anon5216:
I know Catholics are required to believe they’ve got the only valid and complete path to God, but that is a belief others don’t share. And from that other perspective, it’s a belief that simply can not be proven. (Since the biblical writings the Church bases its claims on can not be objectively proven).
Okay, here is one glaring error already, “you know that we are required to believe.” How do you know we are “required”? I believe, but I was not required to believe as if this is something that is forced on us against our will.
Also, the proof for Christianity being the way to salvation DOES NOT REST SOLELY ON THE BIBLE. To reason thus, is to beg the question and this is not the way the Church approaches the subject. The only time the Bible becomes a point of reference is when the other party is also Christian and would presumably believe in the Bible as well.
Agreed - however I have to say that the Catholic position of every other road leads to nowhere is not defensible. You therefore have to have more understanding of the specific path (other than “it’s wrong because it’s not the one I’m on”), before making any “dead end” claim.
Did I say that every other road leads to nowhere? See, here again you are stating assumptions not facts. The Catholic Church states that every religion has some truth in them, some more than others. She does say however that she has the fullness of truth. Does that mean that she is saying all those who belong to other religions are damned? No.
This is probably the biggest problem I encounter when arguing with non-Catholics. They are always claiming “Catholics believe/claim/teach such and such” before even verifying if that is truly the case and before even trying to find out when we do believe such and such, why we do so.
Here is an example of the latter: If someone were to accuse me of lying and say to me : “And you have the temerity to say that your mother is a beauty queen”. Well, what if I can actually prove that my mother IS a beauty queen? The person has assumed even before checking his facts that it was quite impossible for this to be when it could actually be the truth.
Learn what Catholics teach from faithful Catholics and not from those who would dearly love to see her demise, and argue from there.
That’s your belief. OK. Think about it though: Hordes of people not living their faith and not showing the fruits of spiritual wisdom, but shouting out loud how their perspective is the only valid one is kind of counter productive PR, don’t you think? I stand by that point of the analogy - it just doesn’t happen to fit into your particular belief system. How acceptable an analogy is also has to do with cultural context and upbringing.
You are missing my point here.My point here is that you are equating a physical road which can get clogged to a spiritual path which has no way of ever getting clogged with traffic. That is my problem with this point in your analogy.
Let us just say for argument’s sake that everyone does decide to convert to Catholicism. Will that make the path to salvation congested?
This is why I say this is the most ill-thought point in your analogy for the simple reason that it just does not apply.
One problem with analogies is that there are so many ways to interpret - again depending on cultural background. Nothing in Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. requires “going on one’s merry way oblivious to everyone else”. That wasn’t my point. I was emphasizing “walking the talk” while interacting in the world as opposed to talking without living it.
But you did not phrase the analogy that way. You phrased it in the way I understood it.
Agreed. I just consider “my religion is the only valid one” when said by any religious person of any faith to be in “the darkness”.
If I am convinced that I have the Truth, then it becomes my responsibility to live by that truth and to try to convince others to live by that truth. The only time I cannot live by the so called truth is, if it can be established to be contrary to natural law. Natural law is a good reference point for claims on truth.
Let us just say for argument’s sake that I believe in religion ABC. If I am 100% convinced that ABC is the true way to salvation, then whether that is the truth or not, as long as its teachings does not go against natural law, then it is incumbent upon me to make sure that I try to convince others as well to see that truth.
If they refuse to be convinced that is up to them, but the responsibility of evangelizing still rests with me.
Case in point: If I convinced that there is deadly gas in the building (regardless of its truth or error) I am still expected to try to stop people from entering it. If I don’t, I am being negligent.
[continued]