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

[Keikiolu]

I’d REALLY like to say Thank you SO much for continuing this discussion Agnos…! I’m extremely grateful, and astounded actually, that you continue to hang in there and be a great conversation partner. There are so many people who simply make cheap shots, and silly remarks, and then “run away with the ball” instead of enjoying the game. Thanks thanks thanks again…!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
It’s difficult to get used to an impossibility presented as a “practice”.

how can it be an impossibility when i am the living proof that a person could find spiritual fulfillment in just believing in god without believing in religion?

We don’t agree about the definition of “religion”. That’s fine. I understand that you believe that you have no religion, while I see your “faith in ‘reason’” AS your religion.

To me, you HAVE a self contradicting religion. You see my religion as irrational.

You are NOT proof, to me, of anything more than that a person can self-define their terms such that they get what they want (a “feeling” of believing in “Theos/Pneumos”), without getting what they need,… which is God.

for bigots, its really impossible to understand other points of view.

I understand your point of view very well. I HAD your point of view not very long ago. I simply like to point out how your view is incorrect. You are more than welcome to your point of view, but charity demands that I tell you the truth to give you a better chance of being more human in life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Which “stage” is that? *

the stage of realizing that all religions are ALL EQUALLY baseless human opinions & promises on what the divine should be.

That is the “stage” the directly proceeds utter hopelessness of spirit, which directly proceeds a PROFOUND realization of the truth of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Do you realize how “gnostic” you actually are? You “know” the truth, without the necessary acknowledgement of the mystery. Your “secret knowledge” is profound,… and utter vacuous. Interesting as a “philosophy”, and completely hollow as a praxis.

you are assuming too much. may i ask, what spiritual truths did you see me preaching beside the acknowledgement of the divine?

I don’t see you “preaching” anything, othe than the religion of blatant anti-religion. I see you actively negating all “religiousness”, and certainly all doctrine (of all religions).

You KNOW the “truth”, which is that no human being, other than you, has any true experience of God, because God doesn’t exist as God, but rather as “god”, which is a nebulous “all of everything”, which is a subset of all the other possibilities of the gods, which is to be chosen from by each individual human (and probably animal/plant) to serve the function of filling that “God shaped space” that gets rather uncomfortable if not filled by either the individual’s intellect or by God Himself.

You have the floor.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[josethekke]

I’m curious as to what are the reasons that I should or shouldn’t become Catholic in your opinions.

‘‘I am the vine, and you are the branches Whoever remains in me,and in him’’ so catholic church is the branches and Jesus Christ is the vine hence to be with our lord we have remain in catholic church and also follow the teachings of our lord

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by qui est ce forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Actually, if you are seeking Truth, then you must come into the CC. The other choices only contain a Kerygma of Truth. Read St. Augustine, Irenaeus, etc. Or just read early Church history. But that would be dangerous. You would would have to become Catholic or risk Hell, because now you know the truth and aren’t following it.

Don’t know if I would threaten people with hell if they didn’t go to my church. Just a thought.

No one can threaten you with hell, silly. Qui was being hyperbolic.

But,… you do have more of a chance of rejecting God as “silly”, or possibly “evil”, without the best resources available to understand your situation so that you don’t actually CHOOSE to die before choosing God as reality,… which is what hell is, by the way.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Don’t know if I would threaten people with hell if they didn’t go to my church. Just a thought.

Did you read the WHOLE post? Oh, I forgot, you’re Protestant - you like to cherry pick quotes out of context and create a whole new theology on it.

CHRISTINE SAID EVERYONE WHO IS NOT CATHOLIC WILL GO TO HELL!!!

This is what I said:
Actually, if you are seeking Truth, then you must come into the CC. The other choices only contain a Kerygma of Truth. Read St. Augustine, Irenaeus, etc. Or just read early Church history. But that would be dangerous. You would would have to become Catholic or risk Hell, because now you know the truth and aren’t following it.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Why would it have to be “without adequate grounds?”

because thats part of the defintion:

mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma

Do you think that the Church just makes stuff up out of nowhere?

The answer is not that simple. To understand youll have to ask the following questions as well:

Do you think that the Ummah (muslim world) just makes stuff up out of nowhere?

Do you think that the Mormons just makes stuff up out of nowhere?

Do you think that the Buddhists just makes stuff up out of nowhere?

Basically are rumors just made up stuff out of nowhere? The way I see it, religions progresses the way rumors do. Somewhere someone does something special and as the word goes around, it changes little by little. Sometimes myths get wrapped along with the stories. Until you get reports that Mohammad had split the moon in two, or that Jesus fed 5000 people.

Yes, 3-8 year olds are always discovering true things, and proclaiming them as “dogma” (a thing that is indisputably true). Even about God.

if there are some adequate grounds then that can no longer be called a ‘dogma’.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. **Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded. **

OH,… that’s some GOOD stuff…!! Woof…!

The “Way of Agnos” leads to either “The Way of the Animal”, or the “Way of Truth”.

The latter, if the horror of the consequences of the former are finally realized.

…and it’s never too late to feel that horror. That horror is the very horror of hell itself, felt while we live, which, if catered to, produces sociopathic monsters.

