@JackDouglas Q: What should I do about another misunderstanding on Catholics (i.e. should I just add a "Note 3"? on meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/759/2873 )? I was just explaining our simple use of statues and said, "The statues that Catholics have are simply meant to be reminders. I don't fall to me knees for them. I realize how good they were and how I should consider living." Thanks.

@JackDouglas I just read my question above and noted how many times I've used the word "simple". I apologize. That's due to my being frustrated there and elsewhere. Anyway, I almost sound arrogant, so I promise I won't say that as often. ;-)

@JohnMartin That simply sounds like a simple goal that should be simple to accomplish simply

;)

@JohnMartin have you got a link to the post or comment with the misunderstanding? I can see how adding a 'note 3' could be useful as you can then give folk a link in a comment rather then saying the whole thing more than once...

@AJHenderson I couldn't agree more.

@JackDouglas I don't have a link to share at this point. What I'll gladly say to further clarify is this. Anyone who genuflects to anyone other that God is wrong. That also would be breaking the 1st Commandment Moses got. Statues or paintings or such aren't actually God/Jesus. This is where our interpretations of what Jesus said at the Last Supper may differ (i.e "This is my body...") We genuflect to consecrated bread (i.e. Jesus).

@JackDouglas ...Nothing less.

@JohnMartin hmm, when you put it that way, I suddenly get far more worried about that particular Catholic practice as idolotry

if the Catholic interpretation is wrong, then it sounds like you are indicating what is practiced actually would be idolotry

@AJHenderson Yes. And I'd better not be committing that.

@JackDoulas The friend I explained that to (i.e. regarding how Catholics look at statues) was also wondering about how we "pray" to someone other than God. I believe there's another misunderstand with that. ...

@JackDouglas ... No human could even breathe unless God allowed it. No one other than God can do anything unless God decides it's all right. However, we can ask God for help on behalf of each other. I believe it says that in James 5:16-17.

@AJHenderson Thanks for understanding. I'll say that Catholics and Protestants share about 98-99% of the same beliefs. Those we don't agree on aren't major differences.

that said, I think that a Catholic could practice communion believing it was actually Jesus, but I'd be very hesitant to put any kind of worship towards it out of an abundance of caution

@AJHenderson I'm not sure what you mean.

I disagree about it being the literal body, but I also think it is possible to believe that and not end up committing idolotry even if wrong as long as you worship Christ and not the physical form in front of you

@JohnMartin yeah, it seems that way to me for the most part too, especially from what I understand from people who really understand Catholic theology well

(which sadly, a great many Catholic's don't seem to really understand, but then again, Catholicism is the biggest kid around, so they tend to get the most... I guess cultural would be the word... followers

@AJHenderson If that's a diagram of "uphill both ways" all that means is you got to sled for half the way, both ways!

@AJHenderson There are quite a few things some Catholics may practice incorrectly. Some genuflect toward the altar while Jesus is in the tabernacle.

@Davïd Welcome back BTW!

just double checking to make sure I didn't mis-interpret the conversation. I'll clarify, I'm from the protestant persuasion and don't think believe that communion is literally Christ. But I do believe that as long as the believer is worshiping Christ in heaven and not the host, then it doesn't matter if they are wrong about the state of the host, as long as they don't direct their worship towards the host

@AJHenderson The Catholic (or at least I) am worshiping Jesus in heaven, yet believe that host was bread. It's since been consecrated and is Jesus. That's my belief.

similarly, I don't think it is a sin to ask saints to intercede on your behalf as long as they are not expecting the saint's to do something through their own power. I think it is a useless practice as there is no evidence at all that prayers can be heard by anyone other than God nor does it appear to me that there would be any reason that having a hero of the faith pray on your behalf would be any more effective than having the next guy down the pew pray with you

but I don't think it would be a sin either, as long as it is properly understood

@JohnMartin yeah, and that's the conservatively safe way to do it

if you are right, great, if you are wrong, no real harm done

@AJHenderson Thanks again. One example might be Elijah possibly praying to God on my behalf.

honestly, of all the Catholic doctrines that I think I have a relatively decent understanding of, the one that has always confused me the most (and worried me the most) is the placement of Mary. I personally think that one is the most dangerous, but I've also had a hard time locking down exactly what the official Catholic view of her importance is

@AJHenderson No one beyond God has any "power", if you will. God may allow what that person is talking to God about (and thus asking Him to consider it).

yeah, that isn't exactly what I mean, I'm more referring to the level of her role in the plan of salvation

@AJHenderson There are some things Catholics believe that others don't agree with. In those cases neither one can prove the other right or wrong. Let me go get a link to share.

