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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Simple_Theist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AgnosTheist said:
And yet Buddhists are as abundant of this emotion as your common catholic. That is the only point I wanted to make.
Click to expand...
Love is considered a sin in Buddhism, since it leads to human attachments and the desire to live.
 
jmcrae said:
Love is considered a sin in Buddhism, since it leads to human attachments and the desire to live.
Click to expand...
You are playing on the ambiguity of the word “love,” which is unfair (to put it gently). “Metta,” or loving-kindness, is a major virtue in Buddhism, and according to a poster a while ago (I can’t remember which one–maybe rossum or ahimsa?) it is a pretty close equivalent to the Christian “agape.”

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Is that more helpful?

Edwin
Click to expand...
If you are right on #3 then that would be the strongest reason. The first 2 rely heavily on the assumptions of an unbroken chain and a special connection. It takes some faith to believe those.

You are not a catholic yet, I suppose some reasons have crossed your mind as to why a person should not become catholic. If there are, can you share them? Thanks. 🙂
 
jmcrae said:
Love is considered a sin in Buddhism, since it leads to human attachments and the desire to live.
Click to expand...
I only care about the final results. They are as human as you and I. There are many people associated with buddhism who are guinuinely caring people. And the fact that their people’s history have far fewer blood on their hands paints their religion as more humane
 
AgnosTheist said:
i dont think you would prefer incessant rants on pedophile priests & the inquisition. so just leave it as that. 🙂
Click to expand...
From my standpoint, that is what you’re doing.

Someone mentioned what money at the parish level was used to pay for and you decided to smarmily add on that it was also used to pay for lawsuits related to pedophilia.

Most of your comments are very insightful and conversational, but you can’t seem to refrain from the occasional inappropriate jab. I think you should learn to refrain. You’re certainly not furthering the conversation by doing that.
 
AgnosTheist said:
I only care about the final results. They are as human as you and I.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it is only Christianity that considers love in all of its many forms to be virtuous and good. You could not be both a good Buddhist and a loving Buddhist, but the very definition of a good Christian is one who is also a loving Christian.
 
Agnost thiest wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
In UK courts, any evidence is admissable providing it is not heresay evidence. That means a criminal may be convicted on the evidence given providing the witnesses experienced first hand his crimes. Evidence which comes from anecdotal sources [eg a friend of mine said he did it] is not admissable. It has to be first hand eye witness testimony.

THAT IS THE PREMISE ON WHICH THE WHOLE LAW AND EVERY CONVICTION IS BASED.To argue other wise is to say that every criminal conviction is unsound. No one should be in prison. Every sentence should be quashed. All are innocent.

I cannot give evidence that Jesus is the Christ, but there were those who could, namely the 12-Apostles, their Deacons and the Holy Women. They all give evidence in the New Testament.

Now you may chose not to believe their evidence [eg did He turn water into wine etc] but on balance, there is sufficient ‘eye witness testimony’ evidence for the case to be proven.

Now you are free to disagree with the result. But to say there is insufficient evidence is to say that 'every criminal trial in UK Europe and USA is suspect because that is the universal basis for conviction: ‘eye witness testimony’ ‘I saw the thief steal the car’ ’ ‘I saw Jesus Christ feed 5000- people that day’. Mk 6:44

Case proven, court arise.
 
Contarini said:
Sorry. I was trying to be brief. Obviously the question of why one should hang on to Christianity in general is a separate one. I am considerably more convinced that Catholicism is the true form of Christianity than I am that Christianity is true, by the way (one reason why I can say without hesitation that if I were a non-Christian believing what I believe now I’d become Catholic).
  1. Catholicism is one of the four expressions of Christianity with unbroken continuity from apostolic times (i.e., at no point have any of these Communions broken with their previous identity in an obvious and dramatic way–the other three being the Chalcedonian Eastern Orthodox, the non-Chalcedonian “Oriental Orthodox,” and the “Church of the East”).
  2. Catholicism is the only form of Christianity centered on the See of Rome, which Christians have historically believed has a special connection with St. Peter and St. Peter’s charge to feed Christ’s flock. This makes Catholicism the one form of Christianity that has a center of unity independent of specific questions concerning the truth or falsehood of individual doctrines. In other words, to decide that the Chalcedonian Orthodox rather than the non-Chalcedonians are right you have to examine the precise merits of each position. This can’t simply be dispensed with in the case of Rome–obviously the primacy of Peter and the Roman succession from Peter must themselves be evaluated, and furthermore are not sufficient basis for blind acceptance in the absence of other factors. But the Papacy does provide a personal focus for communion–assuming that one can establish general reasons for trusting the Papacy, one does not have to keep re-evaluating the precise merits of every issue. This also provides a more concrete understanding of the Church than that found among the Orthodox, and one that emphasizes the bonds of charity rather than the search for absolute doctrinal and liturgical purity, which seems to be in keeping with the New Testament.
  3. More specifically, speaking as a Protestant, Catholicism has turned out (in my view) to be right on all sorts of points on which the Reformers were sure it was wrong. The civil authorities were not more trustworthy caretakers of the external affairs of the Church than the Pope and bishops; forensic justification is not the article on which the Church stands or falls; Scripture is not self-interpreting; celibacy turns out to be a key component of a truly Christian view of sex; exuberant and imaginative ritual is an inescapable part of any form of Christianity that takes creation and Incarnation seriously; devotion to the saints and prayer for the dead are part of a healthy belief in the Body of Christ; Rome turned out not to be apostate–on the contrary, in our own day the Popes are the most articulate and persuasive spokesmen for vital Christianity; and the Protestant version of the Gospel turned out to produce endless division and a capitulation to the secular state, rather than the formation of a renewed and unified Church bursting through the parasitic cocoon of the Roman hierarchy (which is what the Reformers seem initially to have hoped for).
Is that more helpful?

