Page 87 of 89 FirstFirst ... 37778283848586878889 LastLast
Results 1,721 to 1,740 of 1780
  1.    #1721  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    Separately, I don't see that you've answered my earlier question, but of the God that you described, why do you believe in him?
    I'm not sure that we can ever accurately summarize why we love anyone. My relationship with God is because I believe He is out for my best interests. I trust him to reveal what I might need to know in this life to properly develop me for an eternal life. I can't put a handle on the exact reasons why "faith" is easier for some to swallow than for others. While my faith might have been relatively easy, explaining it to others is very hard.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  2. #1722  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I'm not sure that we can ever accurately summarize why we love anyone. My relationship with God is because I believe He is out for my best interests. I trust him to reveal what I might need to know in this life to properly develop me for an eternal life. I can't put a handle on the exact reasons why "faith" is easier for some to swallow than for others. While my faith might have been relatively easy, explaining it to others is very hard.
    Over the course of this entire thread, has any argument for the possibility of a universe without a god persuaded you in the slightest?

    Isn't it among the worst of sins for a catholic to (even for a second) doubt the existence of him?

    Why did you start this thread?
  3. #1723  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Jesus is Christianity 1.0.
    Obviously. That was my point. To qualify as 1.0, one would have had to have followed him first hand.
    The apostles learned from him and taught others. It's Christianity 1.0 because Jesus established a Church.
    Is this your own invention, or has the Catholic Church started a new marketing campaign? In either case, one should really avoid trying to co-opt a software versioning system without understanding what it means. You can only be 1.0 if you studied with Jesus. As I said, Peter was 1.1. By the time Saul/Paul started passing the word around to the Gentiles, you cannot conceivably use any less than version 2.0. Even if he learned the words of Jesus verbatim (which seems unlikely), he still significantly revised the understanding of Christianity at the time.
    The Council of Nicea was to defend heresy.
    Really? How many at the Councils studied with Jesus?
    In fact, most development of doctrine has been the result of defending one heresy or another. In life, we continually look at evidence and learn more. The Church should be no different (other than we have to do this under the guidelines of what the apostles taught and what the Church universally believed.
    You speak of the Church as though it is a single entity. Has the Church ever changed its stance on anything?
    Any Church whose ministers have succeeded from the Apostles and submits to the authority of the successor of Peter is what I call "Christianity 1.0". The Roman rite of the Catholic Church is not the only one.
    How could there be more than one rite if it is still at version 1.0?
    I meant no offense to you.
    I didn't think that you did.
    I seem to have a habit in life or insulting some people by not being what they expect of me. I'm not going to say any more about this now (hopefully ever).
    I expect nothing of you other than for you to be honest with yourself. I would obviously like it if you actually paid attention to what I say and make an honest effort to really understand it.
    It's not an arbitrary collection of texts.
    Only because you submit to the authority of those who chose them. Martin Luther and others obviously saw things a bit differently.
    A systematic process was used to determine which books were and were not canonical. One (sort of strange) benchmark was that the books needed to be acceptable for use in the liturgy.
    If even you acknowledge that the benchmark is sort of strange, that's probably a sign that it wasn't as systematic as you suggest.
    Other books may or may not have had value for other purposes. Some books (such as Gnostic texts) were written to confuse and subvert that Church's teachings. You can believe otherwise, but I believe the Bible not because of itself, but because the Church that defined was established by Jesus (who I believe was "God" incarnate).
    Based on? How many people have your beliefs been filtered through?
    [*]Define dogma.
    Really? Were you a convert?
    [*]If that power is from Jesus and God, I'm willing to go with it. If we prove it wrong, then I think you may have some interesting points for me to consider.
    One cannot prove a negative. Prove the teapot or FSM is wrong.
    You are not the first person to object to my wanting to treat religion scientifically.
    There's probably a reason for that.
    I've always said (in this thread) that faith is necessary for religion. You and I are in agreement. I believe that if these writings and this Church are of God, then they should not fail (as stated in scripture). If they prove themselves then that's a reason for me to give credibility to them as revelation from a God (and by inference, that that God must exist).
    That's not even remotely scientific. It's the antithesis of science.
    They apply "universally within a given set of boundaries". Some will call this statement an oxymoron.
    Some?
    As we got smarter, we were able to question the universality of these three laws.
    We have different ideas of smart as well, obviously.
    Can you tell me a little more about your church now?
    My church is not of this earth.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4.    #1724  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    This isn't meant to come off as caustic, but if their purpose is to guide the church in areas of faith and morals, then either God is immoral or Jesus had some pretty bad ideas about who would best be the representatives to accomplish such goals.

