Why are you NOT Catholic, POLL

[Jelrak_TB]

Do not believe anyone goes to Hell. Nor do I believe there is a Hell.

This is interesting…may I ask what has led you to this conclusion?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I respect your belief but there were 11 men who died as martyrs and 1 who spent his final years on a barren island because they walked and were taught by a man who died on the cross and revealed himself to them when He was resurrected. That in itself is pretty convincing - why would they die the horrible deaths they did for something that was a myth?

Thanks for sharing your point of view,

God bless,

Rita

Have you ever looked into the historicity of this claim, tried to check who died when, where, and how, and according to whom, and when it was written? You may be surprised.

 

[Peter_J]

A bunch of people who will not convert to Catholicism but spend copious amounts of tm on Catholic.com…hilarious

Hi eightydeuce82. Your comment doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Yes, there are people who aren’t Catholic (ICWR), or converting to Catholicism, who spend copious amounts of time on Catholic.com – just like there are people who *are *Catholic, or converting to Catholicism, who *don’t *spend copious amounts of time on Catholic.com – but I can’t see how that’s hilarious.

 

[scwendy]

I attend an Episcopalian church.

I am interested in all religions, and I find the Catholic history and traditions fascinating.

 

[Thorolfr]

Hi eightydeuce82. Your comment doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Yes, there are people who aren’t Catholic (ICWR), or converting to Catholicism, who spend copious amounts of time on Catholic.com – just like there are people who *are *Catholic, or converting to Catholicism, who *don’t *spend copious amounts of time on Catholic.com – but I can’t see how that’s hilarious.

I think that some people are curious about other faith traditions even if they don’t plan on converting to them. That’s certainly true for me. In addition to CAF, I also spend time in other groups on Facebook and other forums talking to Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. about their faiths.

 

[benhur]

I suppose at issue is the purpose of the punishment. For in society does not the punishment typically fit one of five potential reasons:

1. To deter
2. To correct
3. To redeem
4. To punish
5. To provide restitution

Yet with an eternal stick how might any save #1 & #4 be likely? Yet what loving father might eternally punish a beloved child due to a temporary offense? What loving father might eternally punish one child as a deterrent to another?

Hi J

Not a bad list but I would think deterring is related to correcting(#1 and #3), almost the same. Not sure punishment has anything to do with redeeming, which is done after punishment by action of the offended or offender. In our discussion, the offended redeems the offender. Restitution is not punishment either but part of justice or reconciliation

As to temporary sin, there is no such thing. We do not sin because we are Ok but just goof up. We sin because it is our nature. Hence our nature is flawed. Secondly, God does not eternally punish a soul to deter others. He punishes a soul for refusing the remedy for that flawed nature. He punishes the individual based on their own deeds (flawed), and irregardless of others /deterrence.

Again, the only way out per your paradigm is for God to override man’s free will, part of our God given, God resembling nature. What do you do with someone who refuse help,even in this life ? Can you cast dispersion on the one who offers refused help ?

As these words of consolation are offered in a spirit of hope I will accept them in a similar vein. Thank you for the kind sentiments…

Cool. Your welcome. Blessings

PS look forward to responding to your other post when time permits

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Hi J

Not a bad list but I would think deterring is related to correcting(#1 and #3), almost the same.

To clarify, the difference between the two is that in the first instance it pertains to others looking on, while in the second it relates directly to the one suffering the punishment.

Not sure punishment has anything to do with redeeming, which is done after punishment by action of the offended or offender. In our discussion, the offended redeems the offender. Restitution is not punishment either but part of justice or reconciliation

The consideration was that punishment can be redemptive if the one receiving said abuse might choose to make it so. A child who may be reprimanded for refusing to tidy a room might use the punishment of not being able to come out until the task is done as a means of redemption by doing a job above and beyond the requirements. Further, was not the example of Jesus in allegedly taking on the punishment due the sins of mankind to be considered redemptive?

As to temporary sin, there is no such thing. We do not sin because we are Ok but just goof up. We sin because it is our nature. Hence our nature is flawed. Secondly, God does not eternally punish a soul to deter others. He punishes a soul for refusing the remedy for that flawed nature. He punishes the individual based on their own deeds (flawed), and irregardless of others /deterrence.

This well thought-out consideration is somewhat troubling in that it purports to place the blame for mankind’s errancy with God as the creator of a defective product. This seems to suggest an injustice on the part of God for failing to remedy the flaw while all the while expecting man to do so…followed by horrific punishment if he should not.

