So if it doesn’t have to be linear, and it can be reversed, do you think it’s possible for cause and effect to be simultaneous? Or for them to cause each other?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Forlife wrote:
<<< What if Einstein told you that biologically, it actually was possible?[/quote]
I’d buy him a drink, because I thought he was dead and obviously he’s way passed being lucid.[/quote]LOL!!! Well done Chris!!!
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Christ’s message of love. >>>[/quote]Christ didn’t bring a message of love. He brought a message of redemption and judgment in fulfillment of almost 2000 years of promise and prophecy.
John 3:16-19 ESV
[quote]forlife wrote:
So if it doesn’t have to be linear, and it can be reversed, do you think it’s possible for cause and effect to be simultaneous? Or for them to cause each other?[/quote]
Be simultaneous? Absolutely, 100%. Perhaps I have done a bad job, but I have been eluding to that for a long time.
The EPR paradox would be an example of that. Despite it’s name, I don’t think it’s a paradox. I am pretty sure there is a reasonable explanation for it. I just don’t know what that is.
Can the effect act on the cause yes, but its a separate event, in or out of time.
You can get poison ivy, while at the same time killing the plant, but those are two separate events.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Christ’s message of love. >>>[/quote]Christ didn’t bring a message of love. He brought a message of redemption and judgment in fulfillment of almost 2000 years of promise and prophecy.
John 3:16-19 ESV
[/quote]
Christ did not bring a message of love? Are you sure you’ve actually read the New Testament? What is the greatest commandment? What is the promise if you do those?
You know, in the end I think you are a coward. You never answer the hard questions? Why? Chris and I ask you questions, forlife, asks you questions, all you do is avoid them. Why? What are you afraid of? Why can you not honestly answer questions?
Anybody can insult and offer criticism, why can you not answer questions?
You ask what are you going to do with me? I ask what am I to do with you? You are a coward. I have answered every challenge honestly you have avoided every challenge you can, why? Are you not certain of you you espouse to believe?
I challenge you now answer all the questions you have been asked and quit avoiding them. If you want me to change my ways you better be damn sure of what you are talking about. I am offended by your weakness here. Do better. Are you certain of your faith? Prove it. We’re grown men we can take it.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - if the bible might be full of historical inaccuracies, and God may or may not have spoken directly to the founders of Christianity, what makes Catholicism the best way to communicate with the almighty? If “God” and “Allah” are in fact the same thing, why one over the other?[/quote]
That is an excellent question. So give me a little time to do it justice.
There is no might. There are some historical inaccuracies in the bible; there are also some historical accuracies in the bible. It depends on where and what the part your talking about, who it was written by, for and the particular books purpose. You have the law books, the historical books, you have poetry that has some prophesy, strictly prophesy, gospels, and epistles.
Where you are going to find the most accurate historical information is in the historical books and the epistles. Now the historical books aren’t perfect in terms of precision they are more or less correct. Keep in mind these are thousands of years old and are renderings of oral traditions. .
The items of history in the epistles that show up in the epistles are probably the most accurate as they are describing current events of the time.
The gospels oldest gospel (Mark) was written about 47 - 51 years after the death of Christ and most of the folks who knew Jesus personally were croaking off. So they we definitely trying to get info down before they were all gone. So they fall into the category of being more or less correct in terms of precision. Now the events of the gospels are accurate events, the precise timeline may be suspect, but it also depends on whether the author is using the Jewish vs. Roman calendar, or mixing the two and who they got their info from. The Gospel of John is the only one thought to be written by an actual apostle or dictated closely by John (the only non-martyred apostle, btw). However, some of the events seem to be out of order and it could be the result of irresponsibly handling, which seemed to be a problem. There seems to be pages missing from Mark as well. Mark is thought to have been sourced to Peter, either by scribes close to him that assembled his various tellings or flat dictated. From the gospels, general timeline is really good enough, it’s Jesus’s morality, teaching and stuff he did are what’s important.
The epistles give instruction on faith and morality and how to live in the â??New Covenenant’. The historic events that occur in there tend to be current events and therefore are likely to be the most accurate, but there isn’t that much history, that’s not the point.
Going back to OT, in the beginning you have the story of a people and where they came from. Then you have the law. Then you have the history of the people, then you have the poets and prophetsâ?¦In the history parts, as stated before is going to be more or less correct in terms of pin point accuracy. The law books I have no doubt that the authors took some liberties to give it a little extra oomph. But they do contain some historical facts, but their purpose was to lay down the law. As far as the prophets were concern, were they right, well they predicted the coming of Jesus and that the Jews would lose and get back their land. Both things happened so judge for your self.
