Why is Catholicism the Correct Faith?

[dbacks5439]

I started another thread called "Catholicism (Authority, Succession, and Baptism) where we can talk about the topics brought up by sooner.

 

[Godfollower]

Show me where is says anything about sprinkling instead of immersion. The Greek word for baptism, baptizo, means to be submurged or consumed.

Well, the Bible says this:

Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Ezekiel 36:22-28 (KJV) (I assume you prefer the King James Version?)

Moreover, Paul also uses the word baptizo in a way that clearly does not mean immersion:

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

1 Cor. 10:1-2 (KJV).

(Bearing in mind that the Israelites crossed the sea dry-shod – Ex. 14:16 (“But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea”); 14:22 (“And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground”); and 15:19 (“but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea”) – so Paul clearly understood baptism as being something more than just “placing the entire body of the initiate underwater for a certain amount of time”).

Which makes sense, since Paul himself was told “arise [not “go down to the water”], and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16) (KJV).

When you take into account the various Biblical accounts of “entire households” being baptized in houses – in a time when they didn’t have enough water to allow immersion – it becomes clear that baptism by immersion, though perfectly valid, was not required.

 

[Godfollower]

Maybe this thread should be split up as it has gone into two different directions.
Sooner will probably come back later on and find his posts buried and we will be on another subject which will make a mess of the discussion.
So Sooner if you do come back maybe we can copy and paste our discussion and start a new thread.
Lets talk about, Catholicism the correct faith and the answers to the objections, evilkingln3 has brought up.
God Bless
Scylla

dbacks5439:

I started another thread called "Catholicism (Authority, Succession, and Baptism) where we can talk about the topics brought up by sooner.

Whoops! Sorry!

 

[evilkingln3]

I said this in my previous post: “Don’t get me wrong, Jesus I’m assuming existed due to all the literature and such written about Him”, and I realized I didnt explain it in full. Jesus I’m assuming did exist, but I don’t believe He did all the things that are stated about him (such as the miracles, etc).

Just to clarify in case of confusion, hope to hear a response soon!

 

[Baraq]

Much of the discussion here has been about signs and sacraments . One is proof, another indication of covenant relationship, but neither gives faith.

In the Reformed perspective, we believe only God can give us faith. With no merit from our own works of belief, God gives faith to his elect. The method God chose(in his wisdom) is through the preaching of the Gospel.

The apostle tells us the Gospel is the smell of life for those who believe, but the smell of death who dont. The power of God to us, but foolishness to the world.

 

[FightingFat]

Hello,

I fail to see how it is possible for Catholics to say “God is real,” and why they completely ignore the thousands of other religions out there.

What makes Catholicism the truly correct religion? You can’t say it’s a matter of faith due to the fact that it’s a matter of faith among ALL other religions, you (Catholics) simply have the popularity advantage.

Recommended reading: Ratzinger, **J., **Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions, USA, Ignatius 2004

 

[FightingFat]

I said this in my previous post: “Don’t get me wrong, Jesus I’m assuming existed due to all the literature and such written about Him”, and I realized I didnt explain it in full. Jesus I’m assuming did exist, but I don’t believe He did all the things that are stated about him (such as the miracles, etc).

Just to clarify in case of confusion, hope to hear a response soon!

Do you think that Jesus was a special person, concidering we’re still talking about him now along with about 2 billion other people?

Recommended reading: Redford, J., Bad, Mad or God

 

[Mommyof02green]

Hello,

I fail to see how it is possible for Catholics to say “God is real,” and why they completely ignore the thousands of other religions out there.

What makes Catholicism the truly correct religion? You can’t say it’s a matter of faith due to the fact that it’s a matter of faith among ALL other religions, you (Catholics) simply have the popularity advantage.

Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church (A 2000 year history) <–clickable link

 

[VociMike]

I said this in my previous post: “Don’t get me wrong, Jesus I’m assuming existed due to all the literature and such written about Him”, and I realized I didnt explain it in full. Jesus I’m assuming did exist, but I don’t believe He did all the things that are stated about him (such as the miracles, etc).

Just to clarify in case of confusion, hope to hear a response soon!

Then why did most of His very first followers allow themselves to be brutally killed rather than deny Him? Who allows themselves to be killed for a made-up story?