    1. I find it immoral to tell people that using condoms will actually cause them to get HIV/AIDS.
    2. I find it immoral to equate being a woman priest with being a child molester.
    3. I find it immoral to protect child molesters and prevent or hinder proper authorities from being able to take action against them.
    I'm afraid we are first going to have to work a bit to identify where the Church has made the rulings that you speak about above. In the meantime, I'll try to address your comments in a general way. For #1, if we know having sexual relations will result in an HIV infection, we can have discipline to avoid those acts. (Which is what we would do if condoms did not exist.) I don't understand what you are trying to say in #2 (so you definitely need to give me more to work with. I agree with your statement in #3 (as most of us do). I believe scandal exists in the Church and that this is destructive to God's will. The Pope (and every member of the Church) is human and prone to sin. Some are worse than others. Historically there have been good popes and bad ones, but all have been prevented from teaching doctrine that is against God's will.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    I find it repugnant to kick people out of the church (which I believe would, in the eyes of the church, be a sentence of Hell for eternity, right?) for saving a 9 year old's life. (The long story is that she was raped by her step father and impregnated. The doctor that aborted the baby, the mother that allowed it to happen and the girl were all kicked out. The ****** was allowed to stay).
    Again, I need to know more specifics about this situation before I can comment on it. In general, "ex-communication" is an act that people bring on themselves (after being advised about what they are doing to themselves and they continue to do the same things).

    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    Those were acts done on behalf of the church. Not the pope (though I imagine he has a little more pull politically).
    Let's talk about each case individually and see whether the Pope could have done something about each that he did not.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    I'm sure this was all brought up before in the thread, but I find it difficult to comprehend how someone could follow such a church.
    Try being a member of such a Church and having to trust that God will fix anything that is wrong. I suspect that problems still exist (perhaps less so at the diocesan level but within some religious orders that are more autonomous). I'm assured that God (in his judgment and justice) will right every wrong that those in the Church (and us, individually) knowingly do.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  5.    #1725  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    Over the course of this entire thread, has any argument for the possibility of a universe without a god persuaded you in the slightest?
    I have not been convinced by the arguments for the non-existence of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    Isn't it among the worst of sins for a catholic to (even for a second) doubt the existence of him?
    To know that God exists and to purposely reject Him would be a grave sin. A grave sin is one that separates you from God. If we do this, we cannot hide our intentions from God.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    Why did you start this thread?
    God wants us to be as confident about Him as possible. Assuming He exists, I'm assuming he wants me to ask as many questions as I need to be sure that He is who he says he is. It really boils down to me being sure that I've picked the right "religion". So far I have not found sufficient cause that my Church has gotten it wrong (in spite of many Christian friends and agnostics advising me that they feel differently).

    The other major curiosity I had was why many people have differing beliefs from mine. I believe I can better understand others through dialog.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  6. #1726  
    Regarding the 9-year-old: Nine-Year-Old's Abortion Outrages Brazil's Catholic Church - TIME