So that’s the bible. But why Cathlocism? Well, if you believe Jesus is the Son of God, and you want to be apart of the church he set up, it’s what became Catholicism. You can start from any ordained priest or bishop and follow the chain of ordination all the way back to the apostles and Peter which can be traced to Matthew 16:18 which states the following: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Now the protestants complain a lot about the placement of that comma. Trying to state that Jesus was referring to himself as the rock he called himself the â??corner stone’ , but â??Peter’ means: â??Petros (“stone”), which is related to petra (“rock”). So it’s a stretch to say that Jesus meant something else. That’s a lot of pressure to put on one little tiny comma. Bottom line, the original Christian Church was what we now call the Roman Catholic Church. Early on, the orthodox traditions broke off because of politics and haggling, but maintained the apostolic tradition and there roots also trace directly to the apostles too. The protestant came 1500 years later and broke with apostolic tradition, removed books from the bible and changed ultimately what it meant to be faithful. Martin Luther was fighting corruption at the time and the church nor I condemn him for it. He was kicked out and he should not have been. Now some other â??reformists’ tried to take things in different directions that Martin Luther for who knows why.
To sum it up, why Catholic? Because it was the first and Jesus established it in scripture. Everything else was done by men. The only protestant tradition that claims divine inspiration is Mormonismâ?¦.If you want to be faithful, why not be the one that can trace it’s roots directly to biblical times? It’s a matter of history and fact.
BTW, I hope your not taking this as me trying to convert you, I just wanted to thoroghly answer your question…You do what ever you want.[/quote]
That was a damn good answer, thank you.
However, I do feel it more answers the question of “Why catholic and not another denomination of christianity?”
Do you consider other religions to be other ways of communicating with God, with different names? Even religions that do not recognize Jesus as the son of god?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, do you believe it’s possible for a son to be older than his father?[/quote]
Ha, trick question. My uncle’s father is younger than him, but his father is his son and priest. But biologically, no.[/quote]
What if Einstein told you that biologically, it actually was possible?[/quote]
I’d buy him a drink, because I thought he was dead and obviously he’s way passed being lucid.[/quote]
Ha. Well you get my point. According to the theory of relativity, it actually is possible for the biological father to be younger than his son.
Which is why I don’t buy these reductionist arguments that attempt to prove there must be a god. We don’t live in Newton’s narrow universe any more. There doesn’t have to be an ultimate cause with a linear string of effects. Einstein proved how very little we actually know about how the universe works.[/quote]
Okay, I know how Einstein’s theory of relativity works, but I’m not sure how using the theory it would be possible for that to happen. Can you demonstrate for a young man how that is possible?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - if the bible might be full of historical inaccuracies, and God may or may not have spoken directly to the founders of Christianity, what makes Catholicism the best way to communicate with the almighty? If “God” and “Allah” are in fact the same thing, why one over the other?[/quote]
That is an excellent question. So give me a little time to do it justice.
There is no might. There are some historical inaccuracies in the bible; there are also some historical accuracies in the bible. It depends on where and what the part your talking about, who it was written by, for and the particular books purpose. You have the law books, the historical books, you have poetry that has some prophesy, strictly prophesy, gospels, and epistles.
Where you are going to find the most accurate historical information is in the historical books and the epistles. Now the historical books aren’t perfect in terms of precision they are more or less correct. Keep in mind these are thousands of years old and are renderings of oral traditions. .
The items of history in the epistles that show up in the epistles are probably the most accurate as they are describing current events of the time.
The gospels oldest gospel (Mark) was written about 47 - 51 years after the death of Christ and most of the folks who knew Jesus personally were croaking off. So they we definitely trying to get info down before they were all gone. So they fall into the category of being more or less correct in terms of precision. Now the events of the gospels are accurate events, the precise timeline may be suspect, but it also depends on whether the author is using the Jewish vs. Roman calendar, or mixing the two and who they got their info from. The Gospel of John is the only one thought to be written by an actual apostle or dictated closely by John (the only non-martyred apostle, btw). However, some of the events seem to be out of order and it could be the result of irresponsibly handling, which seemed to be a problem. There seems to be pages missing from Mark as well. Mark is thought to have been sourced to Peter, either by scribes close to him that assembled his various tellings or flat dictated. From the gospels, general timeline is really good enough, it’s Jesus’s morality, teaching and stuff he did are what’s important.