Edwin
Click to expand...
A Catholic could not have said it better themselves!

Well said!
 
Contarini said:
You are playing on the ambiguity of the word “love,” which is unfair (to put it gently). “Metta,” or loving-kindness, is a major virtue in Buddhism, and according to a poster a while ago (I can’t remember which one–maybe rossum or ahimsa?) it is a pretty close equivalent to the Christian “agape.”
Click to expand...
Thank you for this info, Edwin. I found this:

buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa080602a.htm

*Metta usually translated as ‘loving kindness’ is a quality highly esteemed in Buddhism. Sometimes it is translated as ‘good will’ but ‘loving kindness’ seems to capture the spirit of the word more comprehensively - it’s about giving oneself selflessly to others, without enmity, without cruelty. *
 
mercygate said:
*AS OF THIS AFTERNOON! *Then you DID it! :extrahappy:God love you and may you rejoice in this decision for the rest of your life in this world and in the next!

And they say the age of miracles is over!
Click to expand...
Thank you.

We’ll get Edwin in next.

God bless.
 
Palladio said:
However, where does Judaism enjoin us to love our enemy?
Click to expand...
There is a certain passage in the Torah wherein a jew is advised to do kindness to his enemy by returning to him his cattle that wandered off.

Jesus’ version was hyperboled but the underlying concept is the same as with the Torah.
 
Sixtus said:
I cannot give evidence that Jesus is the Christ, but there were those who could, namely the 12-Apostles, their Deacons and the Holy Women. They all give evidence in the New Testament.
Click to expand...
The problem is the New Testament itself. There is no way to know for certain how faithful it was to the original, if there was indeed an original authorship. Rather there are a number of contradictions & inconsistencies that puts to question its credibilitiy.
 
AgnosTheist said:
There is a certain passage in the Torah wherein a jew is advised to do kindness to his enemy by returning to him his cattle that wandered off.

Jesus’ version was hyperboled but the underlying concept is the same as with the Torah.
Click to expand...
No!

That’s no proof, my friend.

Hyperbole?

(Which is not a verb)

Where in Judaism is anybody enjoined to love his enemy (not at all a part of Greco-Roman philosophy, for example)? It’s a commandment. Not a an extravagent or part-time luxury.
 
AgnosTheist said:
The problem is the New Testament itself. There is no way to know for certain how faithful it was to the original, if there was indeed an original authorship. Rather there are a number of contradictions & inconsistencies that puts to question its credibilitiy.
Click to expand...
No!

That’s what people say who do not know Greek (or Hebrew). That’s also what anti-Christian and anti-Catholic crusaders say, equally ignorant, and with an axe to grind.

Saying so does not make it so.

The historical dimension of the NT (say) is as great as that for any such text of its time, and greater than that of many, such as Roman biography.

If it were purely made up, it would have a. excluded everything incredible and b. be perfectly seamless.

God bless.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
READ through my last 40 posts and then judge whether or not I give all my glory to God… God’s delight is in anything we do for HIS glory. Sharing what the Lord has given me, is HIS glory. Ever hear about evangelizing.
Click to expand...
Sure! And your attempts to do it here on this thread are a clear violation of the forum rules.
 
jmcrae said:
Yes, but it is only Christianity that considers love in all of its many forms to be virtuous and good.
Click to expand...
I think perhaps this astonishing information should be kept from teenagers–in fact probably from everyone, since none of us are immune to the lure of some form of disordered love.

I think I know what you mean. But you are assuming that Buddhists are condemning what you mean by love. You haven’t established this. Obviously there is a lot of disordered love floating around the world. I would assume that this is what Buddhists are talking about, though I am open to being persuaded otherwise by solid evidence (not mere assertion).

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top