Agnos stands on the edge. Even if he falls from the knifes edge, while he still lives, the hand of the Father is there to catch him, if only asked.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janet S forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*What we need right now is another Chesterton quote:

From Heretics*:
pagebypagebooks.com/Gilbe…doxy_ p1.html

Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas.

Children make no dogmas. This little fact is enough to refute that entire nonsense.

What would you call always BELIEVING that Mom will feed them when they cry, or be there when she is needed?

That is an infantile dogma.

Once again, you are forced into contorted logic to justify your own dogma. Your religion demands it. And your religion demands nonsense.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I’d REALLY like to say Thank you SO much for continuing this discussion Agnos…! I’m extremely grateful, and astounded actually, that you continue to hang in there and be a great conversation partner. There are so many people who simply make cheap shots, and silly remarks, and then “run away with the ball” instead of enjoying the game. Thanks thanks thanks again…!

you are welcome.

We don’t agree about the definition of “religion”. That’s fine. I understand that you believe that you have no religion, while I see your “faith in ‘reason’” AS your religion.

how exactly do you define ‘religion’? me, i go by this:

mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

none of the 4 items apply to me.

That is the “stage” the directly proceeds utter hopelessness of spirit, which directly proceeds a PROFOUND realization of the truth of God.

i did not really get a feeling of hopelessness.

You KNOW the “truth”, which is that no human being, other than you, has any true experience of God

no i dont have any experience of God. besides what i thought i did back in my christian days.

 

[AgnosTheist]

What would you call always BELIEVING that Mom will feed them when they cry, or be there when she is needed?

That is an infantile dogma.

Once again, you are forced into contorted logic to justify your own dogma. Your religion demands it. And your religion demands nonsense.

please review the dictionary link that i gave above. what you said does not fit the meaning of the word ‘dogma’.

 

[Contarini]

These are human things. But the Church remained steadfast in its teaching that such behaviour is wrong, in the Mortal Sin sense of the word.

I understand that and I respect it. My point is that the same body of people is identified as being the Body of Christ and therefore worthy of the same trust I would give Christ (under certain conditions) and a fallible group of human beings subject to sin and corruption (under other conditions).

It is not analogous to the Incarnation, because we do not believe that Jesus the man sinned. Insofar as the Church is a group of human beings, the Church sins–that is to say, individual members sin, and leaders of the Church sin in actions that they take as leaders of the Church (the abuse scandal is just the most obvious recent example of this).

Furthermore, it seems to be a fact of experience that Catholics do not keep these things as distinct as theory would indicate. They are fatally prone to trust the leaders of the Church even when they do not deserve such trust, because psychologically it’s hard to separate bishops-and-pope-as-Magisterium-speaking-with-Christ’s-voice from bishops-and-pope-acting-humanly-and-subject-to-error-and-sin.
It seems pretty clear that the abuse scandal would not have been half as bad if people had been more willing to challenge bishops and priests. But as we see with groups like Voice of the Faithful, it seems hard for Catholics to challenge the leaders of the Church on issues like that without also beginning to question the doctrinal authority of the Church. In other words, the doctrinal distinction that you make doesn’t seem to work in practice.

As a Protestant, I believe that the Church will not apostasize, but beyond that all bets are off. I confess that the Church as it exists on earth is subject to sin and error. I am unconvinced by the Catholic apologetics claim that if the Church commits one tiny error in its official teaching Christ’s promise has failed, when the leaders of the Church can commit all sorts of evils (just as leaders of Protestant churches do) without Christ’s promise being affected.

It’s not the fact that the leaders of the Church sin and err. It’s the fact that they then claim a kind of trust from me that no Protestant church claims. Even the Orthodox don’t quite claim what the Catholic Church claims.

Edwin

 

[po18guy]

Gasparo Contarini was a Catholic cardinal (and Venetian diplomat) in the sixteenth century, who saw a lot of merit to the Protestant understanding of faith but remained staunchly loyal to the Church, and tried to work out an agreement with the Protestants on justification in 1541. He wasn’t the most profound thinker of the 16th century, but I really admire him and if I lived in the 16th century would have been basically on the same page.

A basically Protestant take on him can be found here, and a Catholic interpretation here.

Edwin

Edwin, since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, may Gasparo Cardinal Contarini’s namesake adopt the staunch loyalty exhibited by his forebear.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcrae forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You don’t hang around much with children, do you?

You think 3 to 8 years olds would make a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds?

So, you posit 3-to-8 yearolds as what humanity should be like as adults?

This “philosophy” is the “noble savage” philosophy of those who hate the adult state of life because “their every wants” were not given to them as children.

Aside from that, yes, they do.

“My Mom should ALWAYS be at there for me at every moment to kiss my owwweee!”

…this is their “tenet”, put forth authoritatively because Mom HAS always been there, but which has inadequate grounds because Mom will eventually NOT ALWAYS be there.

Comments?

 

[Contarini]

please review the dictionary link that i gave above. what you said does not fit the meaning of the word ‘dogma’.

You are taking meaning 1c as the only one–why?

1a is more general and thus more appropriate.