    Regarding the equating of making a woman a catholic priest and pedophilia, the Vatican had issued a document that explained how it would deal with priest-pedophiles in the future, and on the same document: "it also codified the 'attempted ordination of a woman' to the priesthood as one of the most serious crimes against Church law" - quote from Women priests and sex abuse not equal crimes: Vatican | Reuters. Only after the (obvious) outrage, the church had to clarify it's point that being a woman priest isn't as bad - but they sure as hell still believe that it's a "grave sin"
  7. #1727  
    Also, sudoer, as a catholic, do you believe in transubstantiation?
  8.    #1728  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Obviously. That was my point. To qualify as 1.0, one would have had to have followed him first hand.
    The deposit of faith closed with the death of the last apostle (who was taught by Jesus). Hence "no new features", hence why I called it Christianity 1.0. Clearly one could add "incremental" (or full) versions to signify the development of doctrine. My use of 1.0 was to signify that no additional revelation occurred, only that we've better learned to understand the "software" that we were given.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Is this your own invention, or has the Catholic Church started a new marketing campaign? In either case, one should really avoid trying to co-opt a software versioning system without understanding what it means. You can only be 1.0 if you studied with Jesus. As I said, Peter was 1.1. By the time Saul/Paul started passing the word around to the Gentiles, you cannot conceivably use any less than version 2.0. Even if he learned the words of Jesus verbatim (which seems unlikely), he still significantly revised the understanding of Christianity at the time.
    I understand software versioning. We can agree to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Only because you submit to the authority of those who chose them. Martin Luther and others obviously saw things a bit differently.
    Luther was one in a long line of people who disagreed with the Church. He tried to do what he thought was best but the end result is that his split has been so misunderstood that we now have 38,000 Christian denominations. (The Catholic Church is the numerator, and each division is painful.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Really? How many at the Councils studied with Jesus?
    The church's teachings were initially oral, and many of the most important teachings were codified in Scripture. Much of the understanding of what the church believed can be understood in the context of the writings of the early church fathers. Most non-Catholics who study these writings come to a realization that today's Catholic Church resembles these beliefs than any other Christian Church that they know. Newman is the most notable example of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You speak of the Church as though it is a single entity. Has the Church ever changed its stance on anything?
    Not in the areas of faith and morals defined as dogma. Customs can and have changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    How could there be more than one rite if it is still at version 1.0?
    The Churches were geographically dispersed and each developed customs applicable to their culture that differed (but not theologically).

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I expect nothing of you other than for you to be honest with yourself. I would obviously like it if you actually paid attention to what I say and make an honest effort to really understand it.
    I'm trying to the best of my abilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Really? Were you a convert?
    No, but I can be described as what some people call a revert. I also fellowship with Christians of other denominations (if I think I can learn something from them). They usually take scripture study more seriously than most people who I know in my own Church.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    One cannot prove a negative. Prove the teapot or FSM is wrong.
    I do not care to prove the teapot or the FSM wrong (although I find them more useful for arguing against religion than in understanding it). Please feel free to believe whatever your convictions tell you is right. Just remember to also obey any laws of the communities that you live in.

    PS: I never knew about the teapot and the FSM until I was educated by participants in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    My church is not of this earth.
    Please tell me more!
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  9.    #1729  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    Also, sudoer, as a catholic, do you believe in transubstantiation?
    Yes. I was considering bringing this up when we were discussing miracles. Clearly there is no way to see any difference (in most cases) but there is a book on "Eucharistic Miracles" which discusses many instances where the Eucharist was either abused (or the priest confecting it had doubts) and the Eucharist has bled, etc. I've never purchased that book (largely because I believe this is Jesus and I simply respect this and honor him when I am in His presence.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  10. #1730  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Yes. I was considering bringing this up when we were discussing miracles. Clearly there is no way to see any difference (in most cases) but there is a book on "Eucharistic Miracles" which discusses many instances where the Eucharist was either abused (or the priest confecting it had doubts) and the Eucharist has bled, etc. I've never purchased that book (largely because I believe this is Jesus and I simply respect this and honor him when I am in His presence.

    Ok, then I really only have one more thing to add:
    Occam's razor:
    Which is more likely?
    A cracker, after holding it up and saying a prayer:
    - becomes the actual flesh of a man who was the embodiment of and also a god. In spite of actually becoming the flesh of a god, it has no discernible differences by any scientific means (to a molecular level). This god happens to be the specific god that you believe in, and not any of the other thousands upon thousands of other gods that man has dreamed up.
    - It's still a cracker.

    Wanting something to be true does not actually make it true.

    Now, I'm taking a step back (or will at least attempt to). This has been a fun time (and a helpful way to pass the time on my sick-days), my first foray into "arguing on the internet" - on an existence of god thread no less. Happy discussing!
    Last edited by jmquinn; 09/30/2010 at 09:22 PM. Reason: For clarity
  11.    #1731  
    When you wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I expect nothing of you other than for you to be honest with yourself. I would obviously like it if you actually paid attention to what I say and make an honest effort to really understand it.
    I responded with:
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer
    I'm trying to the best of my abilities.
    Let me add that when I fail you should feel free to remind me (in a PM if you want, or in the thread) of any areas you think I might not be considering as seriously as you would like.

