Zone1 Question For Catholics

[Donald H]

How exactly do you think that would further one’s relationship with the Trinity?

Pro Tip: it wouldn’t.

As exact as I can be is to say that I consider your trinity to be allegorical and not literally true. There's nothing literally true about Christianity, and no attempts by any Christian to dispute the fact.

To the topic: I've started to learn more about the fighting in the CC between the traditionalist side vs. the modern revisionist side. It appears that the biggest cause of the fight is the traditionalists refusing to accept Darwinian evolution.

We both know very well that the traditional Christians can't win if they don't compromise on their creation myth!

Does that meet your request for me being exact?

 

[ding]

As exact as I can be is to say that I consider your trinity to be allegorical and not literally true. There's nothing literally true about Christianity, and no attempts by any Christian to dispute the fact.

To the topic: I've started to learn more about the fighting in the CC between the traditionalist side vs. the modern revisionist side. It appears that the biggest cause of the fight is the traditionalists refusing to accept Darwinian evolution.

We both know very well that the traditional Christians can't win if they don't compromise on their creation myth!

Does that meet your request for me being exact?

Good for you. It would be wrong for you to benefit from its power. And, no, it totally ignored my question.

 

[Donald H]

Here is a comparison, as awkward as it may come across: Why would someone go to God to confess a sin? God already knows the sin and whether one regrets/repents it, and is thus forgiven. So...why talk to God at all about what is over and done with, about something He already knows?

Traditional Catholics won't stop praying, because they obviously believe it's necessary. And so it's obvious that they believe that the god didn't already get the message.
There's no reason why prayer needs to be raised as an issue in which the two sides disagree.

Just one issue which pales in comparison to the major issue of accepting evolution over creation.

 

[ding]

Traditional Catholics won't stop praying, because they obviously believe it's necessary. And so it's obvious that they believe that the god didn't already get the message.
There's no reason why prayer needs to be raised as an issue in which the two sides disagree.

Just one issue which pales in comparison to the major issue of accepting evolution over creation.

Laughing leads to crying.

 

[Meriweather]

Translation: You got nothing.


I'm highly disappointed in you because although I like you a lot personally you're acting like a liberal right now as you're the one who made this claim and now you absolutely refuse to back it up.

Are you claiming that you missed Post #83 when the discussion was about the traditions of going to a priest for confession and of Jesus appointing Apostles to proclaim the forgiveness of sins? Two passages were given there. The result: You change the question to an entirely different subject.

In the original discussion. You said you dislike the Catholic faith because of Confession. I respond with the scripture passages and traditions upon which Confession is founded. You ask who forgives sins. The discussion isn't about who forgives sins, because I believe you agree with me and everyone else on who forgives sins.

In another post I listed the contrast that can occur between Protestant and Catholic perspectives. Many times it seems Protestants are saying, It's this OR that. The Catholic perspective is wider in that we often go with, "Yes, AND ....."

For example, Protestants are of the mind that sin is only between God and each individual sinner and going to only to God is all that is needed. They are completely satisfied with this. Catholics see sin as not only against God, but against the entire community/Church. Not only do we confess to God (daily scrutiny of conscience) AND we also to one who represents the community.

Another example: Many Protestants say Communion is in memory of Jesus and are satisfied with this. Catholics say, Yes AND we are consuming the living body, blood, and divinity of Jesus.

Here is the difference: I do not dislike Protestant denominations because they do not have Confession or because they hold no belief in consuming the body, blood, and divinity of Christ. Yet here in the forums are posts from people who say they dislike the Catholic faith because of Confession, of Transubstantiation, of praying for those who have passed on, of praying the Rosary.
Why the disturbance (or dislike) over what Catholics do? Again the question: Do you dislike Islam because they do bow towards Mecca? Do you dislike Judaism because they do avoid certain foods? If you don't, why do fellow Christians dislike what we do? It's not as if your denominations has you facing Mecca, avoiding certain foods, go to Confession, accept Transubstantiation, pray the Rosary, etc.

 

[Donald H]

Are you claiming that you missed Post #83 when the discussion was about the traditions of going to a priest for confession and of Jesus appointing Apostles to proclaim the forgiveness of sins? Two passages were given there. The result: You change the question to an entirely different subject.

In the original discussion. You said you dislike the Catholic faith because of Confession. I respond with the scripture passages and traditions upon which Confession is founded. You ask who forgives sins. The discussion isn't about who forgives sins, because I believe you agree with me and everyone else on who forgives sins.

In another post I listed the contrast that can occur between Protestant and Catholic perspectives. Many times it seems Protestants are saying, It's this OR that. The Catholic perspective is wider in that we often go with, "Yes, AND ....."