The epistles give instruction on faith and morality and how to live in the â??New Covenenant’. The historic events that occur in there tend to be current events and therefore are likely to be the most accurate, but there isn’t that much history, that’s not the point.
Going back to OT, in the beginning you have the story of a people and where they came from. Then you have the law. Then you have the history of the people, then you have the poets and prophetsâ?¦In the history parts, as stated before is going to be more or less correct in terms of pin point accuracy. The law books I have no doubt that the authors took some liberties to give it a little extra oomph. But they do contain some historical facts, but their purpose was to lay down the law. As far as the prophets were concern, were they right, well they predicted the coming of Jesus and that the Jews would lose and get back their land. Both things happened so judge for your self.
So that’s the bible. But why Cathlocism? Well, if you believe Jesus is the Son of God, and you want to be apart of the church he set up, it’s what became Catholicism. You can start from any ordained priest or bishop and follow the chain of ordination all the way back to the apostles and Peter which can be traced to Matthew 16:18 which states the following: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Now the protestants complain a lot about the placement of that comma. Trying to state that Jesus was referring to himself as the rock he called himself the â??corner stone’ , but â??Peter’ means: â??Petros (“stone”), which is related to petra (“rock”). So it’s a stretch to say that Jesus meant something else. That’s a lot of pressure to put on one little tiny comma. Bottom line, the original Christian Church was what we now call the Roman Catholic Church. Early on, the orthodox traditions broke off because of politics and haggling, but maintained the apostolic tradition and there roots also trace directly to the apostles too. The protestant came 1500 years later and broke with apostolic tradition, removed books from the bible and changed ultimately what it meant to be faithful. Martin Luther was fighting corruption at the time and the church nor I condemn him for it. He was kicked out and he should not have been. Now some other â??reformists’ tried to take things in different directions that Martin Luther for who knows why.
To sum it up, why Catholic? Because it was the first and Jesus established it in scripture. Everything else was done by men. The only protestant tradition that claims divine inspiration is Mormonismâ?¦.If you want to be faithful, why not be the one that can trace it’s roots directly to biblical times? It’s a matter of history and fact.
BTW, I hope your not taking this as me trying to convert you, I just wanted to thoroghly answer your question…You do what ever you want.[/quote]
Great story! Sounds just like a story of man, not one dictated by God and “divinely inspired”.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s interesting to watch you guys draw lines in the sand and argue about such things that we do not (and may never) know. We are very far from unlocking the secrets to the universe (or universes, or all of creation for that matter).
To watch you guys draw battle lines over infinite regressions, movers, causes, etc., is a fools errand and an exercise in philosophy only. And at the end of the day, you all may be arguing over nothing more than the words of man struggling to find his place in this life.
Firstly, you need to believe in “the divinely inspired word” and that God has not spoken to anyone since the bronze age and, that he never spoke prior to Judaism or Christianity. And then you need to believe that the all-powerful needs a literary agent (man) to communicate with his creation.
I don’t know the answers, but as someone not dogmatically tied to one belief or the other, I can see the forest thru the trees a bit better than some of you. I think in any search for truth, you need to abandon your preconceived notions of what you have become comfortable with and begin the journey anew, critically evaluating all claims in their entirety.
I read and consider these claims and see the hand of man at every single turn, where apparently many of you see the hand of God. Anyway, just my opinion. But the debates about the universe are clearly ridiculous. As we sit, the universe could easily be anything you can imagine. We just don’t know. [/quote]
Are you suggesting we give up and not try? That would be a fools errand.
Philosophy is the core behind all disciplines. It all started with a philosophical question which then launched in to independent study. Further Philosophical truths if they are indeed truths cannot be violated, by anything. If they are then they the argument was flawed.
The cosmological argument form is valid and solid until proven otherwise. The guy who originally came up with it (Aristotle) was not familiar with divinely inspired doctrine which in itself is intriguing. It’s has survived unrefuted for 2 millennia, which is a pretty good track record for any argument. I don’t believe it can be though the possibility exists. But you don’t have to know everything about everything for it to be true.
I don’t know if the universe is all that exists, or if we are just a part of a plaque molecule on some giant’s tooth. Still does not invalidate philosophical cosmology.
Debate about things is a learning process. Besides a lot of really smart folk get paid a lot to learn, philosophize and theorize about the universe they don’t think it’s silly. So I don’t think it’s ridiculous at all. For me it’s fun. My son likes video games, I like this.
