice someone doesnt mean what you conviced them of was the truth.

That’s right.

All things cant be true, contradicting views cant be the truth, that means only one view can be the truth. If multiple contradicting things can be the truth then the idea of truth is false. Now setting out from square one to prove which view is correct is where I get stuck.

It’s simple when it comes to Christianity. What does God have to say on the matter? How do you think God communicates to his children? What does the Bible say about it?

It’s also interesting that the apostles were not of the learned Pharisees or scribes or other sect, but rather were simple men doing what they had always done, getting by. They had no deep knowledge of the scriptures besides what they heard in the synagogue, and they weren’t intellectuals. Sure, they were made strong by the end, but it was gradual. They were convinced that they should follow Christ not because they went to their Jewish officials to get their opinion on it or because they had studied Jesus’ teachings for years, comparing them to traditional Judaism, but because they were indicated in some way that they should. Their ‘conversion’ was extremely rapid and uneducated in the intellectual sense.

What makes 2+2=4? There has to be some solid standard by which all people can agree that 2+2=4. What happens if someone refuses to accept 2+2=4? Was it because we didnt prove it or because they didnt want to accept it?

1. It’s universally accepted.
2. It can’t be argued against. There exist no logical rebuttals to 2 + 2 = 4. If you define 2 as two of your fingers and 4 as two more of your fingers you’ve already proven it.

Im not really able to explain much past my first paragraph. This is one of those, how do you prove God exists type questions.

And why is it necessary to prove whether God exists or not? In my opinion, to demand a proof is to have already seriously questioned it. Joseph Smith never once expounded why or how we believe God exists, but rather defined his character and personality, who he is; which to me is much more important. If some arrogant charlatain demands proof, let him. No amount of evidence will be enough. Remember that by the end the Jews were taunting Jesus, telling him to come down off the cross if he really was who he said he was. Amazing for those who had already seen so much to continue doubting.

The Mormon message appeals to many people because we don’t try to convince them that we’re right and everyone else is wrong. The invitation is to ask God, not men, not some guy’s interpretation of scripture. People generally like that and feel that we are right, that God really can answer prayers.