For example, Protestants are of the mind that sin is only between God and each individual sinner and going to only to God is all that is needed. They are completely satisfied with this. Catholics see sin as not only against God, but against the entire community/Church. Not only do we confess to God (daily scrutiny of conscience) AND we also to one who represents the community.

Another example: Many Protestants say Communion is in memory of Jesus and are satisfied with this. Catholics say, Yes AND we are consuming the living body, blood, and divinity of Jesus.

Here is the difference: I do not dislike Protestant denominations because they do not have Confession or because they hold no belief in consuming the body, blood, and divinity of Christ. Yet here in the forums are posts from people who say they dislike the Catholic faith because of Confession, of Transubstantiation, of praying for those who have passed on, of praying the Rosary.
Why the disturbance (or dislike) over what Catholics do? Again the question: Do you dislike Islam because they do bow towards Mecca? Do you dislike Judaism because they do avoid certain foods? If you don't, why do fellow Christians dislike what we do? It's not as if your denominations has you facing Mecca, avoiding certain foods, go to Confession, accept Transubstantiation, pray the Rosary, etc.

From an atheists POV, it's a repugnant idea to imagine Catholics are eating a body and drinking blood.
And with confession, it's too easy to imagine a priest abusing himself while listening to a little boy or even a woman in some cases. It's not like they don't have a reputation!
IMO these are outdated and abnormal practices that the CC could benefit from if they're stopped. The traditionalists would be giving up nothing of any importance.

 

[Donald H]

Laughing leads to crying.

See my post #126 if you have nothing to do but cry. The old superstitious practices such as eating a body can be thrown out and nothing is sacrificed.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvxkn67x

 

[Meriweather]

From an atheists POV, it's a repugnant idea to imagine Catholics are eating a body and drinking blood.
And with confession, it's too easy to imagine a priest abusing himself while listening to a little boy or even a woman in some cases. It's not like they don't have a reputation!
IMO these are outdated and abnormal practices that the CC could benefit from if they're stopped. The traditionalists would be giving up nothing of any importance.

Biblically: Manna, bread come down from heaven. Bread of the Presence: Bread kept in the Tabernacle of the Lord's presence. Jesus, the bread that came down from heaven; the bread that has not just been in the presence of the Lord, but is the Lord.

I'm guessing you don't eat apples because you might find an apple; chocolate might contain insects; meat and poultry might have bacteria. Therefore, you trust no person because a person might do something to you.

For some, the Lord and life everlasting in Him (now and in the future) is everything.

 

[Donald H]

Ding, See my post #126 if you have nothing to do but cry. The old superstitious practices such as eating a body can be thrown out and nothing is sacrificed.

Biblically: Manna, bread come down from heaven. Bread of the Presence: Bread kept in the Tabernacle of the Lord's presence. Jesus, the bread that came down from heaven; the bread that has not just been in the presence of the Lord, but is the Lord.

Modern Catholics understand that as Allegorical, while traditionalist Catholics understand it as being literally true.
Now that Genesis is widely accepted as being untrue in a literal sense, there can't be any appreciable sacrifice in discarding any other allegorical fiction that is still being misunderstood as being true and real. It's obvious that nobody believes they're really drinking blood and eating meat.

I'm guessing you don't eat apples because you might find an apple;

I eat apples. What are you trying to say?

chocolate might contain insects; meat and poultry might have bacteria.

Yes, possibilities. HIghly likely that meat and poullty contain bacteria.

Therefore, you trust no person because a person might do something to you.

No, but I would distance myself from a person with bad intentions.

For some, the Lord and life everlasting in Him (now and in the future) is everything.

I don't know if modernist Catholics would be opposed to keeping that notion? But they may find it impossible now that Genesis has been discarded. And they're most likely to believe that they will continue to be Catholics without any guarantee of escaping death?

 

[Meriweather]

Genesis has been discarded.

As Genesis has not been discarded, you and I have nothing to discuss.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

From an atheists POV, it's a repugnant idea to imagine Catholics are eating a body and drinking blood.
And with confession, it's too easy to imagine a priest abusing himself while listening to a little boy or even a woman in some cases. It's not like they don't have a reputation!
IMO these are outdated and abnormal practices that the CC could benefit from if they're stopped. The traditionalists would be giving up nothing of any importance.

.

It's a pretty hilarious idea to imagine that you believe Christ is human, and therefore consuming His flesh and blood is tantamount to cannibalism.



.

 

[Donald H]

As Genesis has not been discarded, you and I have nothing to discuss.

Ill concede that a minority still believe the nonsense in Genesis to be literally true.



But you're made it quite clear in our past discussions that you're not one of them! If I believed otherwise I would have nothing more to discuss with you.

I find both you and Ding to still be worth the effort of my attempts to enlighten. And in fact I believe I've been at least partially successful in the effort!

 

[Donald H]

.

