What are the reasons I should (or shouldn't) become Catholic?

[AgnosTheist]

Apologizing? Explain yourself.

apologetics.

 

[mercygate]

You are jumping to conclusions. I am drawing conclusions about your catholicity; I am not **jumping **to conclusions. Nobody with a serious foundation in the faith could come up with the stuff you say.

I invite you to have a look at the real deal; I think you will be pleasantly surprised if not downright impressed. You present yourself as someone who is well under the age of 40 (more like 18?). If that is the case, you were likely catechized very poorly and might enjoy bringing yourself up to code. There is nothing more beautiful than the fullness of the faith…

 

[Mannyfit75]

apologetics.

The Catholic Church isn’t apology in sense for feeling sorry for. Rather Apologetic is The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning defense of a position against an attack. The logic and reason is use in this context.

I hope you know that already.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I am drawing conclusions about your catholicity

I did not give you any detail to draw anything from.

Nobody with a serious foundation in the faith could come up with the stuff you say.

People learn, my friend. There are people with more foundations then either you & me who found convincing ways to leave catholicism. Like a Priest who converts to Islam.

 

[Mannyfit75]

much of those are matters of faith. by the time a person believes any of them, he/she is already on the way onto becoming a catholic.

A Catholic is to believe in all things the Magisterium teaches because God established One Church.

For the faithful, it is not. But for the Neutral observer, things like Celibacy are.

Celibacy is a discipline which can change if the Pope allows it. Celibacy is only in the Latin Rite. There are a few exception to the policy since there are married priest. In the Byzantine Rite Churches there are also married priests.

i gave two halves.

Your observation.

i was referring to bible problems. contradictions, inconsistencies, moral dilemmas, violence, etc.

There is non in the Catholic Church. You may have this view because these are your opinions.

of course. however you call, for whatever reason, there is still a parting with money.

Money in the church is use to provide services that is use primarily for the community as well as maintaining the parish Church.

I agree. But you dont really need christianity (catholicism) to be loving.

You do. Christianity brings to the fullness of Truth. What is the Truth? Jesus Christ.

And I was referring to the past. I commend the catholic church for mellowing down and becoming what a Religion of Peace should be.

They were necessary in the times. However, the Church has never advocated violence against the innocent. In fact when the Crusades killed innocent civilians, the Pope condemned it.

I agree. Even I thank God for the Crusades. But the inquistitions, conquistas, anti-semitism, etc.

Inquisition was necessary to combat heresy. The conquidors was primarily the actions of the King and Queen of Spain rather than the Pope in Rome. In fact the Pope at the time did not believe in force conversations of the natives in the Americas.

Dont judge me (or my opinions) just yet, I just got here. I promise you, I am quite knowledgable on many things that will matter on this board.

I doubt it. We shall see.

 

[TOP]

Yes, he saw Christ after He was complete, ( so pure and bright was HE, Paul was blinded) He may not have walked with Christ but this is where he (Paul) was given his divine revelation, One on one (with Christ)

Do you think the “indwelling” of the HS as you described having yourself is not “one on one” with Christ? My experience with the HS was one on one. There was no distinction in the Trinity. Tim

 

[AgnosTheist]

The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning defense of a position against an attack. The logic and reason is use in this context.

I hope you know that already.

I do. The main problem with the bible is that it has too many spots that are inviting to attacks. Of course you believe that there are no flaws with those positions, but still there are catholic casualties as a result. (casualties as in they become disillusioned).

Also there are no objective evidences that supports the claim that the bible was divinely inspired.

A third problem is the absence of the original media. There is no way to know for sure if the contents in the bible was what the original authors had written.

Are these all worth giving your life over? There should be a good balance between faith and reason. But with Christianity there is a demand for too much faith and very little reason.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I do. The main problem with the bible is that it has too many spots that are inviting to attacks. Of course you believe that there are no flaws with those positions, but still there are catholic casualties as a result. (casualties as in they become disillusioned).

The Bible need to be interpreted in the Light of the Teaching of the Catholic Church. If you interpret any other way, you can easily justify murder. The Bible is not meant to be individually interpreted by all individuals.

Also there are no objective evidences that supports the claim that the bible was divinely inspired.

A third problem is the absence of the original media.

Are these all worth giving your life over? There should be a good balance between faith and reason. But with Christianity there is a demand for too much faith and very little reason.

Jesus answer this best. “Blessed are they who have not seem but believe.”