    The caveat is: if you don't believe in objective truth (or if you convince me of the same) we may never be able to see what each of us individually might understand.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  12. #1732  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    The deposit of faith closed with the death of the last apostle (who was taught by Jesus). Hence "no new features", hence why I called it Christianity 1.0.
    Here is where we reach an impasse. If you think the Catholic Church has 'no new features' since the original teachings of Jesus, you either have not studied it, or you are willfully distorting it.
    I understand software versioning. We can agree to disagree.
    No, we cannot. There is either one Church created by Christ, or there isn't. If anything has changed, it _cannot_ be considered 1.0. You are either lying to me or to yourself.
    Luther was one in a long line of people who disagreed with the Church. He tried to do what he thought was best but the end result is that his split has been so misunderstood that we now have 38,000 Christian denominations. (The Catholic Church is the numerator, and each division is painful.)
    You are trying to educate one who apparently knows more about your religion than you do. I am not new to the Catholic Church. I do not say the things I say because I am not educated about it. I was raised Catholic. I attended weekly religion classes taught by a variety of orders (Dominican, Franciscan, Jesuit, etc.). I live in the only state where the local subdivisions are called 'parishes'. Our football team is the Saints. Our state flag is of Catholic origin. etc. etc. etc.
    Please tell me more!
    Why?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #1733  
    I will take a crack at this one... simply because it interests me.

    When I was in the service and doing my combat tours I took an interest in a number of different tribes we ran across during our patrols in different areas of the world. Each of these tribes had their own kind of religion, normally some iteration of an earth religion or a mother religion. The interesting thing to note was that even though they are slowly becoming globalized, they still hold on to a lot of the ritualistic elements of their lives. The making of taro bread... things they do before fishing... rituals performed after killing an animal to thank him for his sacrifice. Its the thing that made me want to go to college and study to become an ethnologist (I ended up getting 2 bachelors in engineering and a masters but thats another story altogether). These things... they arent done to be physical manifestations of faith... they are done to make one feel closer to faith I think.

    It reminds me a lot of the movement exercises one performs when training for martial arts... it becomes almost a ritual in that you find a center of yourself in the movement, a trancelike state when you can step closer to perfecting your art and making it more a part of you and less a simple exercise. I realize it might be a bit of a leap for some reading this post... but I think the ritualized portions of a religion serve sort of this same purpose. It is a moment when you work toward taking it in and making it a part of you, internalizing a piece of it.

    Then again... I really think god is in movement, being true to ones base nature... the act of being man. Repetitive yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    Ok, then I really only have one more thing to add:
    Occam's razor:
    Which is more likely?
    A cracker, after holding it up and saying a prayer:
    - becomes the actual flesh of a man who was the embodiment of and also a god. In spite of actually becoming the flesh of a god, it has no discernible differences by any scientific means (to a molecular level). This god happens to be the specific god that you believe in, and not any of the other thousands upon thousands of other gods that man has dreamed up.
    - It's still a cracker.

    Wanting something to be true does not actually make it true.

    Now, I'm taking a step back (or will at least attempt to). This has been a fun time (and a helpful way to pass the time on my sick-days), my first foray into "arguing on the internet" - on an existence of god thread no less. Happy discussing!
  14.    #1734  
    You ended your last post with:
    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    Now, I'm taking a step back (or will at least attempt to). This has been a fun time (and a helpful way to pass the time on my sick-days), my first foray into "arguing on the internet" - on an existence of god thread no less. Happy discussing!
    These discussions are pretty taxing on me. My preference would have been to take the easy way out and just let this thread die a natural death. I've gotten a lot busier than when I started it. I happened to be home today and I'm glad that I was able to participate in discussions with you. You showed a good example of how to dialog with others (and hopefully at least better understand why they believe some of the things that they do). I'm sure I could have done a better job but I'm a simple layman with little (good) formal training. My guess is that you are now feeling well enough to return to work tomorrow. Good luck (and feel free to become a resource in this thread for others who might have questions).

