Where is the confusion? There is no confusion. I said something that offends you. Deal with it. I'm not going to change my mind. I'm not going to let you or anyone nag me until I say I don't think the ritual of the Catholic Church is a pile a manure. I don't like the Catholic church because I think it's bad, a relic that does more harm than good. I've said why I believe that. That was the point of the thread wasn't it? He asked me what I thought, didn't he? I wasn't addressing your thread, was I? I was responding to a thread by a nominal Catholic who asked what we think. I never ask anyone to adopt my opinions, and I never say my opinions are the exclusive way. Be as mad or as hurt as you want for as long as you want. I invite you to care as little about my opinion of your religion as I do your opinion of mine.
First off, let me say I respect your posistion although I do not agree with it. I agree 100% regarding apostolic teaching. I also believe that when Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven, which is where I have a problem with the Christian baptism. If you read Acts 2:38 you will see how Peter told everyone the way of salvation and baptism . The Bible never uses the word "Trinity" Acts 2:38,41-42 Authorized King James Version/ 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of Sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. I believe the Bible to be inspired truth without error, even to the very words, and that it is therefore the inspired word of God. I believe that the one God who revealed Himself in the Old Testament as Jehovah revealed himself in His Son, Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was and is God. In other words, Jesus is the one true God manifested in flesh, for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (John 1:1-14; I Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9). While fully God, Jesus was also fully man, possessing a full and true humanity. He was both God and man. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is God with us and in us. Thus God is manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration.
Doctor, it's your professionalism I respect. --- a teeming and masochist Bill Murray, awaiting dentist Steve Martin, THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS
I guess the confusion comes from statements where you say others aren't respecting your views after you call one set of beliefs a pile of manure. others have argued with you over your beliefs...but i've yet to see anyone insult you for those beliefs. i guess that's the confusion i'm getting. i agreed with you on some of your assessments about the Catholic Church...i share some of those issues with you...but a bit of respect for others is generally a good thing, in my view. of course, that may not be your view...so i should respect your decision to call the views of others a pile of manure, i guess. by the way...i'm not catholic...and i'm not insulted...i'm sure if you tried hard enough you could make me mad...but i'm not mad in the least. the thread isn't about my faith, specifically.
I'm not insulted or offended at what others think of my beliefs. If I pose a question, it is likely rhetorical. As in, "why shouldn't I be likewise offended if you reject my beliefs?" The point is parity, not rejection. I am not offended by people who think my beliefs hogwash. I am offended when they suggest I might need to look up any word they might have in their vocabulary. My point on parity is that anyone who believes the core beliefs of the Catholics church has to believe my beliefs are a steaming pile of whatever it was we were talking about. Some beliefs are fairly incapable of being reconciled, so the difference has to be declared and accepted as existing. to accept one is to reject the other. I don't understand how anyone can take offense that someone else rejects their religion. Isn't that the most presumptuous of beliefs? That others must give our God deference?
It's almost like we're having two entirely separate conversations. I'm not saying that you can't critique the church...I'm not saying that you can't point out where it runs away from scripture...I'm not saying you can't tell me that you think the Bible is really not inerrant. I'm saying that it doesn't do much for the conversation to throw out inflammatory statements like, "pile of manure," to describe someone else's belief system. I think we're having a pointless discussion at this point...probably time for me to move on from it.
crap. poo, isht, manure any way you sling it, it's a pejorative and clearly so what if I make it sound like one of those pompous British accented voice overs for the History Channel? alas, the gaudy, bejewelled, deaf pontiff riding hunched over and virtually clueless in his bullet proof limousine is a metaphor for the ancient ritual-inculcated monstrosity called THE CATHOLIC CHURCH better than manure?
That and he talks about humans like to collect, categorize, and share our bodily leavings which are included but not limited to: fingernails/toenails, dead skin, $hit, moles, cancerous growth...etc he goes into VIVID detail....funny if ya like potty-humor which I admit to with zeal!
It's funny that he thinks I'm offended. You call the church manure and horse crap and you yourself sling it as conversation. I think there was something about taking something out of your own eye before you point at it in another's. I shouldn't have even said that, but twhy77 is a mere screen name, not me. I'm given a thread where the basic premise is-- If you are Catholic, defend yourself, which I'm more than inclined to do, I think one should be able to defend their religion. MadMax is not mad and FriendlyFan has yet to be funny. He thinks he's down right clever. Brad Pitt to Ed Norton: How's that working out for you? Norton: How's what? Pitt: Being clever? Norton: Oh it's good. Bottom line: Don't accuse another religion of only having enough religion to hate and not enough to love, when you yourself have not been up to the task to do the latter. Gotta love a cynic, even if they are a cynic. Peace out FF.
