Why is Catholicism better?

[manualman]

I think what Lokadottir may object to is not so much your own Christian (Catholic) belief, but your spreading that conviction by means of evangelizing. However, part and parcel of Christianity is spreading the Gospel of Christ by word and deed. If one does not agree with this (or other) aspects of the faith, one is always free to “change the channel,” so to speak, and try some other channel (faith).

I think we agree, but to elaborate, the Christian is not free to simply ignore those who seem to reject Christ and his offer of salvation. As an analogy, those who disbelieve in trains are free to build their home on the tracks. Those who understand what trains are, are not free to shrug and stand by. We’re obligated to try to convince such people that they need a change of plans! True, you can’t coerce. But to simply shrug and walk on by would be criminal negligence.

(btw for the analogically impaired, the train is SIN, not God.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes and I give free will to my boyfriend to break up with me, but if he did I wouldn’t torture him for eternity. That always struck me as ridiculously harsh. If anyone was in a relationship like that with another person someone would call the police!

Hell is eternity in the absence of God.

Applying that to your analogy is somewhat apt.

To develop this idea.

What if your boyfriend’s separation from you was torture for him and yet he was abusive to you and others whenever near you? Would the fact that separation from you tortured him make it wrong of you to separate from him even if that isolation from you, and thus his tortured state, lasted forever? Would it give you a right to put him out of his misery by killing him?

Hell, I think, properly conceived, as separation from the goodness of God, is not so much that God tortures people, but that being in the presence of God (Goodness itself) but not properly enjoying that presence (thus alienated from it) is torture for those of evil will.

This situation would be more like you separating from your boyfriend for good reason, but that separation is what effectively is torture to him. You are not torturing him except by your absence.

 

[Lokadottir]

To develop this idea.

What if your boyfriend’s separation from you was torture for him and yet he was abusive to you and others whenever near you? Would the fact that separation from you tortured him make it wrong of you to separate from him even if that isolation from you, and thus his tortured state, lasted forever? Would it give you a right to put him out of his misery by killing him?

Hell, I think, properly conceived, as separation from the goodness of God, is not so much that God tortures people, but that being in the presence of God (Goodness itself) but not properly enjoying that presence (thus alienated from it) is torture for those of evil will.

This situation would be more like you separating from your boyfriend for good reason, but that separation is what effectively is torture to him. You are not torturing him except by your absence.

A very valid point. However if you leave your boyfriend leaves you because he’s not getting what he needs from the relationship and he’s not REALLY harming anyone by doing so?

 

[StevenFrancis]

So something that bothers me about Christianity is its monopoly on truth. Can anyone explain how this makes sense.

Hi Lokadottir:
In your post, you are speaking of truth as a subjective concept, and I think this is the problem that besets Catholics and other orthodox thinking persons when speaking to non-Christians or modernists. We don’t view truth as subjective, as you do. (“I believe my own to be true”). This would be the first truth of orthodox thought. Truth is objective. When we say that Catholicism is the truth, we mean objectively true. Whether we “like” it, or agree with it, or not. God Himself was incarnated in human history. This was Jesus Christ. God is incapable of deception since God IS He who IS. That is, truth itself.

Exodus 3:13 But Moses still pleaded with God: How if I appear before the Israelites with the message that the God of their fathers has sent me to them, and they ask me, What is his name? What answer shall I make? 14 And God said to Moses, I am the God who IS; thou shalt tell the Israelites, THE GOD WHO IS has sent me to you.

Jesus then, as God IS also the objective perfect truth.

*John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and came to dwell among us; and we had sight of his glory, glory such as belongs to the Father’s only-begotten Son, full of grace and truth.

John 1:17 Through Moses the law was given to us; through Jesus Christ grace came to us, and** truth**.

John 8;31 And now Jesus said to those among the Jews who believed in him, If you continue faithful to my word, you are my disciples in earnest; 32 so you will come to know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the way;** I am truth** and life; nobody can come to the Father, except through me.

John 16:13 It will be for him,** the truth-giving Spirit, when he comes, to guide you into all truth. **He will not utter a message of his own; he will utter the message that has been given to him; and he will make plain to you what is still to come.

