W
wth1257
Guest
No, After Walden a new Minister came in, VERY Orthodox.
Mass Twice a day, constant adoration, confesion etc
- Status
Mass Twice a day, constant adoration, confesion etc
W
wth1257
Guest
I’ve read all the Prophecies, isolated they a convincing, like Psalm 23, read in context they are not.
It does not contradict history true; however, there is very scant evidence to support it, the Tradition you reference is Christian Tradition, highly circular argument.
W
wth1257
Guest
I still attend Mass and cross myself before eating, though that’s more habit. I said I haven’t yet rejected Catholicism, I didn’t actually deny Christ’s’ death, I criticized the theology behind Jesus being a sacrifice and the Trinity.
It’s a beautiful religion and I greatly respect many members of the Church, and social pressure.
I never actually mentioned the Crusades, and I have only criticized the Trinity and Jesus being a sacrifice to atone for Man’s sins
Looking for people’s thoughts:shrug:
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
I find that the OT only makes sense when read in the context of prophecy. Forgetting prophecy, and the OT is a weird book. Why would God sacrifice a lamb and create a Passover festival, if not to foretell us about the Lamb of God (ie, Jesus) who was sacrificed at Passover over a thousand years later.
I don’t understand why Tradition is circular; We have a Tradition that teaches Jesus was crucified, and we have historical evidence (albeit “scant”) which confirms it. How is that circular?
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
- but you have to deny Christ’s death if you want to be muslim (see Qur’an 4:157).
W
wth1257
Guest
I am not presently a Muslim
W
wth1257
Guest
Why would an all powerful God have to sacrifice anyone to atone for sins committed against His moral law?
The Torah makes sense to plenty of Jews who believe Jesus was neither Deity nor Prophet
It’s not if you simply wish to establish that many early Christians believed that Jesus was Crucified, if you want to use Christian Tradition to establish that Christian belief is true, then we get into circular reasoning
A
abucs
Guest
OK fair enough wth1257.
If you still have one foot in the Catholic camp then i’d suggest reading “Meet the Witnesses” by John Haffert.
amazon.com/Meet-Witnesses-John-M-Haffert/dp/1890137561
This occurrence happened during the 1st world war in a country whose authorities were very anti-catholic.
the book talks to many of the 100,000 witnesses there many of whom were former atheists.
I mentioned in my first post that christianity was the best hope mankind had for a transcendental God.
Part of that is because of the ongoing connections with what we call ‘the supernatural’. You have to judge with what is credible and what is not.
It makes sense that God is still with us in the world otherwise it simply becomes an exercise in one peoples set of beliefs against another looking backs thousands of years when a whole lot of ‘stuff’ was supposed to have happened.
If religion is reduced to that then you can make a case for just about anything and likewise a case against it as well.
One person likes the beauty of this tradition, of self sacrifice and humility, or the fellowship. or the simplicity, or the historical validation or what ‘makes sense to me right now’ or in the family/cultural connection.
I don’t know of any other religion that can come up with a comparably credible Fatima within the last 100 years (or longer) on such a massive scale, documented by a hostile media in a country hostile to the religion.
If we are talking about the supernatural then lets look for it, not thousands of years ago through traditions we either trust or don’t trust, but look for it in our own time in living witnesses.
In my set of preferences for ‘what makes sense to me’ this rates highly instead of theoretically difficulties with doctrines that are about things we cannot know either way.
Regards.
If you still have one foot in the Catholic camp then i’d suggest reading “Meet the Witnesses” by John Haffert.
amazon.com/Meet-Witnesses-John-M-Haffert/dp/1890137561
This occurrence happened during the 1st world war in a country whose authorities were very anti-catholic.
the book talks to many of the 100,000 witnesses there many of whom were former atheists.
I mentioned in my first post that christianity was the best hope mankind had for a transcendental God.
Part of that is because of the ongoing connections with what we call ‘the supernatural’. You have to judge with what is credible and what is not.
It makes sense that God is still with us in the world otherwise it simply becomes an exercise in one peoples set of beliefs against another looking backs thousands of years when a whole lot of ‘stuff’ was supposed to have happened.