Children hold all sorts of firm beliefs, and for that matter they often hold them on inadequate grounds. Your statement that children don’t have dogmas actually goes very poorly with your emphasis on meaning 1c. You would have done better to argue that children do hold dogmas, but adults grow out of them. That would not be a true argument, in my opinion, but it would at least be coherent and substantive. Saying that children don’t hold dogmas only demonstrates, as someone else said, that you don’t know much about children.

Edwin

 

[AgnosTheist]

You are taking meaning 1c as the only one–why?

1a is more general and thus more appropriate.

Children hold all sorts of firm beliefs, and for that matter they often hold them on inadequate grounds. Your statement that children don’t have dogmas actually goes very poorly with your emphasis on meaning 1c. You would have done better to argue that children do hold dogmas, but adults grow out of them. That would not be a true argument, in my opinion, but it would at least be coherent and substantive. Saying that children don’t hold dogmas only demonstrates, as someone else said, that you don’t know much about children.

I used 1c because it is the most detailed. I expected someone to bring up 1a, for whom I would ask this:

*You think children make things up which they hold as established opinions? Children always have a basis for everything that they believe. If you see them having a dogma, its because they adopted it from somebody. *

Remember the article said “Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas”. And the context of course is religious dogmas. That all the more goes poorly with children.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
We don’t agree about the definition of “religion”. That’s fine. I understand that you believe that you have no religion, while I see your “faith in ‘reason’” AS your religion.

how exactly do you define ‘religion’? me, i go by this:

mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

none of the 4 items apply to me.

SURE THEY DO…! All of them, other than your being a nun!

You comply with 1b2, 2, 3, and 4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*That is the “stage” the directly proceeds utter hopelessness of spirit, which directly proceeds a PROFOUND realization of the truth of God. *

i did not really get a feeling of hopelessness.

You are AT the stage that directly PROCEEDS hopelessness.

So,… you have something “interesting” to look forward to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You KNOW the “truth”, which is that no human being, other than you, has any true experience of God

no i dont have any experience of God. besides what i thought i did back in my christian days

That’s because you define “experience of God” as an impossible experience,… but that is your belief, and not the reality.

If you actually ARE an Agnostic Theist, then you believe in a “Theos” (god), which you believe without experience of it, due to your “agnosticism”, which is your belief in as a dogma, because believing in something that you can’t believe in (because of your dogma of never believing in things that aren’t “proved” to you) is logically contradictory,…

Which tells me that you believe in a contradiction, which is the religion of “Believing whatever I want 'cause I wanna…!”.

That is simple idolatry of self. You are your god. You KNOW god intimately,… thus your “gnosis”.

 

[po18guy]

Hey I like the sounds of that. But is there peson by this name that I should know about?

Yes. It’s Agnus Dei, known by billions as the Lamb of God-Christ Jesus. Just by changing ONE letter, going to ONE Holy Hour, making ONE commitment…

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*What would you call always BELIEVING that Mom will feed them when they cry, or be there when she is needed?

That is an infantile dogma.

Once again, you are forced into contorted logic to justify your own dogma. Your religion demands it. And your religion demands nonsense.*

please review the dictionary link that i gave above. what you said does not fit the meaning of the word ‘dogma’.

“DOGMA:
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem — more at decent
Date: 1638
1 a: something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church”

1a) something held as an established opinion
The child holds the established opinion that Mom will feed him when he cries.

I expect this kind of “scrupulosity” in a hyper-religious type, like yourself.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[po18guy]

Don’t know if I would recommend it myself. I have been going to a different church myself a few times. If you want to become Catholic, that is really up to you and if you don’t, there are many other choices out there too. Don’t know what else to tell you.

BrewMax, what brought you here? I am interested.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

Don’t know if I would threaten people with hell if they didn’t go to my church. Just a thought.

It remains God’s church, founded by Christ. I was called to it, and decided, just as love is a decision, to remain obedient. All other Christian churches have splintered away, losing one thing or another (sometimes many things) in the process. As Bishop Sheen said, “Do not join the perfect church, because you will ruin it”.

Does the church need work? Yes! That is why you are here, interacting with us. There is nothing to gain from leaving, only from joining together in the one Body of Christ.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Keikiolu]

I used 1c because it is the most detailed. I expected someone to bring up 1a, for whom I would ask this:

*You think children make things up which they hold as established opinions? Children always have a basis for everything that they believe. If you see them having a dogma, its because they adopted it from somebody. *

Your position hinges on your belief that children ALWAYS “adopt dogmas” from someone else.

Your scrupulosity won’t allow you to see that that is nonsense.

You define “dogma” as being a derogatory description of a baseless opinion/belief. You see children as “perfect” and incapable of “baselessness”. Therefore, children CAN’T have dogmas.

Remember the article said “Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas”. And the context of course is religious dogmas. That all the more goes poorly with children.

Even children have established opinions based on “whatever they base them on”, being observation, or a “cranky stomach” which alters their perception of reality such that something good is seen as evil.

All children, and in fact all beings, have “estabished opinions” which allow them to combat the overwhelm that would ensue if they had to deal with EVERY SPECIAL CASE EVENT as if it were urgent.

All beings have “dogma”.