    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    Ok, then I really only have one more thing to add:
    Occam's razor:
    Which is more likely?
    A cracker, after holding it up and saying a prayer:
    - becomes the actual flesh of a man who was the embodiment of and also a god. In spite of actually becoming the flesh of a god, it has no discernible differences by any scientific means (to a molecular level). This god happens to be the specific god that you believe in, and not any of the other thousands upon thousands of other gods that man has dreamed up.
    - It's still a cracker.

    Wanting something to be true does not actually make it true.
    I have not invented any of what God has revealed in the Bible. The more I read the Bible (and learning what other denominations believe that it says), the more and more convinced I am that Jesus offered himself as the bread of life and that the disciples believed that this was really his body, and that Jesus instructed us to "Do this in memory of Me." If the Eucharist were really just a cracker, God would be extremely upset with me for "idol worshiping". I've made attempts to test the Church which makes these claims.

    I will appeal that you read the book that I mentioned on "Eucharistic Miracles" as it has scientifically proven that hosts involved in some of those miracles showed the changed effects that you are looking for. I want only whatever God chooses for me to understand. Your understanding may come at a later time (or not at all). This does not mean that God does not love you. If you are invincibly ignorant, God will judge you based on your life. (From what I can see, you are probably more likely to enter Heaven than I may be.)

    peace,
    --
    Bob
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  15.    #1735  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluewanders View Post
    These things... they arent done to be physical manifestations of faith... they are done to make one feel closer to faith I think.
    In the case of receiving Jesus in the Eucharist, clearly this brings us closer to God (provided we receive Him worthily). This means having no unrepented grave sin and fasting as the Church custom dictates. The fasting requirement is very lenient (one hour before receiving the Eucharist, which usually translates to about 15 minutes before Mass begins. I have some friends who attend Mass daily and receive communion. These people invariably have a stronger faith than I do (so yes, bluewanders, I'd say your observation has some basis in real understanding of the true God who is somehow written upon the hearts of many).
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  16.    #1736  
    It's been a long day for me. If I still owe anyone a response, I've forgotten you. Please just remind me again. good night, -- Bob
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  17.    #1737  
    Toby, I noticed that I did not address your most recent comments. I need to preface this response by saying you and I should be mindful of any "temperature" that might be developing in our exchange. I sense frustration in you and it looks like you are losing the ability to maintain respectful communication. This concerns me. I'm pointing this out because I would do so if I were observing the same problem cropping up among any two other forum participants. I regret that this problem appears to be happening between you and me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Here is where we reach an impasse. If you think the Catholic Church has 'no new features' since the original teachings of Jesus, you either have not studied it, or you are willfully distorting it.
    My statement was that the deposit of faith ended with the death of the last apostle. I'm not distorting anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You are trying to educate one who apparently knows more about your religion than you do. I am not new to the Catholic Church. I do not say the things I say because I am not educated about it. I was raised Catholic. I attended weekly religion classes taught by a variety of orders (Dominican, Franciscan, Jesuit, etc.). I live in the only state where the local subdivisions are called 'parishes'. Our football team is the Saints. Our state flag is of Catholic origin. etc. etc. etc.
    Attending weekly religion class is normal among all Catholic children/students. I'll trust you that you were taught what you needed to know, but you appear to have willingly renounced the Catholic faith you were taught. I would hope this was because you do not understand the Church. In any case, this is not for me to argue with your decision. Just please be respectful that others may have studied the same religion and reached conclusions that differ from yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You are either lying to me or to yourself.
    If someone disagrees with you, calling them a liar might be one way to attempt an end to the conversation (but that's "controlling behavior" at best). I'm going to ask that you and I consider suspending our conversation (at least temporarily) or that we find ways to communicate that do not convey any disrespect or name calling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    There is either one Church created by Christ, or there isn't.
    That's pretty obvious (and we obviously disagree). If you care to continue our conversation, I would like to understand how your animosity toward the Catholic Church developed (but only if you feel willing to share that).