If religion is reduced to that then you can make a case for just about anything and likewise a case against it as well.
One person likes the beauty of this tradition, of self sacrifice and humility, or the fellowship. or the simplicity, or the historical validation or what ‘makes sense to me right now’ or in the family/cultural connection.
I don’t know of any other religion that can come up with a comparably credible Fatima within the last 100 years (or longer) on such a massive scale, documented by a hostile media in a country hostile to the religion.
If we are talking about the supernatural then lets look for it, not thousands of years ago through traditions we either trust or don’t trust, but look for it in our own time in living witnesses.
In my set of preferences for ‘what makes sense to me’ this rates highly instead of theoretically difficulties with doctrines that are about things we cannot know either way.
Regards.
A
abucs
Guest
I think the answer is in the relationship it creates between God and ourselves.
We believe in God.
We beleive sin is wrong and an offence against God.
This incarnation and brutal death is a way for us to see this more clearly and have a relationship with God in the context of the death and ressurrection.
A connection with God is an emotional and spiritual connection. The death and ressurrection is a focus of that emotional and spiritual connection within a community towards God.
It no longer becomes a theoretical, imagined concept but a real one based on the events of history.
It helps us to draw closer to God. To be sorry, to understand our sin in the light of Christs sufferrings.
It calls us to always be holy and come close to God and it gives us great hope of a merciful God who would do such a thing FOR US and validate his hand in the ressurrection of Christ.
It is a promise of a God who is with us and wants the best for us and wants us to choose to be like Him.
The incarnation of Christ makes God more real to us instead of philosophical like in other religions and up in the clouds somewhere. He is accessible. He has acted here on earth and his message is love, self sacrifice, turning away from sin, forgiveness and the promise of his Kingdom.
In a word, his promise is Holiness and a validation of His promise through ressurrection.
It is a covenant that we Christians have with God and it is a beautiful thing.
Sometimes we do not live up to what we should, but Christs example is always there for us to repent and start again.
God does not need the incarnation, we do. And God cares for us enough to have acted this way.
Praise be his name, the ever present, merciful God.
H
Harpazo
Guest
That’s precisely the point. God did not have to do it, but He did out of love for us!
Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
You pose a very good question and it does seem unreasonable for one man to die for all of our sins… that is unless, of course, that one man is God himself.
Welcome to christianity. It’s not a religion, it’s a sacrifice. God has always despised sin and has always wanted a sacrifice for it. We offer the divine Jesus as that sacrifice.
Father of truth, behold your son who makes atoning sacrifice to you.
Accept the offering: he died for me that I might have life.
Amen.
(Prayer by St Charbel)
W
wth1257
Guest
That’s precisely the point. God did not have to do it, but He did out of love for us!
Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
W
wth1257
Guest
To be honest I don’t find that very convincing, but thank you for the thoughtful response
J
johnnydigit
Guest
i ask you again, do you pray? a lifetime of acquired knowledge is useless if you don’t pray.
i figure if you want to know about God, why don’t you ask Him yourself? through prayer…
“At the request of the brethren, St. Anthony was later commissioned also to teach theology, “but in such a manner,” St. Francis distinctly wrote, " that the spirit of prayer be not extinguished either in yourself or in the other brethren.” **St. Anthony himself placed greater value in the salvation of souls than on learning. **"
W
wth1257
Guest
I do sometimes, I used to pray the Rosary quite a bit, but due to my disillusionment with Catholicism I haven’t really
N
Nullasalus
Guest
I’m very busy lately, so forgive me for saying I likely won’t be able to reply to any response to this (at least not in any timely manner.) Still, I offer it up in response.
Others have raised very good points that I won’t rehash, so I’ll just add this: Just because there may be an infinite number of ways to do something doesn’t mean that all of those ways are entirely equivalent. Even the most traditional, orthodox Christians would not say that Christ’s sacrifice had no purpose or effect other than redemption. It illustrated a love God has for this world. It illustrated not just the importance of, but the necessity of sacrifice for some goods to be brought about. It demonstrated a reason to have hope even in the face of arguably the ultimate in hopeless experiences.