A more hopeful construct for divine justice must consider God blameless in mankind’s tendency to sin. Such a construct must consider God to be an arbiter and not a mover. In such a case mankind is simply being given the opportunity to better himself above a given baseline. Consider the training of a beloved dog and one might better see the relationship between God and man. For just as one may wish for one’s dog to improve in behavior, so too might God wish for man to increase in refinement. And just as a dog that cannot be trained to be housebroken must ultimately remain outside even in foul weather, so too might the man who might resist raising his standards to a higher level…a level removed from that of the animal kingdom.

The question is then whether it might be possible for the owner of such a recalcitrant dog to truly love his dog while at the same time simply abandon the training regimen as too difficult a task that is no longer worth his time. For given a being of infinite time, love, and patience how might one understand how He might yet tire of raising a man to a level suitable to His taste? Is it to be believed that such an allegedly perfect being is simply satisfied with properly enticing some of His creations to change while not others?

Again, the only way out per your paradigm is for God to override man’s free will, part of our God given, God resembling nature. What do you do with someone who refuse help,even in this life ? Can you cast dispersion on the one who offers refused help ?

If a father might consider the free will of his children, is he better to teach them to obey him out of love or out of fear? And should neither method appear to work with one particularly stubborn, but ignorant child, is it common for the loving father to simply shrug and hand him over to be tormented by a gang of outcasts? With never a backwards glance?

Cool. Your welcome. Blessings
PS look forward to responding to your other post when time permits

Thank you again for your thoughtful consideration.

 

[crai7]

WHY ARE YOU NOT CATHOLIC?

This poll lists different choices as to what prevents you*** intellectually*** from joining the Catholic Church. There may be practical issues relating to the intellectual issue, but this poll is more about Catholic doctrine and beliefs than issues regarding family or culture, for example.

I am genuinely interested, so any respectful feedback relating to your choice would be greatly appreciated.

PLEASE, in a post, identify

• (1) Your current religious adherence
• (2) Why you are interested in Catholicism – after all, you are here at CAF

1.) You should randomise the order of the list, so that each participant sees a different order. This is standard practice amongst researchers. Otherwise you get order bias. Not sure your polling software allows that?

2.) Also you do not list what many Protestants see as a major issue, de facto Mary worship. Instead you have “Praying to and honoring Mary and the other saints.” From our point of view, ‘honouring’ is not the problem; it is Mary worship that is the problem.

 

[crai7]

A question for you. What do you make of Matthew 16, and Jesus changing Simon’s name to Peter (I believe the Greek word is “Petros,” which literally mean “Rock,” and which was not a name prior to this in any recorded history.), and then saying “Upon this Rock (“Petros”) I will build my Church.” ?

I’d say it says exactly what it says, and shouldn’t be stretched beyond Peter himself. There is nothing to say this applied to anyone after him. Jesus did not set up a process of succession.

 

[Peter_J]

1.) You should randomise the order of the list, so that each participant sees a different order. This is standard practice amongst researchers.

Let’s just hope that nobody confuses this forum for a research website.

2.) Also you do not list what many Protestants see as a major issue, de facto Mary worship. Instead you have “Praying to and honoring Mary and the other saints.” From our point of view, ‘honouring’ is not the problem; it is Mary worship that is the problem.

I agree, to a point, with your statement that “‘honouring’ is not the problem” … but clearly very few Protestants embrace “praying to Mary”, no?

Conversely, there have been times when a Protestant has said “I won’t pray to Mary”, followed by a Catholic saying (in effect, if not in so many words) “Then you don’t honor her.”

 

[benhur]

To clarify, the difference between the two is that in the first instance it pertains to others looking on, while in the second it relates directly to the one suffering the punishment.

OK. But it can be both for the offender. That is he is at the same time “corrected” and in hopes of deterring from future action. But yes, you would hope others are deterred from wrong action when they see someone else punished for it. Ok

The consideration was that punishment can be redemptive if the one receiving said abuse might choose to make it so. A child who may be reprimanded for refusing to tidy a room might use the punishment of not being able to come out until the task is done as a means of redemption by doing a job above and beyond the requirements

I see that more as deterring from wrong behavior or correcting towards proper behavior. Redemption is still what it takes to be free to “go outside”. On more thought, yes, punishment can be redemptive. That is, you pay the fine and you can continue to have a valid license.So again agree with you.

Further, was not the example of Jesus in allegedly taking on the punishment due the sins of mankind to be considered redemptive?

Absolutely. It is meant to be for those who wish to see it beyond an allegation and appropriate His payment.

This well thought-out consideration is somewhat troubling in that it purports to place the blame for mankind’s errancy with God as the creator of a defective product. This seems to suggest an injustice on the part of God for failing to remedy the flaw while all the while expecting man to do so…followed by horrific punishment if he should not.

It most certainly could be seen that way. But it could just as easily be seen that He also provided the “fix”. You or I did not screw things up, but we also have not been asked to provide the "fix’’. Appropriate it, receive it yes, but not provide it. Quite fair and just.