    Your call on the next step,
    --
    Bob
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  18. #1738  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Toby, I noticed that I did not address your most recent comments.
    You would have probably been better off getting some sleep.
    I need to preface this response by saying you and I should be mindful of any "temperature" that might be developing in our exchange.
    I'm always quite mindful of such things. You should also be mindful that you don't read any temperature into where it isn't present.
    I sense frustration in you and it looks like you are losing the ability to maintain respectful communication.
    Perhaps it's because we have a different view of what respectful communication is.
    This concerns me. I'm pointing this out because I would do so if I were observing the same problem cropping up among any two other forum participants. I regret that this problem appears to be happening between you and me.
    There's no problem from my perspective. It's an internet forum. We're not always going to see eye to eye.
    Attending weekly religion class is normal among all Catholic children/students.
    Except that it would appear the content of those classes is not necessarily uniform.
    I'll trust you that you were taught what you needed to know, but you appear to have willingly renounced the Catholic faith you were taught.
    That depends on how one defines renounce or faith I suppose.
    I would hope this was because you do not understand the Church.
    I understand it quite well.
    In any case, this is not for me to argue with your decision. Just please be respectful that others may have studied the same religion and reached conclusions that differ from yours.
    I am respectful of others that reach different conclusions than mine. I have a fair number of family and friends that are still practicing Catholics. You assume much that is not in evidence.
    If someone disagrees with you, calling them a liar might be one way to attempt an end to the conversation (but that's "controlling behavior" at best).
    I'm not attempting to control you or end the conversation. I'm saying that you are lying to one of us if you believe the Catholic Church is Christianity 1.0. I don't get the impression that you're lying to me, although I have to admit it's possible. Something to ponder...where did you get the term Christianity 1.0? Is it part of the teachings of the Church these days? Or is it simply an attempt to rationalize your belief to yourself, and make it seem less like pure faith?
    I'm going to ask that you and I consider suspending our conversation (at least temporarily) or that we find ways to communicate that do not convey any disrespect or name calling.
    That would have to start with some honest and deep introspection on your part.
    That's pretty obvious (and we obviously disagree). If you care to continue our conversation, I would like to understand how your animosity toward the Catholic Church developed (but only if you feel willing to share that).
    I don't have any animosity toward the Catholic Church. All I'm saying is that I've never heard the Catholic Church claim to be Christianity 1.0. It does claim to be the Church established by Jesus through Peter and later teachings of Saul/Paul. I have zero problems with that. What I do not accept as remotely possible is a valid claim that the Church has not changed or deviated significantly since the time of Jesus. I've never met any other Catholic who tried to make such a claim.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19.    #1739  
    @Toby,
    I used the term "Christianity 1.0" as a literary device in our discussion. It's not a term that I've ever used before and it may not be a good term to use going forward either (unless I fully qualify what I mean). My purpose for using it early in our discussions was to describe a principle without getting needlessly attacked early in the conversation because I hold Catholic beliefs. I certainly could call the Church something more like 5.0 but that also would have been equally inaccurate (in the opposite direction).

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You would have probably been better off getting some sleep.
    I did get my sleep (shortly after my posting).

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I don't have any animosity toward the Catholic Church. All I'm saying is that I've never heard the Catholic Church claim to be Christianity 1.0. It does claim to be the Church established by Jesus through Peter and later teachings of Saul/Paul. I have zero problems with that. What I do not accept as remotely possible is a valid claim that the Church has not changed or deviated significantly since the time of Jesus. I've never met any other Catholic who tried to make such a claim.
    I will take you at your word (and I agree that not all CCD programs are equal). Most that I've seen were so watered down that they really should not have been called Catholic. I'm glad that yours worked out better than most.

    Many Catholic converts (from other branches of Christianity) have commented that it was the writings of the Early Church Fathers that convinced them that the Catholic Church of today is more like the Church back then that what they were seeing practiced in their former congregations. Maybe this explanation clarifies my thinking a bit more. I clearly never meant to deceive (myself or anyone else).

    I also believe choice of religion (or lack thereof) is a deeply personal matter, but one that we each should be willing to defend if asked or inquired about.

    Let me close by saying I'm more interested in learning about others' faiths than trying to teach mine. Everyone (including former Catholics) should feel willing to share their views on the existence (or not) of a God in their lives.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  20.    #1740  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmquinn View Post
    Which is more likely?
    Here is a free talk for anyone is interested in learning more about the Eucharist.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!

Posting Permissions