I have faith that Jesus Christ established one Church and no other. I also have reason to believe that Jesus did exist based on historical evidence and that he rose from the dead (base Scripture and proof founded in the Shroud of Turin).

 

[AgnosTheist]

The Bible need to be interpreted in the Light of the Teaching of the Catholic Church. If you interpret any other way, you can easily justify murder.

But they dont use it to justify murder. Are catholics morally higher than non-catholic christians? Right now I cant see any difference from how both groups run their lives and their communities.

I also have reason to believe that Jesus did exist based on historical evidence and that he rose from the dead (base Scripture and proof founded in the Shroud of Turin).

I believe there was a jew whose name was Jesus, from whom Christianity was inspired. But those stuff about turning water into wine, magically feeding 5000 men, etc, are but myths that grew around the man. There are no evidences to suggest otherwise.

 

[mercygate]

But they dont use it to justify murder. Are catholics morally higher than non-catholic christians? Right now I cant see any difference from how both groups run their lives and their communities.

I believe there was a jew whose name was Jesus, from whom Christianity was inspired. But those stuff about turning water into wine, magically feeding 5000 men, etc, are but myths that grew around the man. There are no evidences to suggest otherwise.

Well, if He was Who he said He was, and Who He demonstrated Himself to be by rising from the tomb, then He turns water into wine all the time when grapes develop yeast on their skins and ferment . . . He feeds billions every day by the bounty of the earth. If Jesus was truly One with the Creator, then it is far more likely that He actually DID those speeded-up nature miracles than that He did not.

Why in the world you would believe that a Jew named Jesus inspired Christianity is the real question. If the Jesus of the New Testament is that Jew, then He wouldn’tl make any sense at all as merely the focal point of a myth.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Money in the church is use to provide services that is use primarily for the community as well as maintaining the parish Church.

as well as for paying sex abuse victims.

You do. Christianity brings to the fullness of Truth. What is the Truth? Jesus Christ.

We were talking about love. Buddhists are good examples of a loving people who had no use of Jesus.

They were necessary in the times. However, the Church has never advocated violence against the innocent. In fact when the Crusades killed innocent civilians, the Pope condemned it.

They were necessary for the catholic clergy to preserve their dominion, and necessary to force catholicism into distant lands. people ‘guilty’ of blasphemy, ‘demonic acts’, heresy, of pretedending to convert to save their skin (like the jews)…guilty…guilty…guilty of having their own beliefs…were burned at the stake. The ends justifies the means?

The conquidors was primarily the actions of the King and Queen of Spain rather than the Pope in Rome. In fact the Pope at the time did not believe in force conversations of the natives in the Americas.

The spanish conquistadors were a part of the church. Did the Pope condemn the act?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Well, if He was Who he said He was, and Who He demonstrated Himself to be by rising from the tomb, then He turns water into wine all the time when grapes develop yeast on their skins and ferment . . . He feeds billions every day by the bounty of the earth. If Jesus was truly One with the Creator, then it is far more likely that He actually DID those speeded-up nature miracles than that He did not.

I dont get it.

Why in the world you would believe that a Jew named Jesus inspired Christianity is the real question. If the Jesus of the New Testament is that Jew, then He wouldn’tl make any sense at all as merely the focal point of a myth.

Why not?

 

[mercygate]

They were necessary for the catholic clergy to preserve their dominion, and necessary to force catholicism into distant lands. people ‘guilty’ of blasphemy, ‘demonic acts’, heresy, of pretedending to convert to save their skin (like the jews)…guilty…guilty…guilty of having their own beliefs…were burned at the stake. The ends justifies the means?

The crusades were an enterprise to regain the Holy sites that had been captured by Moslems to the peril of Christian lives when Pilgrims attempted to visit.

Nobody was executed who was not a Christian heretic or a recidivist. And it was the state that carried out the sentence, no the Church. Just being Jewish wasn’t a ticket to be burned at the stake.

And it wasn’t just Catholics who believed that heresy was worse than murder (which it is because it kills the soul. If you’re going to slam the Catholics for this, you need to give equal time to the Protestants since they sent thousands of Catholic martyrs to their deaths.

When I was in university, my history professor was one of the original promoters of the idea that the Crusades were motivated by base economic and political motives. Even he had a more realistic and generous view than you give here.

The spanish conquistadors were a part of the church. Did the Pope condemn the act?