John 17:17 keep them holy, then,** through the truth; it is thy word that is truth.**

John 18:37 Thou art a king, then? Pilate asked. And Jesus answered, It is thy own lips that have called me a king. What I was born for, what I came into the world for, is to bear witness of the truth. Whoever belongs to the truth, listens to my voice.*

So then Jesus, who is truth incarnate founded a Church upon His apostle Peter:

*Matthew 16:16 Then Simon Peter answered, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.[2] 17 And Jesus answered him, Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jona; it is not flesh and blood, it is my Father in heaven that has revealed this to thee. 18 And I tell thee this in my turn, that thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; 19 and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. *

Hi gave Peter and the Apostles (the forebears of the Church) a mission statement, and said that their mission will continue until the consummation of time:

Matthew 28:18 But Jesus came near and spoke to them; All authority in heaven and on earth, he said, has been given to me; 19 you, therefore, must go out, making disciples of all nations, and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 20 teaching them to observe all the commandments which I have given you. And behold I am with you all through the days that are coming, until the consummation of the world.

He sent the Holy Spirit upon His Apostles to guide them in this mission. The Church, which was now the center of teaching, and the deposit of the faith was begun in earnest.

Acts 2:38 Repent, Peter said to them, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, to have your sins forgiven; then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 This promise is for you and for your children, and for all those, however far away, whom the Lord our God calls to himself…41 So all those who had taken his words to heart were baptized, and about 3,000 souls were won for the Lord that day. 42 These occupied themselves continually with the apostles’ teaching, their fellowship in the breaking of bread, and the fixed times of prayer,

So this is our faith. The faith in the God who IS life. The faith in the God who IS the way. And of course the faith in the God who** IS TRUTH.**

He also IS love. All religions contain some objective truths. Only Christianity surrounds itself with truth of Jesus Christ, and only Catholic and Orthodox Christianity have maintained the succession of the Apostles as prescribed since the incarnation. Who can trace their lineage to St. Peter the Apostle upon whom Jesus, (The Truth), founded His Church.

So when a Catholic Christian speaks of truth, it is in a different context and may even be a different concept than when modernists, or non-Christians speak of truth. Our truths are eternal, and not guided by politics, culture or civilization, nor even our own opinions, which are all founded on dust, and can blow different directions with any passing wind.

This is the best explanation I can come up with as to how this “makes sense”. It’s not that we disrespect the truth which does dwell in other religions. It is just that to us, the Church contains the fullness of truth, and carries the real presence of Jesus Christ which was promised by God to remain with us from the time of the incarnation until Christ returns again to judge the living and the dead at the consummation of time.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A very valid point. However if you leave your boyfriend leaves you because he’s not getting what he needs from the relationship and he’s not REALLY harming anyone by doing so?

It could be argued that Hell is not really harming anyone either. The harm lies in the evil that the person has done to themselves over time. The torture of hell is simply the effects of that harm felt by them. No harm is being added, since the harm to themselves was completely brought about beforehand.

If you leave your boyfriend because of the evil your boyfriend does, it does not follow that your boyfriend has likewise “left” you. He may still want to be with you and is tortured by the fact of your absence. The “leaving” was initiated by you, not your boyfriend, because of the evil (harm to you, others and himself) that your boyfriend did and continues to do.

The question still remains whether you have a right to absent yourself from your boyfriend even though it tortures him for you to do so? If your boyfriend does evil to you or others around you, then it could be argued that you are right in absenting yourself from your boyfriend even though your absence tortures him. No?

Rightfully speaking, it is the evil that your boyfriend does that has harmed you and others (and himself) and has brought about his torture. Furthermore, the fact that he is tortured by your absence does not make it incumbent on you to endure his evil. Correct?

 

[Lokadottir]

It could be argued that Hell is not really harming anyone either. The harm lies in the evil that the person has done to themselves over time. The torture of hell is simply the effects of that harm felt by them. No harm is being added, since the harm to themselves was completely brought about beforehand.

If you leave your boyfriend because of the evil your boyfriend does, it does not follow that your boyfriend has likewise “left” you. He may still want to be with you and is tortured by the fact of your absence. The “leaving” was initiated by you, not your boyfriend, because of the evil (harm to you, others and himself) that your boyfriend did and continues to do.

The question still remains whether you have a right to absent yourself from your boyfriend even though it tortures him for you to do so? If your boyfriend does evil to you or others around you, then it could be argued that you are right in absenting yourself from your boyfriend even though your absence tortures him. No?

Rightfully speaking, it is the evil that your boyfriend does that has harmed you and others (and himself) and has brought about his torture. Furthermore, the fact that he is tortured by your absence does not make it incumbent on you to endure his evil. Correct?

Very correct. My point is I left because I wasn’t getting what I needed spiritually. “I get you don’t want me to do this, this, and that, Jesus, but what about my needs?” I still live honorably. Some would claim this alone is a crime befitting the old clichéd fiery hell we all heard horror stories about as kids. I find this disturbing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A very valid point. However if you leave your boyfriend leaves you because he’s not getting what he needs from the relationship and he’s not REALLY harming anyone by doing so?