If the early, persecuted Christians were all living a lie, what was the point? There were plenty of “safe” religions to practice in the Roman Empire. Why endure the daily risk of persecution, imprisonment and death?

If you believe that Jesus existed but all the “important” stories about Him were made up, the burden falls upon you to explain why He attracted so many followers who went to their (usually gruesome) deaths.

 

[Trad_Catholic_1]

Going back to the Egyptians example, ofcourse I don’t believe in Aten, or Osiris, etc, because they are impossible, just like God. If I see it, I will believe it, but it is not faith if we are put into a dishonest world where millions of lies are told everyday, and for some reason Christianity is the true one good religion.

This is a stupid argument.

Some people think that evidence must be seen and touched, as an animal sees a patch of grass and eats it. But men are not mere animals. They have reason, and can appreciate intellectual evidence. For example, the evidence of beauty in music or in painting is perceived by man’s mind, not by his senses. An animal could hear the same sounds, or see the same colors, without being impressed by their harmony and proportion. Apart from the Bible altogether, reason can detect sufficient evidence to guarantee the existence of God.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Then why did most of His very first followers allow themselves to be brutally killed rather than deny Him? Who allows themselves to be killed for a made-up story?

If the early, persecuted Christians were all living a lie, what was the point? There were plenty of “safe” religions to practice in the Roman Empire. Why endure the daily risk of persecution, imprisonment and death?

If you believe that Jesus existed but all the “important” stories about Him were made up, the burden falls upon you to explain why He attracted so many followers who went to their (usually gruesome) deaths.

Exactly, it is recorded that Peter denied Christ on the day of his Crusifixion, yet he turned around a month and a half later and started his mission that entailed the balance of his life including his life, but you think he didn’t have enough information to believe Christ was the messiah?
Their are over 500 people recorded as seeing the resurrected Christ… Paul and Peter got beheaded for spending their life spreading his gospel.

 

[VociMike]

I won’t deny, you make a good point, but here’s the truth. You can prove many things of happening 2,000 years ago, all through science. You know that as well as I do. You know that we can dig up ancient dead bodies and identify them, and can test artifacts for how old they are, etc., to prove many things by putting the pieces together.

They found St. Peter’s bones in a crypt under St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome (in the 1930s, I believe). He had all the markings of being crucified upside down just as tradition records it. So we have his bones, we have his writings. Did he make it all up so that he could be crucified?

Why do I approach the story of Jesus with such skepticism? Perhaps because of the endless flaws, circular logic and reasoning, and the fact that I’ve never, not once in my life, EVER seen something that can even mildly prove God’s existence.

Let’s get right to brass tacks. What do you believe explains the existence of the universe? Now, prove that belief. Let’s have an even “proving field” here. You say we can’t prove that God exists (and created the universe). OK, then offer up your alternative and your proof. Then we can all examine the choices and the evidence.

Don’t get me wrong, Jesus I’m assuming existed due to all the literature and such written about Him, but isn’t it convenient I haven’t seen God? Nor anyone I know? And don’t you dare reply to say that “people see God all the time and talk to him through prayer.”

Why? because hundreds of supposed “miracles” happen every day. Isn’t it nice that some cancer patients survive? Isn’t it nice that we associate the survivors with a miracle? That’s idiotic.

So you are choosing to believe (without proof) that every single unexplained occurance has natural causes. You are choosing to believe (without proof) that no such occurances are miracles. How do you justify such an a priori refusal to consider one particular explanation?

What about the millions of starving people in the world? What about the HUNDREDS of genocides occurring because of religious clashes, Yugoslavia being a good recent example. What about the thousands of other cancer patients who try their hardest but Die? What about all the meaningless deaths?

Whoa, slow down. Yes, what about them? So what? If we’re all just animals, specks of stardust randomly assembled in clever ways, so what? Why should we care? Rats don’t care. Rose bushes don’t care. Cockroaches don’t care. Why should we?

What about the people who have never heard of God? Do they go to Hell? Why would God create them in the first place?

Time for a bit of Catholic theology. Don’t assume that the excesses of fundmentalist Protestant fire and brimstone represent Catholic teaching.