Even given the closer relationship between Church and governments in those days, to say that the Conquistadors were “part of the Church” is a contortion that requires complete abandonment of the facts.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Do you think the “indwelling” of the HS as you described having yourself is not “one on one” with Christ? My experience with the HS was one on one. There was no distinction in the Trinity. Tim

Yes it is “one on one” . Your experience (past tense?)

But as Paul stated he has SEEN the risen Christ.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Read Galatians (2.1-2)? Acts 15.2?

He did found churches, but only in the CHURCH. They were not free to go there own way (like Corinth (I 1:10)

The reported to the mother church!!
IN JERUSELEM

 

[Mannyfit75]

as well as for paying sex abuse victims.

That is due to the lawsuits… I suing the diocese to gain monetary gain is very Christlike.

We were talking about love. Buddhists are good examples of a loving people who had no use of Jesus.

They are but have no God in their religion nor the concept of heaven or hell.

They were necessary for the catholic clergy to preserve their dominion, and necessary to force catholicism into distant lands. people ‘guilty’ of blasphemy, ‘demonic acts’, heresy, of pretedending to convert to save their skin (like the jews)…guilty…guilty…guilty of having their own beliefs…were burned at the stake. The ends justifies the means?

Because they were guilty. The Church did not kill them but the secular kingdom like the kings. The Church appointed judges but took no part in the killing.

The spanish conquistadors were a part of the church. Did the Pope condemn the act?

yes he condemned forced conversation. Do you research on the it. The Conquistadors are from Spain… not the Pope.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The reported to the mother church!!
IN JERUSELEM

Oh, I’m sorry. Maybe you missed it.

I don’t subscribe to the Latin church, so I don’t submit to their supreme pontiff.

I belong to the Orthodox Church, and have communed His Flesh and Blood on Calvary and before His Tomb, in what you correctly call, the mother Church IN JERUSALEM!!!

Problem for you: that Church has a bishop who can trace his consecration back to St. James, Brother of God according to the Flesh (look in Galations and Acts, you’ll find him there. Wrote a book of the Bible all by himself too). After his death the blood relatives of the Lord elected a cousin as next bishop. And they all believed that they were eating the BODY and BLOOD. In fact, the Divine Liturgy for the unbloody sacrifice written by St. James is used to this day, and the other Divine Liturgies are based on it.

So Uzzah, are you going to answer the question?

Or are you going to contine to contradict yourself? Denying the Body and Blood yet placed, or claiming to place, great store in that Body that hung on the Cross, and the Blood that flowed out His side for the forgiveness of sins?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Oh, I’m sorry. Maybe you missed it.

I don’t subscribe to the Latin church, so I don’t submit to their supreme pontiff.

I belong to the Orthodox Church, and have communed His Flesh and Blood on Calvary and before His Tomb, in what you correctly call, the mother Church IN JERUSALEM!!!

You mention that numerous times and yet they seem to just ignore it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Are you suggesting, these people present in John 6 recognised Him as God and Savior?

Hmmmmm, let’s see.

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. **64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe **and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67"Do you also want to go away?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Christ the Son of the Living God.”

So I guess some recognized Him, and I guess some didn’t.

Accepitng the words of eternal life from the Son of the Living God…although a hard saying…because believing as enabled by the Father.

Sounds like a good path to me, though through a narrow gate, and not much company.

Rejecting hard saying they can’t accept, refusing to follow the Son of the Living God, offended and grumbling, not believing because not enabled by the Father (OSAS?)…

Sound like anyone we know?

Do you also want to go away, through a broad and wide gate?

I guess you’ve given your answer Uzzah.

You know this how?
If they weren’t fools and they understood it literal cuz they was smart…Why not guarantee eternity???
You keep coping out of answering because you can’t answer as you call me “a fools question”

“And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe.”

Sorry the eyewitness testimony isn’t enough for you. He suffices for me. But then again I’ve been enabled by the Father.

(Btw I’ll give you a clue, which Gospel doesn’t have the words of institution nor an account of the Last Supper, but talks a lot about bread after multiplying loaves?)

If you can’t answer a fools question, where does that leave you?

Wiser as to what to do with pearls.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You mention that numerous times and yet they seem to just ignore it.

yes, we don’t want to overload the circuitry. It’s hard to think stuff up when your answers are all rehearsed.

Btw the post wasn’t intended to insult any Latins, just to pull the script out of someone’s hands.