@AJHenderson meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/759/2873

not sure that it is a critical issue, but I slightly fear it may somewhat reduce the exclusivity of God being fully responsible or atleast lend itself easily towards making that mistake

@AJHenderson Ok. Let's assume that I'm completely wrong. At least God knows my intention.

@AJHenderson God knows that I think of anyone, other than Him, able to do nothing.

@JohnMartin yes, but having any kind of faith in man having any kind of impact on our own salvation is potentially a dangerous thought process, but that second statement there makes me think for you it isn't a critical issue

I just get rather nervous when I hear some claims like Mary being pure so that Christ could be born pure

@AJHenderson I heard something once or twice. It's that I only have 2 judges...

and that to me, starts sounding dangerously close to putting to much on Mary's accomplishment, even if it was that she was enabled through God

@AJHenderson ...Jesus and me.

@JohnMartin I'd even go so far as to say you only have one

really we aren't qualified to judge ourselves anymore than anyone else :)

possibly even less so

@AJHenderson I agree actually. I'm just saying that I need to watch what I do and believe.

yes

I get what you mean, fundamentally you are responsible for your actions

someone else can't decide for you

and while leaders who lead people astray are held accountable for that, it doesn't reduce your personal responsibility in your decissions

@AJHenderson Yes..and part of my view on that comes from one of last chapters in Revelation. ...My "deeds"

let me try phrasing what concerns me about the Catholic view of Mary and see if you think that is a sound Catholic view. My concern is that some things I've heard have made it sound like it is a Catholic view that through God, Mary was able to have a level of purity apart from Christ, even possibly to the point of being sinless herself. But I'm not sure if the person I heard that from knew what they were talking about or not. I mostly get worried if there is any belief that

any man can contribute towards their own salvation in any way at all, even if it is only through the help of God

@AJHenderson All right. I understand and I can't prove what I believe about her from a Bible citings. Let me give you something I've read...

@AJHenderson I love my mother so much that I would do whatever I could for her; however, I can't. Jesus on the other hand loved his mother more. He could do whatever He wanted and did.

@AJHenderson That's what I know to be the Immaculate Conception. It has nothing to do with Jesus' conception, but Mary's in the womb of her mother, Ann.

@AJHenderson We all got steined with Original Sin. However, Jesus may have safeguarded the mother he chose and loved.

@JohnMartin so if I understand correctly, you are saying that your take is that Jesus may have prevented Mary from getting original sin, but that that was not significant in Christ's lack of original sin or his ability to be a perfect sacrifice for us (ie, it had no impact on the plan of salvation)

if so, I think I could live with that mostly. I still think the idea of a person without original sin is somewhat dangerous as it then it opens a lot of doors to questions like, why not do that for all who will be saved and also has some free will implications as that would seem to have made Mary with no free will in that case, which I would actually argue is the opposite of loving

but I still wouldn't classify it as a critical salvation issue then

even if it may have the potential to lead to some very dark places theologically

@AJHenderson Okay. Jesus may have prevented His mother from getting original sin. She's a mother He loved, and she was a human who did what He wanted before He chose her as a mother. Jesus is the only perfect sacrifice.

@AJHenderson I truly believe that some of our different beliefs should be categorized as 2ndary.

@JohnMartin oh very much so

anything that doesn't impact someone's salvation is vastly secondary

because beyond that point, it may lead us to misunderstand God or misrepresent him, but as long as the Gospel is represented properly, then God can make himself clear to us if he desires to do so

@AJHenderson Exactly. Now...Excuse me, but I need to step outside and go genuflect to a statue for a minute. ...Just kidding! ;-)

and at worst, we simply don't become quite as Christ like in this life because we were moving more in the wrong direction than perhaps we otherwise would have

as long as core salvation theology is correct

I also fundamentally believe that not a single person has all the secondary details right

because none of us is perfect

so we all in some way misunderstand scripture

@AJHenderson I agree completely.