I should have clarified this point of yours. You are assuming a mutual parting where both you and your boyfriend agree to separate. That is not my premise.

Assume your boyfriend wants you and it would be torture for him to be without you. Nevertheless he treats you and others around you badly. Are you right to unilaterally leave him even though your absence will “torture” him?

Is that “torture” the real harm done or does the harm lie in how your boyfriend treats you and others?

Clearly, he has brought the torture on himself by his own willfulness. As long as he remains in his willful state he will be tortured because he will remain separated from you and yet continue to long for you.

Do you have any obligation to remedy his torture by allowing him back in your life if he continues to treat everyone poorly? I think not.

Likewise, I do not suppose God has any obligation to allow those who harm others to carry on doing so even if they are “feeling” tortured by being absent from him.

 

[freeRadical]

Very correct. My point is I left because I wasn’t getting what I needed spiritually. “I get you don’t want me to do this, this, and that, Jesus, but what about my needs?” I still live honorably. Some would claim this alone is a crime befitting the old clichéd fiery hell we all heard horror stories about as kids. I find this disturbing.

That’s the fundamental problem that leads people away from Catholicism. The “what about me?” attitude. The Catholic faith is about obedience and subservience. We are to worship the way God wants us to worship. We are to behave how God wants us to behave. We are to follow the guidelines and rules God has give us through his Church. Catholicism isn’t about you, it’s about God and that’s how it should be.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Very correct. My point is I left because I wasn’t getting what I needed spiritually. “I get you don’t want me to do this, this, and that, Jesus, but what about my needs?” I still live honorably. Some would claim this alone is a crime befitting the old clichéd fiery hell we all heard horror stories about as kids. I find this disturbing.

If I might be so bold. You left because you were not getting what you “wanted” spiritually. What you really “need” would presuppose that you have an absolutely infallible knowledge of what will ultimately benefit you. You might be wrong about that.

Everyone is susceptible to error about what they truly need. Rapists, child molesters, drug addicts, slave owners, billionaires, Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton, etc. all have ideas about what they “want.” Are they all correct, merely because they have a very strong conviction about their “needs” that overrides and rules all their choices?

If God is all-knowing and all-good then, just perhaps, he has a better sense of what you “need,” absolutely speaking.

Furthermore, perhaps what you thought God was asking or requiring of you was mistaken in some way. Possible?

My suspicion is that there is just a shred of discontent in your heart that is seeking “something unfulfilled.” That sense might be where to begin.

 

[freeRadical]

If I might be so bold. You left because you were not getting what you “wanted” spiritually. What you really “need” would presuppose that you have an absolutely infallible knowledge of what will ultimately benefit you. You might be wrong about that.

Everyone is susceptible to error about what they truly need. Rapists, child molesters, drug addicts, slave owners, billionaires, Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton, etc. all have ideas about what they “want.” Are they all correct, merely because they have a very strong conviction about their “needs” that overrides and rules all their choices?

If God is all-knowing and all-good then, just perhaps, he has a better sense of what you “need,” absolutely speaking.

Furthermore, perhaps what you thought God was asking or requiring of you was mistaken in some way. Possible?

My suspicion is that there is just a shred of discontent in your heart that is seeking “something unfulfilled.” That sense might be where to begin.

Very good point. Something I didn’t think about when writing my post above.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s the fundamental problem that leads people away from Catholicism. The “what about me?” attitude. The Catholic faith is about obedience and subservience. We are to worship the way God wants us to worship. We are to behave how God wants us to behave. We are to follow the guidelines and rules God has give us through his Church. Catholicism isn’t about you, it’s about God and that’s how it should be.

I am not sure there is a difference. Perhaps there is in the short term, but not absolutely.

If we were created by God then we naturally tend towards ultimate Goodness (God himself.) that would be Aquinas’ view of God as the Final End or End Good.

The problem lies in our confused state where we do not have a clear view of what we want and so end up following only apparent goods. What we really want, if we could only straighten out our twisted desires, is God. That is Catholicism, in my view and, I suggest, in Aquinas’ as well. He was an Aristotelian, regarding ethics and the nature of the “good” as the teleologically ordered end of human nature, after all.

 

[freeRadical]

I am not sure there is a difference. Perhaps there is in the short term, but not absolutely.

If we were created by God then we naturally tend towards ultimate Goodness (God himself.) that would be Aquinas’ view of God as the Final End or End Good.

The problem lies in our confused state where we do not have a clear view of what we want and so end up following only apparent goods. What we really want, if we could only straighten out our twisted desires, is God. That is Catholicism, in my view and, I suggest, in Aquinas’ as well. He was an Aristotelian, regarding ethics and the nature of the “good” as the teleologically ordered end of human nature, after all.