But to each his own. You don’t like it don’t do it…[/quote]
You spent quite a bit of time in this thread defending your words from becoming strawmen, please do not do the same to mine buy assigning them your meaning.
When I said a fool’s errand, I did not intend to imply that such musings were not worthy pursuits, but that to draw battle lines and conclusions were.
Theories about the universe are just that - theories. I do not believe we will ever know where, when and if it started or if there is but one universe. We can’t go visit it like we can the bottom of the ocean - and even that is largely unexplored. There are things we will just never know because of the enormity of space.
The bigger philosophical questions are better served by exploring why we believe God needed a literary agent (man) to communicate his alleged message. Why did he not communicate truthfully and fully prior to the doctrines you embrace. Why is this phenomena of the “divinely inspired word” so prevalent throughout man’s history and why do factions of man rebuke the tenets of one, for their own?
I study it, consider it, subscribing to no dogma, and see the hand of man - not God. I sure hope God is hear, I hope he is with us. I don’t see him in the books you argue about. I see him in this vast unknowable universe, in nature and in the best of each of us.
My idea of a God is not a petulant jealous tyrant that caused floods and plagues. Those are qualities of man. I’m probably the worst guy to have in this thread 
Sorry for the intrusion. But seriously, trying to use cosmology to make religious arguments is faulty. There should be a fact in there somewhere in the foundation of your argument when you’re trying to build a case. To rely on theories that cannot be proven is building a house of cards. [/quote]
Precisely how is it faulty?
And no battle lines have been drawn, we’re merely having a discussion. If I made a straw man, please point it out to me.[/quote]
Well, for starters, no one here is is a theoretical physicist. And TP tends to get butchered when used by us Next, you’re using speculative TP theories to support your religious notions. You’re using an unknown as a logical pinning to support another unknown, the latter of which relies solely on faith.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, do you believe it’s possible for a son to be older than his father?[/quote]
Ha, trick question. My uncle’s father is younger than him, but his father is his son and priest. But biologically, no.[/quote]
What if Einstein told you that biologically, it actually was possible?[/quote]
I’d buy him a drink, because I thought he was dead and obviously he’s way passed being lucid.[/quote]
Ha. Well you get my point. According to the theory of relativity, it actually is possible for the biological father to be younger than his son.
Which is why I don’t buy these reductionist arguments that attempt to prove there must be a god. We don’t live in Newton’s narrow universe any more. There doesn’t have to be an ultimate cause with a linear string of effects. Einstein proved how very little we actually know about how the universe works.[/quote]
It doesn’t have to be linear, it just must be causal. It doesn’t matter if you buy it or not. You gotta disprove it.[/quote]
WTF? How do you disprove something that hasn’t been proven? These are all theories.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
That was a damn good answer, thank you.
However, I do feel it more answers the question of “Why catholic and not another denomination of christianity?”
Do you consider other religions to be other ways of communicating with God, with different names? Even religions that do not recognize Jesus as the son of god?[/quote]
Other religions are tricky, there is Buddhism which JPII basically called them out as being religious atheists. There is Muslims who have a half Jesus and surprisingly almost full Mary. They regard Jesus as just a man, but still the messiah and that he will return a second time before the last days to bring Allah his people to Heaven. They regard Mary as the highest creature in Heaven, definitely the highest woman, and sinless. You have the Protestants that believe in the same God, but lack the fullness of faith. You have the Jews who have the fullness of the Covenants God made with them, but lack Jesus and his new covenant.
So, there are some like the Jews and Protestants that are considered to have a religion that have partially the full religion established by God. And, then you have some like Buddhist, Taoism, &c. that share in partial salvific truth in some ways, but are much further away.
I would say that besides Judaism and Christianity (or Hellenist Judaism) all the rest are man made attempts to communicate with God and do God’s will (even if a twisted attempt), but the former are the only one’s that Catholics recognize as established for God, for the purpose of loving and worshiping God.
Pat: But something popped into my head the other day about the lack of faith and how to bring more people to the faith. I just don’t get how people can be so uncatechized in their faith. I mean all these great qualities of other faiths, we should have, we should be the ones that people copy. Yet, we seem to not do that, I have no clue why. To put it in simple terms…until we’re more Protestant than Protestants (personal relationship with Jesus), more Jewish than Jews (sacrificial works for God), more Muslim than Muslims (submissive to God at all times), more Buddhist than Buddhist (aware of our surroundings and others) we will continue to struggle up hill to bring people to the Church.