In other words, to argue against the belief that Christ’s sacrifice was necessary, it’s not enough to poke at a single dogma and say ‘Well, I could imagine God accomplishing that without the death and resurrection, so therefore this must be a mistake’. You have to look at the totality of what was accomplished (and what will still be accomplished - time marches forward) by that sacrifice in addition. I think you’ll find that if you do that, it’s of no use to argue such a sacrifice wasn’t necessary - too much came out of it in real, concrete terms (guiding religious spirituality, focus, contemplation, philosophy, social acts, morality, devotion, etc) before even getting to metaphysical considerations. It’s not clear that God could have chosen something different that accomplishes everything the crucifixion and resurrection did (without the actual crucifixion and resurrection part). You can argue that it’s not clear it WAS necessary, but that leaves you with a problem - if it can be justified (and I believe it clearly can be, immensely so) then the question becomes, then did it happen? Because if it did, then so much that has happened since then is contingent upon it happening that it WAS necessary to live in the world we do, and have the future we’ll have. So you’re back to deciding whether or not you believe it truly happened, sans the theological questions.
As for questions of trinities, I think that’s vastly easier to at least grasp nowadays. The thought of three persons being unified as one can lead you to arguments of specifics (Are they 3 aspects of 1 being? Are there 3 beings with 1 unified nature?), but the claim itself isn’t unintelligible, anymore than ‘a person only has one body’. You can argue, ‘Well, what if they lose their arm? Is their arm still part of their body? And if so, aren’t bodies composed of bodies? And if not, how can they still have the same body after losing an arm?’ At most you can try to nail down definitions, realize there’s always going to be a certain amount of ambiguity and division over how to properly view things - but there’s nothing wrong with that. Sort out your thoughts, but casting the whole question off as silly and therefore to be rejected is a mistake. Anything can be made to sound silly.
I think, caricature of the argument aside, that this sounds like the central point of issue. Why did an omnipotent God ‘have to’ do anything whatsoever, much less have such a major sacrifice, to accomplish the salvation of humanity? After all, if God is omnipotent, He can do anything - which implies He can offer salvation with no sacrifice.
Others have raised very good points that I won’t rehash, so I’ll just add this: Just because there may be an infinite number of ways to do something doesn’t mean that all of those ways are entirely equivalent. Even the most traditional, orthodox Christians would not say that Christ’s sacrifice had no purpose or effect other than redemption. It illustrated a love God has for this world. It illustrated not just the importance of, but the necessity of sacrifice for some goods to be brought about. It demonstrated a reason to have hope even in the face of arguably the ultimate in hopeless experiences.
In other words, to argue against the belief that Christ’s sacrifice was necessary, it’s not enough to poke at a single dogma and say ‘Well, I could imagine God accomplishing that without the death and resurrection, so therefore this must be a mistake’. You have to look at the totality of what was accomplished (and what will still be accomplished - time marches forward) by that sacrifice in addition. I think you’ll find that if you do that, it’s of no use to argue such a sacrifice wasn’t necessary - too much came out of it in real, concrete terms (guiding religious spirituality, focus, contemplation, philosophy, social acts, morality, devotion, etc) before even getting to metaphysical considerations. It’s not clear that God could have chosen something different that accomplishes everything the crucifixion and resurrection did (without the actual crucifixion and resurrection part). You can argue that it’s not clear it WAS necessary, but that leaves you with a problem - if it can be justified (and I believe it clearly can be, immensely so) then the question becomes, then did it happen? Because if it did, then so much that has happened since then is contingent upon it happening that it WAS necessary to live in the world we do, and have the future we’ll have. So you’re back to deciding whether or not you believe it truly happened, sans the theological questions.
