What did Jesus bring to the world that was not already brought by Moses?

[PRmerger]

Hey!!

Since, as a Catholic you expressed a false dichotomy,

If you mean because I used the word “and” between “faith” and “reason” that this expresses a dichotomy, I am astonished that you would conclude that.

Use of the conjunction “and” does not indicate any dichotomy necessarily.

The Catholic Church has never expressed any dichotomy between faith and reason.

Rather, they are 2 wings upon which the human person rises to the contemplation of truth.

No dichotomy at all.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope, you reap what you sow from the moment your life begins according to my understanding of ALL religious Words.

Absolutely.

But heaven is not our due because we never told a lie or never cheated another person.

No one gets to heaven by demanding that he was good person and therefore deserves it.

We get to heaven because of Jesus.

And, as such, Abraham died before Jesus, and therefore, no matter what good deeds he did, he did not deserve heaven.

 

[PRmerger]

Is this another false dichotomy from you here PR?
I can list a dozen works related verses from the Bible for you, we can start from James.

If you can find anything from the Bible or from my Church’s teachings that state we can do this without Christ and His atoning death on the cross, then we can talk.

Even the Pope acknowledged the value of deeds for atheists, “Just do good” were his words

Sure. Good deeds have value.

But they certainly don’t get you into heaven.

It is ONLY through Christ that we do, and as Christ had not yet atoned for our sins, Abraham could not enter, even with his valuable good deeds.

 

[PRmerger]

And what did Jesus do that gives you straight passage to heaven. If you get to heaven because of what Jesus did, then you can go ahead and have your 10 affairs, steal from your neighbour and spit at the poor and needy, heaven is already a given…

If you could offer some sort of quote from me that states we get “straight passage to heaven”, despite stealing from our neighbor and spitting at the poor, then we can chat.

 

[PRmerger]

I am quite convinced you may are unaware what justice means.

Justice is a response to an action. If God is just, He would create a Creation which would reflect a reward for those that do His Will, and a punishment for those that turn away from His Will.

Is God just?

He most certainly is.

That’s why He could not allow Abraham into heaven because of Abraham’s good deeds. His good deeds could never, ever make up for his sins that he did against the Most Holy and Infinite God. One sin is one sin too many against the Numinous.

 

[PRmerger]

A servant never demands from His Creator…I would humbly suggest that the reality just “IS”

Communion with our Lord through selflessly adhering to His Will…

No. It is only through Communion with Our Lord, after His atoning death on the cross, that heaven is given to us.

 

[PRmerger]

According to you…

“Hatred for others = anything that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach”

…maybe a reason to reflect for a while PR…

Please do not misrepresent my positions, Servant, else you will be reported.

 

[daisychain]

Excellent!

So you can see how what we are doing here on the CAFs is the paradigm you are espousing: talking to people who have embraced lies and expressing truths that have been revealed by Christ.

I’m glad you agree!
But I think talking about “lies” on these threads on the CAF could also be considered extreme the same way as the views of the Rev. P. As I pointed out earlier I don’t think we are trying to call the circle a square here, rather some of us are calling it a set of points for example. Like different ways of approaching the same thing, the same “truth”.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m glad you agree!
But I think talking about “lies” on these threads on the CAF could also be considered extreme the same way as the views of the Rev. P.

So you think that what I am doing is not correct? It is not an effective means of expressing truths?

If so, I hope you see the irony in what you are espousing. You seem to be telling me, “You ought not be telling people not to do [A],” while you are telling me, “You ought not be doing **”

It would appear that you are reserving for yourself the right to tell me that I’m not supposed to do something (use the word “lies”), while objecting to me doing the same thing?**

 

[Lochias]

Please do not misrepresent my positions, Servant, else you will be reported.

Seconded.

 

[daisychain]

So you think that what I am doing is not correct? It is not an effective means of expressing truths?

If so, I hope you see the irony in what you are espousing. You seem to be telling me, “You ought not be telling people not to do [A],” while you are telling me, “You ought not be doing **”

It would appear that you are reserving for yourself the right to tell me that I’m not supposed to do something (use the word “lies”), while objecting to me doing the same thing?**

I think there’s a big difference in talking to someone with the intention of “exposing his/her lies” or just having a discussion based on the mutual understanding that we are both expressing our opinion or understanding about a certain subject matter. Would you agree?

 

[nmgauss]

This exchange is childish. Are you playing the game of “who is right”, or are trying to come up with something that both can agree on?

A forum is not a shouting match, and that is what is happening here. Productive dialogue can accomplish something, but debating ad infinitum is stupid.

 

[daisychain]

I agree! Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

A forum is not a shouting match, and that is what is happening here. Productive dialogue can accomplish something, but debating ad infinitum is stupid.

Absolutely true.

 

[PRmerger]

I think there’s a big difference in talking to someone with the intention of “exposing his/her lies” or just having a discussion based on the mutual understanding that we are both expressing our opinion or understanding about a certain subject matter. Would you agree?

I do agree with you.

I will add a caveat that I see absolutely nothing wrong with charitably telling someone that what they believe or what they are doing is wrong.

And it would appear that you feel the same way, for is that not what you have been doing here?

 

[daisychain]

I do agree with you.

I will add a caveat that I see absolutely nothing wrong with charitably telling someone that what they believe or what they are doing is wrong.

And it would appear that you feel the same way, for is that not what you have been doing here?

:hug3:

 

[PRmerger]

:hug3:

:extrahappy::dancing:

 

[Lochias]

This exchange is childish. Are you playing the game of “who is right”, or are trying to come up with something that both can agree on?

A forum is not a shouting match, and that is what is happening here. Productive dialogue can accomplish something, but debating ad infinitum is stupid.

You can’t make someone agree with what’s objectively true if they choose not to. Dialogue that both can agree on can be wrought up to a certain point, but after that point, it all comes down to “X is true and Y is not.”

 

[PRmerger]

You can’t make someone agree with what’s objectively true if they choose not to. Dialogue that both can agree on can be wrought up to a certain point, but after that point, it all comes down to “X is true and Y is not.”

I think sometimes folks come to the CAFs thinking that Catholics here are simply expressing a* preference* for a belief, analogous to someone saying, “I think that butter pecan is the best ice cream!”

When someone says, “I really think that mint chip is the best!” it’s only pugilistic people who want to argue with someone over a preference.

However, the dialogue here is not about opinions, where all preferences are valid, but rather about truth.

Sometimes people profess beliefs which are simply wrong. (To wit: see the Reverend Fred Phelps.) And to view his opinions as akin to expressing one’s opinion on ice cream flavors is to let evil triumph.

 

[daisychain]

I think there’s a BIG difference between hatred towards other human beings, which Phelps subscribes to, and some of the things you listed as being lies, namely:

-their prophets are manifestations of God, after He Who Could Not Be Contained came and died for their sins
-there is no such thing as Original Sin
-we should not worship on Sundays, but rather Saturday is the Lord’s Day
-there is no hell

…which are all theological concepts open to being tested through rational reasoning.
.

I agree that these are more like theological concepts and I think it is totally acceptable to discuss these, especially on a non-catholic thread, as ways of understanding rather than as “lies and truths”…

And I would like to thank you, your Baha’i brothers, and all other non-catholic brothers and sisters again for sharing your beliefs with us here in the most charitable way :flowers:

God bless.