It's a pretty hilarious idea to imagine that you believe Christ is human, and therefore consuming His flesh and blood is tantamount to cannibalism.



.

It's only you my friend that is suggesting cannabalism. I've simply repeated the notion that modern catholics are attempting to throw out such nonsense that can be interpreted as cannabalism.

Throw it out! Discard it! What's to lose now that Genesis has been throw out by a large *majority of Christians.

* accepting that you are in the minority!

See my link on the 'creation' story mythology.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

It's only you my friend that is suggesting cannabalism. I've simply repeated the notion that modern catholics are attempting to throw out such nonsense that can be interpreted as cannabalism.

Throw it out! Discard it! What's to lose now that Genesis has been throw out by a large *majority of Christians.

* accepting that you are in the minority!

See my link on the 'creation' story mythology.

.



Keep trying.




.

 

[Donald H]

.



Keep trying.




.

Thank you for your encouragement.

I think we can safely say that you're of the minority who are traditionalists.

Do you believe that it was giraffe heads sticking out of the ark's roof, or are you a grownup who understands that it was the dinosaurs?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Thank you for your encouragement.

I think we can safely say that you're of the minority who are traditionalists.

Do you believe that it was giraffe heads sticking out of the ark's roof, or are you a grownup who understands that it was the dinosaurs?

.

And proud of it.




.

 

[Meriweather]

But you're made it quite clear in our past discussions that you're not one of them! If I believed otherwise I would have nothing more to discuss with you.

You do have nothing more to discuss with me. You see, you are limited to evolution, and I'm not. If that is your limit, then we have nothing more to discuss. I believe creation is much more complex than evolution. Also, you limit your understanding of language to the King James English, which I eschew.

Scripture is not about the physical world, but about spiritual aspects of the physical world. Just as our knowledge of the physical world is limited, so it knowledge of the spiritual world. You are dismayed that some believe the world was created in a literal 24 hour day. That some believe this does not disturb me in the least. We know less about creation than we can imagine, and because I may be a mm of understanding ahead of the purely literal, I am fully aware there are most likely millions of mm left to understand.

Understanding the Bible is difficult. A belief that one has achieved complete understanding of the Bible and a conclusion the Bible can be safely thrown away is on an entirely different path than I. I understand a little which means I am fully aware I lack understanding of much.

 

[Donald H]

You do have nothing more to discuss with me. You see, you are limited to evolution, and I'm not. If that is your limit, then we have nothing more to discuss. I believe creation is much more complex than evolution. Also, you limit your understanding of language to the King James English, which I eschew.

I can't find any way to reconcile evolution with creation. If you could then you could challenge atheism

Scripture is not about the physical world, but about spiritual aspects of the physical world.

I understand that an accept it. Isn't it you that is trying to make some of religion literally true?

Just as our knowledge of the physical world is limited, so it knowledge of the spiritual world. You are dismayed that some believe the world was created in a literal 24 hour day.

No, not literal 24 hour day. I've said that the creation of the world is just as impossible by the god in a million years as it is in 6 24 hour days.

That some believe this does not disturb me in the least. We know less about creation than we can imagine, and because I may be a mm of understanding ahead of the purely literal, I am fully aware there are most likely millions of mm left to understand.

You're talking about allegory and I have no quarrel over that. It's when you move on to telling me that it's literally true, that's when our quarrel starts.

But have you ever claimed that anything about Christianity is literally true? I don't recall anything.

Understanding the Bible is difficult. A belief that one has achieved complete understanding of the Bible and a conclusion the Bible can be safely thrown away is on an entirely different path than I. I understand a little which means I am fully aware I lack understanding of much.

I can agree and I understand much less of the bibles than you. But you refuse to give me a chance to even challenge it by suggesting something in the bibles is literally true. You only hint at creation but you preface it with your acceptance of evolution too.

We don't have to be enemies. There's no reason for you to feel threatened over these questions.

I'm not Hobelim or Ding!

 

[Meriweather]

We don't have to be enemies. There's no reason for you to feel threatened over these questions.

I am not your enemy, and the questions are no threat. The authors of scripture are presenting a truth. Going off into the la-la land of seeking facts so one can turn from the spiritual world of truths to the physical world of objects/facts misses entire points. That is why further discussion between us is pointless. I am investigating spiritual truths while you are pursuing physical data and facts. Our different areas of study keep us apart, and never the twain shall meet.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The Bible 1 Timothy 3, and I believe 2 Peter note that Church and tradition are to be followed....

The Mormon Church? The JWs? The Seventh Day Adventist?

My sins weren't forgiven when I went to GOD and then sought out a minister to baptize me as a SIGN of repentance?

Good Allah it didn't even enter my mind to seek out a member of your cult to confess to and seek their forgiveness