As for questions of trinities, I think that’s vastly easier to at least grasp nowadays. The thought of three persons being unified as one can lead you to arguments of specifics (Are they 3 aspects of 1 being? Are there 3 beings with 1 unified nature?), but the claim itself isn’t unintelligible, anymore than ‘a person only has one body’. You can argue, ‘Well, what if they lose their arm? Is their arm still part of their body? And if so, aren’t bodies composed of bodies? And if not, how can they still have the same body after losing an arm?’ At most you can try to nail down definitions, realize there’s always going to be a certain amount of ambiguity and division over how to properly view things - but there’s nothing wrong with that. Sort out your thoughts, but casting the whole question off as silly and therefore to be rejected is a mistake. Anything can be made to sound silly.
V
vee8
Guest
Jesus told us to call God our Father why because we are children, and like any parent God set out rules for us to follow for our own good… What happens when children break the really big rules? The parent is upset of course and the child has to make up for their wrongdoing in some way plus they are punished. Jesus is our innocent brother who steps in and takes the punishment for us, who makes up for what we did wrong. Why does Jesus do that? Because like any brother who sees someone they love in trouble they want to help. He had free will and I guess He could have decided not to (the question of which would be a whole new thread) but He put us first and for our own good he took the bullet er crucifiction.
W
WynCatholic
Guest
Regarding the sacrifice of Christ:
(in addition to what Nullasalus just a bit above me said)
You seem to be incorporating a distinctly Protestant/calvinistic concept into the catholic theology of the atonement. (penal substition does not define the death of Christ). Instead of rereading theologians read the NT. The death of Christ is consistently presented by all (who discuss it) in relation with our intimate union with Christ. That Defines His Death. ((ie Descibing its parameters).
You don’t reject Catholic truth when you reject a protestant distortion of the gospel and the scriptures.
Regarding the Trinity: Your understanding of God is too small. The Islamic concept of God is way too small. … and tribal.
Your understanding of God may also be polluted with a bit of Calvinistic(or Islamic) Divine Capriciousness. If you must read theologians, read Ratzinger, Balthassar. If you want beauty of contemplation explore the mystics. (including Ralph Martin’s “the Fulfillment of all desire” (Great price, great book)
From reading your post, I get the sense that you are misunderstanding Catholicism. … Your understanding of the nature of Revelation and the Holy Scriptures may also have been tainted with not-quite-catholic-teaching, and so what you reject bout the Catholic Faith isn’t … Catholic.
so re-examine catholicism, (Rahner’s philosophical catholicism isn’t what I would recommend either.) I will pray for you and for all muslims
(in addition to what Nullasalus just a bit above me said)
You seem to be incorporating a distinctly Protestant/calvinistic concept into the catholic theology of the atonement. (penal substition does not define the death of Christ). Instead of rereading theologians read the NT. The death of Christ is consistently presented by all (who discuss it) in relation with our intimate union with Christ. That Defines His Death. ((ie Descibing its parameters).
You don’t reject Catholic truth when you reject a protestant distortion of the gospel and the scriptures.
Regarding the Trinity: Your understanding of God is too small. The Islamic concept of God is way too small. … and tribal.
Your understanding of God may also be polluted with a bit of Calvinistic(or Islamic) Divine Capriciousness. If you must read theologians, read Ratzinger, Balthassar. If you want beauty of contemplation explore the mystics. (including Ralph Martin’s “the Fulfillment of all desire” (Great price, great book)
From reading your post, I get the sense that you are misunderstanding Catholicism. … Your understanding of the nature of Revelation and the Holy Scriptures may also have been tainted with not-quite-catholic-teaching, and so what you reject bout the Catholic Faith isn’t … Catholic.
so re-examine catholicism, (Rahner’s philosophical catholicism isn’t what I would recommend either.) I will pray for you and for all muslims
C
cgunning
Guest
GO BEFORE THE BLESSED SARAMENT AND TELL THE LORD JESUS CHRIST THE WAY YOU FEEL BECAUSE NO ONE CAN GO TO GOD EXCEPT THROUGH HIS DIVINE SON HAVE FAITH AND BELIEVE IN HIM AND READ THE BIBLE
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Why would you have ever bothered doing that (and other “Holy Trinity” dependent things) at all?
Since you’re NOT a Christian, much much less a Catholic, what was the point?
To “fake” being a Christian/Catholic is called WHAT? Which variety of “dishonest” would you choose as a descriptor?
- Status