Everyone has heard of God. That is, everyone has God’s moral law “written into their hearts”. That’s why everyone, down deep, understands good and evil. Those who have not heard of God but who follow His law written into their hearts, they too may hope for salvation.

Why did God purposely create us, and since he created everything, how does he get the right to throw me in Hell? He would have to be the worst thing ever to exist if He throws me to Hell when I die because I live a life of honesty and I respect the morals set by the church, I simply don’t believe in the church! He created my mind, my thoughts, what I’m saying right now, and where I’m destined to go!

This is certainly worthy of its own thread. The simple answer is, God doesn’t throw people into hell, they go willingly and lock the door behind them.

Religion is the adult Santa Claus.

I could say that atheism is the adult Tooth Fairy, but how would that advance the discussion?

Anyway, I will look forward to your alternate explanation for the existence of the universe, and your proof.

 

[ricmat]

… but it is not faith if we are put into a dishonest world where millions of lies are told everyday, and for some reason Christianity is the true one good religion.

I have some comments on this specific part of your post, because I see similar statements all the time. It seems to be a very important and very emotional issue with atheists, and secular progressives. Of course you bring up a lot of points, but I don’t want this particular issue to be a stumbling block for you

I’m going to define TRUE here as closeness to describing God’s actual reality.

There are many “true” and “good” religions. But some are more good and true than others, and that doesn’t make the other religions bad or evil or what they teach necessarily untrue.

Let me use an example. God is very difficult to imagine for this purpose, so I’ll use a car.

You place a car in the middle of the street and ask a bunch of people “What is TRUE about the car?” i.e. accuratly describe the car.

The car atheist says “I don’t believe there is such a thing as a car.”

The car agnostic says “I will admit that there is a car only if you prove it to me.”

A member of a primitive car religion might say “I see 4 rubber tires.” [Not wrong certainly].

A member of a more advanced primitive car religion might say “I see 4 rubber tires, a chassis, and some sheet metal.” [Again, not wrong].

You ask more and more people, and eventually you ask the actual designer of the car. He says “Ahh… let me tell you about my car…” and pulls out blueprints, specs, advertising brochures, theory of operation, and so forth.

Note that nobody’s answer was actually wrong. But some were more correct (in terms of fullness) than others.

Catholicism does in fact claim to have the fullness of truth, but also makes it clear that the other religions are not always wrong - most religions have some smaller part of the truth.

.

 

[evilkingln3]

I must say you all have good arguments, I have answers to them all but the fact that in the time it takes me to write one reply, 5 questions come in, I choose wisely. Here’s one argument that has appeared by a few people:

Let’s get right to brass tacks. What do you believe explains the existence of the universe? Now, prove that belief. Let’s have an even “proving field” here. You say we can’t prove that God exists (and created the universe). OK, then offer up your alternative and your proof. Then we can all examine the choices and the evidence.

Of course I do not have proof for how the existence of the universe came about, otherwise we wouldn’t even be in this argument today. My alternative is that either life somehow came from non-living matter (look it up on wikipedia to learn more about it), and/or there is something humans are completely unable to perceive/comprehend, the latter being the more likely. Naturally, God would be something that humans cannot comprehend, yet there are still 2 billion people out there who truly “know” he exists. What I’m saying is I’m admitting I do not have proof for my beliefs, yet they are far more plausible, reasonable, and likely than a fantasy thing that conveniently says humans have a purpose (thus being one of the many reasons people prefer Christianity to other religions).

I am atheist/agnostic (the terms have commonly overlapped, so I simply group them together. once again check wikipedia for more info on em), and I do not believe there is a God, but I am not denying the possibility. It would be hypocritical for me to say definitely there is no God. Anything’s possible.

I feel that if God is reading this right now and understands my beliefs, then it would be illogical for Him to have a reason for sending me to Hell. The whole purpose of creating a religion around the basic morals of all living creatures is so that people have a “driving force” to believe. In other words, threatening people that they will be burned for all eternity is a good way to get them to believe. If God is “person” of morals, and if I continue living my life abiding by many of the morals of the Catholic church, then I shouldn’t be sent to Hell. If God exists, I do not believe He could send me to burn for eternity.

The fact that proof of God doesn’t exist is reason enough not to believe.