I would even hazard that those whose hands wrote scripture misunderstood it in some way

even if their words were correct by the guiding of the spirit

@AJHenderson Were they only holding the pens? For the most part I think so.

not exactly, but you can express something in a way that can be interpreted correctly without necessarily having the correct interpretation of your own writing yourself

there is ambiguity in language

@AJHenderson True.

I mean, we certainly can see, from writing style for example, that the authors themselves heavily influenced the styling of the content

and even the word choice

@AJHenderson One I like is John's Gospel. ("John the Maverick" is a book I have)

but rather I would argue that it is the fact that the true meaning is reflected through the words is the action of the spirit on the authorshipp

but I'm not really clear on that

@AJHenderson You wouldn't be arguing with me then.

which doubles back around to your point about the two judges

at the end of the day, we can only take our best guesses/discernment as to what the correct interpretation is on secondary issues

and fundamentally rely on God to make up for our failings in that regard

and I think the most dangerous thing someone can do on secondary issues is to believe they have it right

on the one hand, we have to go with our personal convictions as that is what we are responsible for, but we also have to realize our personal convictions are flawed and imperfect

@AJHenderson Yes. I'll share my view, but I shouldn't shove it down anyone's throat. That's one reason I enjoy seeing other interpretations, like those at BH-SE.

right, and it doesn't hurt to hear other's views to test your own

"The more we shared our views with each other, the more open-minded we became, the more we appreciated each others’ opinions/thoughts/views, the more we learned with and from each other. In the meantime, we realized that while the three of us were helping each other, God was watching over and helping all of us."

at best, they can bring up something you hadn't considered before and possibly reveal a truth you missed, at worst, they do nothing but confirm your view further

there is literally no downside

other than that it requires effort

@JohnMartin yeah, I really liked that line

put another way, we should follow our convictions because it is better to be doing what you believe God is leading you towards and be wrong than it is to follow what someone else tells you is God's leading and not do what you believe is God's leading and be wrong

@AJHenderson The worst thing I did when discussing the Bible, the most closing of doors I ever started...was in arguing. Later, we relaxed and simply talked like this. So thanks.

arguing can be good as long as both parties are comfortable that it isn't in judgement

but you have to be comfortable with each other for it to be rewarding

@AJHenderson All right. I'd say debating is fine.

and I suppose debating may be a better term at that point

when you start repeating yourself or not being able to provide reasons, it loses the usefulness quickly

@AJHenderson It became a big negative for us.

One subject we thought about was time. Beyond this life on earth it's not needed, so are people who died waiting for the rest of us? That was a good subject to discuss and ponder.

but yeah, generally the only time I'll become more forceful about something is when I genuinely feel it has become a Matthew 15 type of issue, but that's thankfully a pretty rare occurrence. Theologically speaking, I pretty much reserve it for situations where someone is straying from sound salvation doctrine or is saying that something isn't sinful counter to clear and direct scriptural example.

@JohnMartin yeah, those kinds of questions are fun and basically totally speculative

I don't hold directly to any one theory, but my personal favorite theory at the moment is that time doesn't actually exist

at all

at least not in the sense we understand it

@AJHenderson I think of things like time and numbers as tools. Humans need them to run our lives. Beyond now they're not needed.

we perceive it because we have a birth (start of awareness) and a death(apparent end of awareness) and we see that as a timeline progression

but if things just are, then concepts like eternity and how God can know everything that has happened and will happen become much simpler concepts

as does questions like "where do people go when they die" because judgement could simply be

and when you die, you are simply there

it's a very hard concept to thoroughly explain though, heck, it took me years just to work through the concept in my own head

Could judgment day be only for those who are still alive on earth while those who have died have already been judged.

to the point that I'm actually comfortable in understanding the implications of it

under my no-time argument, I would argue that judgement simply is, there is no time associated with it, it is an action that takes place. All people could be there together for it regardless of "when" they die

kind of like a phase change from solid to liquid

our spirits transition out of one physical form and in to a new space where we simply are

of course, that theory also leaves some questions unanswered like "have we already been judged then"

I guess I would argue we haven't been though

even under that concept because it would be a state transition

which we haven't undergone

(I'm a bit tired, so running through how things play out in that model is a bit hard atm)

@AJHenderson I'm sorry. I have step out for a while. Thanks for talking with me. I hope to do it again. Take care!

it requires quite a lot of brain power to model a timeless existence in my head

@JohnMartin you too