P.S. Capped, if you want to see which books are in what Category you can look here and the books are put in sections to which kind of writing they are… http://www.newadvent.org/bible/
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
<<< You’re using an unknown as a logical pinning to support another unknown, the latter of which relies solely on faith.[/quote]Very very good indeed. And herein folks lies the fatally flawed formula of autonomous human epistemology. As long as people of faith insist upon confronting the unbeliever on his own terms this guy will continue to be right.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
So if it doesn’t have to be linear, and it can be reversed, do you think it’s possible for cause and effect to be simultaneous? Or for them to cause each other?[/quote]
Be simultaneous? Absolutely, 100%. Perhaps I have done a bad job, but I have been eluding to that for a long time.
The EPR paradox would be an example of that. Despite it’s name, I don’t think it’s a paradox. I am pretty sure there is a reasonable explanation for it. I just don’t know what that is.
Can the effect act on the cause yes, but its a separate event, in or out of time.
You can get poison ivy, while at the same time killing the plant, but those are two separate events.[/quote]
It’s cool to think about, isn’t it?
If simultaneous causes can occur, whereby one thing creates the other and in turn is created by the thing it creates, there is no compelling argument for an ultimate singular cause.
I don’t know if this is the genesis of the universe, or if the universe has always existed in some sense (either in or out of time), but either way I don’t believe a supernatural cause is the only possibility, or even the most likely.
I think we’re just starting to scratch the surface on these questions. Until we know a lot more than we do, the jury is still out.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Christ’s message of love. >>>[/quote]Christ didn’t bring a message of love. He brought a message of redemption and judgment in fulfillment of almost 2000 years of promise and prophecy.
John 3:16-19 ESV
[/quote]
Wow.
At least you’ve finally admitted it. How anyone could read the new
testament and conclude that Christ’s central message wasn’t love is
beyond me. Either you’ve never read the entire new testament, or
you’re so blinded by your Calvanistic biases that you missed the boat.
You’re stranded on the shore, waiting for a boat that will never come,
trying to convince others to wait with you. In all seriousness, you
remind me of the Pharisees that Jesus condemned. You strain at a gnat
and swallow a camel, failing to understand what his message was all
about.
1 John 4:8
1 John 4:16
[quote]God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God
abides in him[/quote]
Matthew 5:38-48
[quote]38 You have heard that it was said, “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.”
39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes
you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have
your cloak as well.
41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who
wants to borrow from you.
43 You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.”
44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to
rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the
unrighteous.
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not
even the tax collectors doing that?
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than
others? Do not even pagans do that?
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.[/quote]
Matthew 22:34-40
[quote]34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees
got together.
35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
with all your soul and with all your mind.”
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, do you believe it’s possible for a son to be older than his father?[/quote]
Ha, trick question. My uncle’s father is younger than him, but his father is his son and priest. But biologically, no.[/quote]
What if Einstein told you that biologically, it actually was possible?[/quote]
I’d buy him a drink, because I thought he was dead and obviously he’s way passed being lucid.[/quote]
Ha. Well you get my point. According to the theory of relativity, it actually is possible for the biological father to be younger than his son.
Which is why I don’t buy these reductionist arguments that attempt to prove there must be a god. We don’t live in Newton’s narrow universe any more. There doesn’t have to be an ultimate cause with a linear string of effects. Einstein proved how very little we actually know about how the universe works.[/quote]
Okay, I know how Einstein’s theory of relativity works, but I’m not sure how using the theory it would be possible for that to happen. Can you demonstrate for a young man how that is possible?[/quote]
According to relativity, time passes faster for someone moving at a slower speed relative to someone else. In our normal experience these speeds are relatively slow so time dilation is tiny, but the effect has been confirmed. For example, two atomic clocks were synchronized and one was placed in a jet and flown around the world at a high speed. When the clocks were compared, the clock on the ground showed more time had passed compared to the clock on the jet.
So a man has a biological son at age 25. He then jumps on a spaceship and travels near the speed of light for 10 years. When he returns to greet his son, he is younger than his son.
[quote]forlife wrote:
According to relativity, time passes faster for someone moving at a slower speed relative to someone else. In our normal experience these speeds are relatively slow so time dilation is tiny, but the effect has been confirmed. For example, two atomic clocks were synchronized and one was placed in a jet and flown around the world at a high speed. When the clocks were compared, the clock on the ground showed more time had passed compared to the clock on the jet.