You know you're doing a pretty good job at describing the basic structure of the Trinity. I just warn you about Modalism, or as we called it in Systematics, the Transformer God. Here's a link http://www.catholic.com/library/God_in_Three_Persons.asp
"I believe the Bible to be inspired truth without error, even to the very words, and that it is therefore the inspired word of God." Okay-- ROCKSS....You are biting off quite a chunck by saying that; Does that mean if you have children you take them to the edge of the village and stone them if they sass you? Or can we beat you about the head untill you die for cutting your beard? Is this what you mean by "inspired by truth without error"? just curious...
Sounds almost Buddhist... The concept of emptiness: There is no phenomenon in the universe that is not interconnected with us, from a pebble resting at the bottom of the ocean, to the movement of a galaxy millions of light years away. Walt Whitman said, I believe a blade of grass is no less than the journey-work of the stars.... "I am large, I contain multitudes". The Kingdom of God, according to the Gospels, is like a grain, a seed, a mustard seed, exactly the same kind of language. The Kingdom of God is contained in a mustard seed. If you know how to do, to take care of the mustard seed, the mustard seed will become a tree, and all the birds in the cosmos can come and take refuge. The Kingdom of God is within you. The Buddha realm, the Avatamsaka realm, is within you. You need only to touch it. All generations of ancestors are within you: blood ancestors and spiritual ancestors. Why do you want to look for the Buddha, for Jesus, somewhere else? God is not the old man in the sky. God is alive in you. The Kingdom of God is also in you; just touch and make it manifest.
Great Post and I don't think you are disagreeing with me...it's exactly what I'm trying to say. In a way getting in tune with a mustard seed, is getting in tune with Christ...i.e. the whole idea of baptism by desire of which I was speaking about is centered around this idea. Of course, I believe the fullness of the faith (i.e. the precepts established in revelation and scripture) are drawn out to their neccesary and fruitful conclusion within the realm of the Catholic church, but having that first step, that first desire is awesome...truly awesome.... To quote St. Athanasius, God became man so that man could become God....
I need to come back to the Hangout forum more often, (although not when I have other tasks to be doing as I do now). I think it's interesting because theologically, I'm probably not too far off from Friendly Fan. But I disagree with him on the value of ritual, and in that point, I think I'm more emotionally aligned with most of the other posters here. Ritual for me, rather than being a misguided crutch, is how people affirm their beliefs and values, and in extension, themselves. Certainly there are problems of legalism and power in the application of rituals, but I still have a fundamental respect for people in their attempts to make themselves whole, regardless of whether or not I agree since I too am struggling in the attempt to make myself whole. FF, on the other hand, seems to have only scorn for this. Returning to the original topic, others have already mentioned some of the issues that many Protestants have with Catholicism: alleged deification of non-Trinity figures such as Mary, saints, etc., (institutionalized) hierarchy of spiritual authority, essentialism (correct term?) of rituals and less attention on personal belief. (For the record, I'm just stating what I think are criticisms, not arguing for or against any) Groups that have much in common tend to fight more bitterly I think because the proximity is viewed as a threat. I think among mainstream Protestants, there's more antagonism toward Mormons than there is toward Muslims. I wish I could express myself more clearly on this, but I'm getting pretty sleepy and having trouble thinking straight, so I'll stop myself here.
I want to apologize ... FOR LEAVING "dookie" off my list of synonyms of manure. you don't believe my religion. does that make you a heretic? or a cynic? a disbeliever? an infidel? a lost soul? hell no. my god, like me, isn't that picky.
just remember, my God is going to save everyone, and he doesn't even require people to be on his team or anything. You don't have to believe in him, because, like a good parent he always believes in you. so in spite of my annoying contenance and some of yours, he's gonna take care of us when we die. he probably laughs his azz off every time someone mentions religion.
If I am not mistaked the Catholic Church believes in the Trinity which is a 3 person Godhead, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit or simply 3 seperate entities. I do not believe this, as I believe they are all one although I appreciate your warnings. I can quote many scriptures refering to this although I was just sharing a few points I do not agree with. You seem very grounded in your faith as am I am always looking for different point of views even though I may not agree with them.
Your speaking of the Old Testament in which the dispensation was "The Law". When Jesus died on the cross we entered into the dispensation known as "Grace". I do believe what is said in the Old Testament although we are now under "Grace" and the same practices do not apply. I will be the first to admit I may not understand every scripture although I find if I keep studying the Bible I will come to an understanding of the meaning and reasoning behind it. It is also very important {to me at least} to be able to cross refrence scriptures to ensure I do not take them out of context. I am always amazed at prophecy in the Old Testament that is then fulfilled in the New Testament.