 

[ricmat]

I feel that if God is reading this right now and understands my beliefs, then it would be illogical for Him to have a reason for sending me to Hell. The whole purpose of creating a religion around the basic morals of all living creatures is so that people have a “driving force” to believe. In other words, threatening people that they will be burned for all eternity is a good way to get them to believe. If God is “person” of morals, and if I continue living my life abiding by many of the morals of the Catholic church, then I shouldn’t be sent to Hell. If God exists, I do not believe He could send me to burn for eternity.

Hell is not a punishment. Hell is a voluntary and freely chosen separation from God. If you choose “not God” all your life, why would you be upset at not being with God for the rest of eternity?

.

 

[LSK]

Hello,

I fail to see how it is possible for Catholics to say “God is real,” and why they completely ignore the thousands of other religions out there.

What makes Catholicism the truly correct religion? You can’t say it’s a matter of faith due to the fact that it’s a matter of faith among ALL other religions, you (Catholics) simply have the popularity advantage.

We do not ignore other religions. We have the Truth. The fact that some people do not accept the Truth does not mean it is not Truth.

We believe that Jesus Christ is True God and True man, that He died and rose from the dead and that there is only One God. We believe that Jesus Christ founded One Church and this is it.

So it is a matter of faith. The fact that you or others do not share that faith or fully in that faith is not an argument for it not being a matter of faith.

It is a matter of faith in Truth.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Hello,

I fail to see how it is possible for Catholics to say “God is real,” and why they completely ignore the thousands of other religions out there.

What makes Catholicism the truly correct religion? You can’t say it’s a matter of faith due to the fact that it’s a matter of faith among ALL other religions, you (Catholics) simply have the popularity advantage.

In words of one syllable :

"One speaks the truth when one says of what is that it is and what is not that it is not;

One does not speak the truth when one says of what is that it is not and of what is not that it is"

–via Peter Kreeft*, Beyond Heaven and Hell *

 

[evilkingln3]

Hell is not a punishment. Hell is a voluntary and freely chosen separation from God. If you choose “not God” all your life, why would you be upset at not being with God for the rest of eternity?

.

umm, Hell is a punishment. That’s a stupid argument even if the Bible might say man chooses where he ends up. I mean, come on, you think I’d choose heaven over hell or hell over heaven?

Also, I’m choosing to say that its extreeeeemely improbable God exists, and I’ll be damned (literally) if I’m sent to Hell for not believing in God. God doesnt need me to believe in Him, why would He? Ugh, theres so much stupidity it’s difficult to address just one thing.

If I can choose where I end up, then I choose heaven. But what happens if I don’t believe in God? Oh, my, I’m sent to be burned for all eternity. Whaddaya know, that sounds a heck of a lot like punishment to me. I’m not choosing to go to Hell, I’m choosing to not believe in God, yet I’m sent to Hell.

 

[evilkingln3]

Also,:

"One speaks the truth when one says of what is that it is and what is not that it is not;

One does not speak the truth when one says of what is that it is not and of what is not that it is"

That’s one of the worst quotes I’ve ever seen, and I will be completely honest in saying that I can’t deduce it. From the looks of it, it is a man attempting to sound intelligent but doing just the opposite (even if the quote makes sense).

 

[ricmat]

umm, Hell is a punishment. That’s a stupid argument even if the Bible might say man chooses where he ends up. I mean, come on, you think I’d choose heaven over hell or hell over heaven?

Also, I’m choosing to say that its extreeeeemely improbable God exists, and I’ll be damned (literally) if I’m sent to Hell for not believing in God. God doesnt need me to believe in Him, why would He? Ugh, theres so much stupidity it’s difficult to address just one thing.

If I can choose where I end up, then I choose heaven. But what happens if I don’t believe in God? Oh, my, I’m sent to be burned for all eternity. Whaddaya know, that sounds a heck of a lot like punishment to me. I’m not choosing to go to Hell, I’m choosing to not believe in God, yet I’m sent to Hell.

The punishment of Hell is not fire, it is being separated from God. Again, if you choose to be separated from God all your life, why would you want to be with God in the afterlife?

Heaven has God. Hell does not. When you say you choose heaven (God), but you also choose not to believe in God, that’s a contradiction.