So a man has a biological son at age 25. He then jumps on a spaceship and travels near the speed of light for 10 years. When he returns to greet his son, he is younger than his son.
[/quote]
Well, besides the fact that you just said that because he got on a plane he became more than 15 years younger (I have seen the tests, they are pretty interesting). However, that doesn’t mean the child will be older than the father. The father may have experienced less time, but the man will still be older than his son by 25 years.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
<<< You’re using an unknown as a logical pinning to support another unknown, the latter of which relies solely on faith.[/quote]Very very good indeed. And herein folks lies the fatally flawed formula of autonomous human epistemology. As long as people of faith insist upon confronting the unbeliever on his own terms this guy will continue to be right.
[/quote]
Given the fundamental disagreements on the most pivotal questions between you and other Christian denominations, your faith leaves a lot to be desired. Obviously, choosing to believe in something not supported by logic or evidence is a fool’s errand because it leads to such irreconcilable conflicts in belief. That’s what happens when you promote “faith” over facts.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
That was a damn good answer, thank you.
However, I do feel it more answers the question of “Why catholic and not another denomination of christianity?”
Do you consider other religions to be other ways of communicating with God, with different names? Even religions that do not recognize Jesus as the son of god?[/quote]
Other religions are tricky, there is Buddhism which JPII basically called them out as being religious atheists. There is Muslims who have a half Jesus and surprisingly almost full Mary. They regard Jesus as just a man, but still the messiah and that he will return a second time before the last days to bring Allah his people to Heaven. They regard Mary as the highest creature in Heaven, definitely the highest woman, and sinless. You have the Protestants that believe in the same God, but lack the fullness of faith. You have the Jews who have the fullness of the Covenants God made with them, but lack Jesus and his new covenant.
So, there are some like the Jews and Protestants that are considered to have a religion that have partially the full religion established by God. And, then you have some like Buddhist, Taoism, &c. that share in partial salvific truth in some ways, but are much further away.
I would say that besides Judaism and Christianity (or Hellenist Judaism) all the rest are man made attempts to communicate with God and do God’s will (even if a twisted attempt), but the former are the only one’s that Catholics recognize as established for God, for the purpose of loving and worshiping God.
Pat: But something popped into my head the other day about the lack of faith and how to bring more people to the faith. I just don’t get how people can be so uncatechized in their faith. I mean all these great qualities of other faiths, we should have, we should be the ones that people copy. Yet, we seem to not do that, I have no clue why. To put it in simple terms…until we’re more Protestant than Protestants (personal relationship with Jesus), more Jewish than Jews (sacrificial works for God), more Muslim than Muslims (submissive to God at all times), more Buddhist than Buddhist (aware of our surroundings and others) we will continue to struggle up hill to bring people to the Church.
P.S. Capped, if you want to see which books are in what Category you can look here and the books are put in sections to which kind of writing they are… http://www.newadvent.org/bible/[/quote]
How in the world can those religions that pre-date Christianity and Judaism be considered “man’s attempt to communicate with God”. There is not an original theme of “God” in Christianity, Judaism or Islam that was not already espoused by religious beliefs prior. Did God only set up a one way call line before he spoke to the Jews? What exactly are you saying here?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
According to relativity, time passes faster for someone moving at a slower speed relative to someone else. In our normal experience these speeds are relatively slow so time dilation is tiny, but the effect has been confirmed. For example, two atomic clocks were synchronized and one was placed in a jet and flown around the world at a high speed. When the clocks were compared, the clock on the ground showed more time had passed compared to the clock on the jet.
So a man has a biological son at age 25. He then jumps on a spaceship and travels near the speed of light for 10 years. When he returns to greet his son, he is younger than his son.
[/quote]
Well, besides the fact that you just said that because he got on a plane he became more than 15 years younger (I have seen the tests, they are pretty interesting). However, that doesn’t mean the child will be older than the father. The father may have experienced less time, but the man will still be older than his son by 25 years.[/quote]
That’s actually not the case. When they meet, less time will have passed for the father than for the son. He will be literally younger than the son, in exactly the same way that the flying atomic clock is younger.
I caution Christians not to listen to the ranting’s of an agnostic/atheist. There are many instances written about in the Bible which clearly demonstrate that even those who walked with Christ had disagreements. Our disagreements do not separate us as much as our agreements unite us. The most important thing that all Christians share is that we accept Christ and will indeed spend eternity in heaven. And those who do not will suffer eternal punishment. The rest is all fun to debate but unimportant compared to the true meaning of Christianity.