M
mgrfin
Guest
The truth of a religion has nothing to do with the goodness or badness of the people professing that religion.
You believe in objective truth, or you don’t.
peace
What are the reasons I should (or shouldn't) become Catholic?
- Status
You believe in objective truth, or you don’t.
peace
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
The ‘truth’ in religion is never objective. So whats the best way of objectively judging a religion? Like between Islam & Buddhism, what is objectively better?
M
mgrfin
Guest
Catholicism is for believers, people of faith. It is not a popularity contest.i think its losing a lot more to reason, than it wins for it. rcc’s future is in childbirths.
what made you say that?
religion is consistently mocked in t.v., if anything that proves that religion is becoming popularly despised. though its not yet the majority, it is growing rapidly. look at this…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Language_and_religion
*In a private survey conducted in 2001, 76.7 percent of American adults identified themselves as Christian, down from 86.4 percent in 1990
The total reporting non-Christian religions in 2001 was 3.7 percent, up from 3.3 percent in 1990.*
From 86.4 down to 76.7 in just 11 years. Is that astonishing or what? While 0.4% went into non-christian religion, where do you think the rest went? Into the atheist & agnostic pool, which amounted to 19.6%.
says who?
priests protecting each other from exposure, and when exposed are quietly relocated. thats not hiding for you?
rape deserves imprisonment, and then therapy.
on what issues do you think i was refuted? i’m not afraid to admit my failures. i have nothing to lose.
If 99% of Nazi Germany believed Hilter was right and good, does that prove that he was.
If you don’t believe, that is fine with us. Please don’t come here to attack us. We are here for discussion, not confutation.
peace
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Agnos is reading a tract about that. You are, aren’t you???
Agnos is not here to attack us, he is putting a million obstacles in front of himself to keep him from crossing over. He needs our help to get him past this.
C
Contarini
Guest
As I said, it’s a matter of definition. Certainly Christians held to a pretty strong view of divine inspiration before such views were challenged, but there’s a new edge once you have people running around questioning the Bible. (Admittedly, that didn’t start with the “modernist” movement of the late 19th century.) 19th-century Baptists would have held the Bible to be God’s Word, etc., but this wouldn’t have been a battleground the way it became in the 20th century. Fundamentalism is usually defined by an embattled defense in which one draws sharp lines around what is true.
In a broader sense, sure you can point to someone like Tertullian as a kind of proto-fundamentalist (again, because Tertullian was defending what he believed to be true Christianity against laxer tendencies).
Edwin
M
mgrfin
Guest
I don’t know enough of either Buddism or Islam to argue which is better? By what standard is one religion better than anotherl.
You shouldn’t be arguing about religion. Religion is based on faith, and you are arguing on another standard. There are no winners in such an argument. You go around in circles: we argue on faith, and you on some sort of rationalism.
Go in peace, friend.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I am arguing the CC is based in historical fact, related by eye witnesses - the Apostles - Faith is that leap from believing the facts to accepting God/Jesus/HS as our creator, savior.
Ok, I am back, but I am in between bank reconciliations. Good by!
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
That’s what I was talking about. To include all the tele-evangelists.
M
mgrfin
Guest
Your are right in this sense, a person has to begin somewhere.I am arguing the CC is based in historical fact, related by eye witnesses - the Apostles - Faith is that leap from believing the facts to accepting God/Jesus/HS as our creator, savior.
Ok, I am back, but I am in between bank reconciliations. Good by!
The historical Jesus, the historical Church are good places to begin.
peace
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean by that. Some tele-evangelists are fundamentalists. Some would say Pentecostals (who are over-represented among tele-evangelists!) can’t be fundamentalists, but I’m not sure that’s the best way to classify it. Pentecostals frequently share fundamentalist attitudes, even though fundamentalists in the stricter sense denounce Pentecostalism. And the more hardline fundamentalists by and large hate tele-evangelists in general and think that to be that popular you must have done something wrong!
Edwin
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I guess I don’t know the difference between Pentecostalism and fundamentalism. I was thinking Pentecosts were like non-denominational evangelical fundamentalists.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Pentecostals derive from Methodism. They speak in tongues and dance in their services of worship. Some of the more extreme ones dance with poisonous snakes as a test of their faith. (A true believer cannot be poisoned, according to their belief.)
Fundamentalists derive from the Baptists; they consider “speaking in tongues” to be a manifestation of the Devil. The more hard-core ones don’t have television or radio, and they don’t listen to secular music, or play musical instruments (Pentecostals use modern instruments like guitars, electric keyboards, etc.) and they avoid movies or other forms of secular entertainment.
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, there are different ways of defining fundamentalism. There’s a narrow definition, which jmcrae has given very nicely, and there are various broader definitions. I think it’s probably a mistake to insist on the narrow definition, but I have a tendency to stress it when talking to people unfamiliar with the conservative Protestant scene, because the media have a tendency to call all conservative Protestants “fundamentalists.”
The main reason it’s problematic to call Pentecostals fundamentalists is that fundamentalists insist on a radical doctrine of sola scriptura. Since Pentecostals believe that God speaks to them on a continuing basis, many fundamentalists claim that they deny sola scriptura (this is often given as a reason why the charismatic movement has found a home in Catholicism–witness the very silly article calling Benny Hinn a Catholic mystic to which someone linked recently). I’m not sure this is fair, at least for the more conservative Pentecostals, since they do not think that this continuing inspiration is on the same level as Scripture, and since most fundamentalists also think God speaks to them in some way. But generally the Pentecostal belief in “signs and wonders” is anathema to the hardline fundamentalists. However, particularly in the rural south the two movements blend together on a regular basis.
Edwin
K
kms123
Guest
Here is an article from Scott Hahn observing a Catholic Mass.
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009bite.asp
You can feel his excitement reading this. Imagine celebrating the last supper-The Lamb of God- everytime and daily if you like!
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009bite.asp
You can feel his excitement reading this. Imagine celebrating the last supper-The Lamb of God- everytime and daily if you like!
M
mgrfin
Guest
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Thanks, Contarini and jmcrae. I’m spending enough time learning more about the CC faith - no time for researching others at this point!
I’ll still be on here today, but have to work hard. Wednesdays are payroll days. Got to focus!
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
This is incredible. Last night in RCIA we saw the video of Scott Hahn’s Supper of the Lamb. As a cradle C, I was stunned by his putting all the pieces together. I always believed in the Eucharist, the Lamb of God, etc. But never thought in terms of Exodus. There is so much to learn. We spend our whole lives learniing.
There was an agnostic skeptic there, too, kind of reminded me of Agnos. He must have been there for a reason. Maybe to try our patience?
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
J
Janet_S
Guest
Agnos,
I saw this article and thought of you:
“Why Catholics Like Einstein” by George Sim Johnston
columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/science.html
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Very interesing article, thanks. Our Pastor sometimes quote Einstein, especially his rebuttal to his professor’s assertion that there is no God, because God cannot create evil, there is evil in the world, hence there is no God. Einstein goes through a series of steps reasoning that evil is the absence of good.
- Status