ROCKSS- The Catholic Church believes there is one Godhead, and three persons.... Which is basically what you were describing..... EDIT: Hey ROCKSS, I found this simple explanation of the Catholic Trinity, hope it helps... The Trinity Explained MARIO DERKSEN Lots of people (Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Agnostics, and Mormons, for example) have difficulty understanding the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, the fact that God is one Being in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Some say this would mean there are three Gods. Not so. What I would like to do now is try to shed some light on the dogma of the Trinity, to make it more comprehensible. There is only one God. Yet, we believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. The Church and the Bible affirm both statements. How does this go together? God is one Being, but this Being consists of three Persons. Not many people can find a good down-to-earth analogy to the Trinity; they don't know what to compare it to. Of course, it is impossible to make the Trinity completely understandable, because it is a mystery, just as is the Incarnation. So, the following analogies in no way are supposed to "prove" the Trinity (which is impossible rationally); they are merely to aid in understanding the dogma. Analogy #1 - The Trinity and the Family Consider a family. A family must consist of at least a mother, a father, and a son or a daughter in order to be a family, correct? Altogether, they are a family, yet each individual is a person. That fact does not undermine their being only one family. The point where this analogy fails is here: while all three individuals of a family are a family altogether, they are not a family each on his own. However, Jesus, for example, is completely God by Himself, even without considering the Father and the Holy Ghost. Analogy #2 - The Trinity and Chemistry Let's look for a chemical formula. What is water? It's H-2-O, right? Right. What's ice? Hmmm.....it's H-2-O as well. And what's steam? It, too, is H-2-O. This should make us think. Here we have three different things, yet they're all the same. The substance is always the same. In our analogy, it is H-2-O. Transposed to the Trinity, the "substance" is God. The forms of the substance are, in our analogy, water, steam, and ice. In the Trinity, they are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So if you can see that H-2-O can be three things, and yet one, then there should be no further difficulty to realize the same is true for God. We can also just take each form by itself: is water alone H-2-O? Yes. Steam? Yes. Ice? Yes. The same is true for God: the Father by Himself, the Son by Himself, and the Holy Ghost by Himself are all God. The point where this analogy fails is here: all three forms (water, ice, and steam) would, in order to fit the analogy perfectly, have to be coexistent, as opposed to one-at-a-time, which they always are necessarily. God is one Substance, and He is all three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) "coexistentially," that is, at the same time. This is not true for the substance H-2-O, which can only be EITHER water OR steam OR ice at one time. That is the weak point of the analogy. Further Insight Apologist Frank Sheed, in his book Theology For Beginners, put it this way (pp. 33-36): ...God utters a word [John 1:1]. ... So it is a word in the mind of God, not sounding outwardly as our words sound, akin rather to a thought or an idea. What idea produced in God's mind could possibly be God? Christian thinking saw early that it could be only the idea God has of himself. The link between having a son and having an idea of oneself is that both are ways of producing likeness. ... ecause God is infinite, eternal, all-powerful, hid idea of himself is infinite, eternal, all-powerful. Because God is God, his idea is God. ... The Father knows and loves; so his idea knows and loves. In other words, the idea is a person ..., for it can know and love. The thinker and the idea are distinct, the one is not the other, Father and Son are two persons. But they are not separate. ... Father and Son love each other ... . [T]hey unite to express their love and ... [this] expression is a third divine person. In the Son, the Father utters his self-knowledge; in the Holy Spirit, Father and Son utter their mutual love. Their love is infinite; its expression cannot be less. ... As the one great operation of spirit, knowing, produces the second person, so the other, loving, produces the third.
Dude, are you having an argument with a brick wall? I've never said you were a heretic, or any of that crap. You've still yet to provide us with any tenents of your faith except for the fact that you think God will save everyone....to which point I never quite disagreed with.... There is this theological notion thrown out by Hans Urs Von Balthazar, this German Priest, who raises the question that we seriously have to think about the fact that God very well could save us all. I think there is a lot of truth to that notion, God being ultimately merciful and all. However, I have slight contentions with the acceptance of this sanctifying grace, because some people very well could flat out not accept salvation. Thats the beauty of free will.... Do you think the human soul does not have free will? So, I urge you not to stereotype Chrisitanity in to a whole bunch of fire and brimstone preachers. I leave you with the prayer of St. Francis, whose imitatio Christo led to a beatific vision. Believe that if you want or not, but read his prayer, which is one of the most amazing things I have read.... Lord, make me an instrument of your peace, Where there is hatred, let me sow love; ...where there is injury, pardon; ...where there is doubt, faith; ...where there is despair, hope; ...where there is darkness, light; ...where there is sadness, joy; O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek ...to be consoled as to console; ...to be understood as to understand; ...to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; ...it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; ...and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