The first Adam screwed it up. The second Adam (Christ) fixed it. We are to believe it. Even that faith is a gift, even the will to receive it is a gift, and comes from outside us, from above.

This message cries out from the rooftops, has been fairly broadcast. Christ died on a hill for all to see. The day of Pentecost the apostles spoke in many languages so that foreign spectators could hear the same message. All quite fair and just

A more hopeful construct for divine justice must consider God blameless in mankind’s tendency to sin.

Totally agreed.

Such a construct must consider God to be an arbiter and not a mover.

Well perhaps more than an arbiter for He also provides the bridge and the payment, the propitiation to cross it. I do not know if one can do anymore, to “move” anymore.

In such a case mankind is simply being given the opportunity to better himself above a given baseline.

Absolutely.The base line is our inherited flawed nature. The old nature however is not “improved, made better”. It is discarded, even put to death. The exchange then is to be born again with His nature in our spiritually rebirthed nature. We do not take a pig and give it a bath and put a tux on him. More like the caterpillar “dies” in the cocoon and comes out a butterfly.

 

[benhur]

Consider the training of a beloved dog and one might better see the relationship between God and man. For just as one may wish for one’s dog to improve in behavior, so too might God wish for man to increase in refinement. And just as a dog that cannot be trained to be housebroken must ultimately remain outside even in foul weather, so too might the man who might resist raising his standards to a higher level…a level removed from that of the animal kingdom.

Just that the dog once was above his current state. The spirit of the dog is dead in sin and makes him act like an animal. The dog does not need retraining but a spiritual revival. Otherwise you have a trained dog with a dead spirit, still an animal though better behaved thru conditioning.

The question is then whether it might be possible for the owner of such a recalcitrant dog to truly love his dog while at the same time simply abandon the training regimen as too difficult a task that is no longer worth his time. For given a being of infinite time, love, and patience how might one understand how He might yet tire of raising a man to a level suitable to His taste?

For some dogs, more time may help. I think you under estimate the obstinency of some dogs, if not that of man.

Is it to be believed that such an allegedly perfect being is simply satisfied with properly enticing some of His creations to change while not others?

Or is it possible He knows the beginning from the end ? Could He see who will never repent and who will ? As the rich man in the Lazarus story was told, that if one does not listen to the current proclaimed gospel, and its prophets/preachers, one would not listen to even one’s own brother raised from the dead.

The preacher says God wishes that none, zero, nada, should perish but all come to repentance.

If a father might consider the free will of his children, is he better to teach them to obey him out of love or out of fear?

The situation requires both. I think the fear you speak of is of the consequences, and of course the Overseer of them. Seems logical to keep those cards on the table. But yes, that is only the beginning of wisdom which then carries us to His love. His goodness is what eventually wins us over. But one of His biggest goodness’s is His persistence in saving us from those negative consequences, even while we reject His advances. I

It is like you want to love Him without the need to be saved, when it is true that the more forgiven the more we love the forgiver.

Using your animal kingdom, it is mush like catching and breaking a wild stallion. Normally he is caught from behind with the lasso. The horse is running away, with all his might. Even when first caught he fights and kicks, till he gives in and follows his new master, for it is in his nature to follow. Just that now he does not follow another stallion, but man.

And should neither method appear to work with one particularly stubborn, but ignorant child, is it common for the loving father to simply shrug and hand him over to be tormented by a gang of outcasts? With never a backwards glance?

You are placing innocence on the child. Because the child is flawed not by his doing does not make the child innocent.

You are also assuming there is something inherently good in the child that sooner or later will overcome an underestimated powewrful flaw/bent.

Thank you again for your thoughtful consideration

Likewise.

Blessings

 

[PDXSeeker_1975]

A bunch of people who will not convert to Catholicism but spend copious amounts of tm on Catholic.com…hilarious

As Patrick Coffin often says on Catholic Answers Live…very dangerous behavior

 

[PDXSeeker_1975]

What is holding me back:
– The Marian doctrines and **having to pray the rosary. **

– **believing that baptism as an infant provides salvation. I believe the person must be baptized but also experience an inner transformation in order to be saved, which can only occur when the person realizes what he is doing and assents to it. **

However, I am seriously considering attending RCIA in the fall and give it the old college try to see if I can overcome my remaining obstacles because I think that Catholicism may provide the missing pieces to my spiritual journey.

Catholics are not required to pray the rosary or pray to or practice any specific devotion to Mary or any saints, although it is HIGHLY recommended

I come from an Assembly of God (then non-denominational) background as well. I think that the Catholic understanding regarding baptism would be that baptism initiates one into the life of God, but we still have to take responsibility for our own salvation upon reaching an “age of reason”, therefore we have the sacrament of confirmation.