I agree. The point I was trying to make is that people what a religion centered around them, not around God. They want to choose what god to worship, they want to choose how to worship, they want to choose what social issues that agree with and ones they don’t, they want political correctness, they want to choose what is a sin and what isn’t, they want to choose their own interpenetration of scripture, they want to use their beliefs to justify their actions. Basically they want an a la carte religion. Pick and choose what’s easy and comfortable for them. This is very evident when you examine the state of American Catholicism. Why grandma, who’s a very devout, old Catholic, says they used to call them cafeteria Catholics.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I agree. The point I was trying to make is that people what a religion centered around them, not around God. They want to choose what god to worship, they want to choose how to worship, they want to choose what social issues that agree with and ones they don’t, they want political correctness, they want to choose what is a sin and what isn’t, they want to choose their own interpenetration of scripture, they want to use their beliefs to justify their actions. Basically they want an a la carte religion. Pick and choose what’s easy and comfortable for them. This is very evident when you examine the state of American Catholicism. Why grandma, who’s a very devout, old Catholic, says they used to call them cafeteria Catholics.

I understand your point. In fact, I would say your grandma’s term describes all of us to some extent or other. It is the state of original sin we find ourselves in. A darkness from which we are powerless to extract ourselves and, even if we could, we wouldn’t know which direction to turn (without God’s grace) because our fallen state has misaligned our internal positioning system. That is why the Christian message of bringing “light” and redemption from darkness and the Catholic doctrine of grace as gift make so much sense.

 

[manualman]

Very correct. My point is I left because I wasn’t getting what I needed spiritually. “I get you don’t want me to do this, this, and that, Jesus, but what about my needs?” I still live honorably. Some would claim this alone is a crime befitting the old clichéd fiery hell we all heard horror stories about as kids. I find this disturbing.

Yes, actually this is a very real difference then. If I understand you correctly, you are asserting here that you are already a honorable, decent and upright person on your own merits. Therefore it would be an unjust god who would exclude you from any eternal paradise. You’re missing the point. Even if you or I are of higher virtue than 99% of the population, that simply isn’t good enough. Heaven can’t be heaven if people there are less than perfect morally. And none of us are capable of developing that level of virtue on our own willpower and discipline. What Christ offers is the Grace to (eventually!) overcome our weaknesses and sins and be perfected so that we can live eternally in communion with each other and Him. He won’t coerce you, just invite you. You’re free to reject the offer. But by definition, heaven won’t be heaven if people too proud to admit their need of redemption are allowed in. Good as such people are when graded on a curve, the only way heaven can be heaven is if its population is first willing to be remade to be perfectly good, not just good by comparison. Those unwilling to admit their need to be sanctified won’t be forced into sanctity. They’ll be excluded by their own choice. That’s called hell.

 

[Skadi]

No. Heaven or hell… You can choose between the 2.

Im afraid not, There is Valhalla, Hel, and innumerable other places where a person could go depending apon the circumstances. For all we know we are both going to our own faiths “paradise”.

 

[jmcrae]

Maybe in mathematics there is only one truth, but this is not so in the arts such as poetry, music, and painting. There are usually diverse interpretations, and when one deals with surrealist poetry, for example, it is not unusual that so-called contradictions can still be coherent, if not reconciled. Even according to biblical exegesis, there can be both literal and figurative layers of meaning which do not cancel one another although they may appear contradictory.

There may be layers of meaning in various Scripture passages (and in Surrealist poetry. come to that) but the various meanings cannot be contradictory.

For example “The Woman” of Revelation can be understood variously as Israel, the Church, and Mary. These are various layers of understanding, but they aren’t contradictory. Rather, what they show us is that Mary, Israel, and the Church share features in common with “The Woman.” (She has a Son, she goes to Egypt, she gives spiritual birth to an uncountable number of children … )

 

[Lokadottir]

There may be layers of meaning in various Scripture passages (and in Surrealist poetry. come to that) but the various meanings cannot be contradictory.

For example “The Woman” of Revelation can be understood variously as Israel, the Church, and Mary. These are various layers of understanding, but they aren’t contradictory. Rather, what they show us is that Mary, Israel, and the Church share features in common with “The Woman.” (She has a Son, she goes to Egypt, she gives spiritual birth to an uncountable number of children … )

However thats a bit different than all of divinity.

 

[jmcrae]

Would you mind defining the broad term of “Pagan” then? In proper English?

An unbaptized person.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I, too, have reported Ecclesiaticus to the moderators, and it is my hope that his offensive posts will be deleted.

 

[freeRadical]

An unbaptized person.

So if I’m baptized but practice a Pagan religion I’m not a Pagan?