I can definitely say that joining the Church has more than adequately “filled in the gaps” in my spiritual life.

 

[Kliska]

Catholics are not required to pray the rosary or pray to or practice any specific devotion to Mary or any saints, although it is HIGHLY recommended

While this is true in private devotions, it is my understanding that everyone is to recite bits of the Mass that directly speak to Mary and other saints. So, corporately one has to pray to/talk to saints at every Mass. Which, for RC practice, is a good thing obviously, but may come as a surprise to someone converting who has been told one doesn’t have to pray to the Saints.

 

[Peter_J]

While this is true in private devotions, it is my understanding that everyone is to recite bits of the Mass that directly speak to Mary and other saints. So, corporately one has to pray to/talk to saints at every Mass. Which, for RC practice, is a good thing obviously, but may come as a surprise to someone converting who has been told one doesn’t have to pray to the Saints.

Off the top of my head, only this one comes to mind:

“I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.”

 

[Peter_J]

I think that some people are curious about other faith traditions

Hey don’t look at me. I may be crazy, but I’m not crazy enough to be interested in you Protestants.

(Ow. I’m kidding, I’m kidding!)

 

[PDXSeeker_1975]

While this is true in private devotions, it is my understanding that everyone is to recite bits of the Mass that directly speak to Mary and other saints. So, corporately one has to pray to/talk to saints at every Mass. Which, for RC practice, is a good thing obviously, but may come as a surprise to someone converting who has been told one doesn’t have to pray to the Saints.

Good point. I was thinking in terms of private devotions, but we are still required to believe the doctrines related to Mary and the communion of saints, as well as active mass participation. Of course, as I alluded to in my original post, I think people generally will find that they actually WANT to have private devotions as well as they grow in their faith.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

It most certainly could be seen that way. But it could just as easily be seen that He also provided the “fix”. You or I did not screw things up, but we also have not been asked to provide the "fix’’. Appropriate it, receive it yes, but not provide it. Quite fair and just.

The first Adam screwed it up. The second Adam (Christ) fixed it. We are to believe it. Even that faith is a gift, even the will to receive it is a gift, and comes from outside us, from above.

This message cries out from the rooftops, has been fairly broadcast. Christ died on a hill for all to see. The day of Pentecost the apostles spoke in many languages so that foreign spectators could hear the same message. All quite fair and just

This could certainly be a fair consideration…although one must adequately explain the presence of the snake in the garden as well as God’s apparent uncertainty as to the likelihood of man ceding to its advice.

Totally agreed.Well perhaps more than an arbiter for He also provides the bridge and the payment, the propitiation to cross it. I do not know if one can do anymore, to “move” anymore.

Well this is certainly a more hopeful way of considering it…

Absolutely.The base line is our inherited flawed nature. The old nature however is not “improved, made better”. It is discarded, even put to death. The exchange then is to be born again with His nature in our spiritually rebirthed nature. We do not take a pig and give it a bath and put a tux on him. More like the caterpillar “dies” in the cocoon and comes out a butterfly.

Fair enough…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Just that the dog once was above his current state. The spirit of the dog is dead in sin and makes him act like an animal. The dog does not need retraining but a spiritual revival. Otherwise you have a trained dog with a dead spirit, still an animal though better behaved thru conditioning.
For some dogs, more time may help. I think you under estimate the obstinency of some dogs, if not that of man.

Or is it possible He knows the beginning from the end ? Could He see who will never repent and who will ? As the rich man in the Lazarus story was told, that if one does not listen to the current proclaimed gospel, and its prophets/preachers, one would not listen to even one’s own brother raised from the dead.

The preacher says God wishes that none, zero, nada, should perish but all come to repentance.

Perhaps…but is it then to be considered that God could divine a means to convince each and every man to join him of their own free will, but either:

1. chooses not to–or–2) finds such a task to be simply beyond his means?

The situation requires both. I think the fear you speak of is of the consequences, and of course the Overseer of them. Seems logical to keep those cards on the table. But yes, that is only the beginning of wisdom which then carries us to His love. His goodness is what eventually wins us over. But one of His biggest goodness’s is His persistence in saving us from those negative consequences, even while we reject His advances. I

It is like you want to love Him without the need to be saved, when it is true that the more forgiven the more we love the forgiver.

Fair enough…

Using your animal kingdom, it is mush like catching and breaking a wild stallion. Normally he is caught from behind with the lasso. The horse is running away, with all his might. Even when first caught he fights and kicks, till he gives in and follows his new master, for it is in his nature to follow. Just that now he does not follow another stallion, but man. You are placing innocence on the child. Because the child is flawed not by his doing does not make the child innocent.

You are also assuming there is something inherently good in the child that sooner or later will overcome an underestimated powewrful flaw/bent.

OK