03:41
@Marc The reason I say “I believe” is because these are my beliefs. If I was a Calvinist, I might say “we believe”, to which you could respond “but we [the Church] believe”...because nobody on the entire planet knows anything other than what their brain allows them to believe. You believe that giving up your own rational mind to whatever the Church teaches is true. That doesn't make it true- it's just a belief that you have. And there lies your own subjectivity.
You've interpreted certain passages (or rather, the Church has interpreted them for you) as to say that you're an ignorant man who cannot possibly know God without the Church. But what of those within the Church who influenced it so much? Why is anything that Aquinis thought superior to anything you or Calvin may think? Could it possibly be because he was born into "Christian royalty", so he had the wealth to sit around philosophizing all day, and the resources to spread his theories?
The thing is, we all* use our subjective experiences to define our beliefs. If we both lived in Iraq, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because our subjective experiences would tell us to argue about whether we should be a Shiite or Sunni. Why did you even read from CARM, rather than learn as much as you could about the different sects of Islam or Hinduism to determine which of their theologies are "true"?
I interpret Matthew 10:28 to mean that man should not fear death, because all men die like grass. We should fear God, because he alone can cause our body and mind (ψυχὴν) to be lost (ἀπολέσαι) in Gehenna/mental anguish. "Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive. Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 4:2-3
2 hours later…
05:13
@anonymouswho The Church does not teach that an ignorant man can not know God. That is actually opposite of the Church's teaching. We are not discussing, however, the knowledge of God. We are discussing the teaching of the early Church, here, whether universalism was taught in the early Church.
There seems to be a failure to understand Subjectivity and objectivity. Objective truths are those things that "Are". Subjective truths are those things that are according to individuals. Objective Truths do not Change, they may be better understood, but never changed.
"I interpret Matthew 10:28 to mean.." Your interpretation is subjective.
To your suggestion that I did not look into Islam, I have, extensively, I even own a copy of the Quran. It was easy to disregard the teachings of the Muslims because those teachings lack continuity, rely heavily on the concerns of nationalism and the truth of the religion is that it is used to control the ignorant.
To your suggestion that I did not look into Islam, I have, extensively, I even own a copy of the Quran. It was easy to disregard the teachings of the Muslims because those teachings lack continuity, rely heavily on the concerns of nationalism and the truth of the religion is that it is used to control the ignorant.
Please look closer into the life of Thomas Aquinas, you will see that he walked away from his wealth and became a Dominican, the primary focus of the Dominican order is to prevent heresy. Which you are accusing him of.
Thomas Aquinas did not change the teaching of the Church, he worked to explain to them when there was no real understanding, he did not change what was taught.
The first thing a subjective theology needs to do is discredit objective theology. The very teachings that have been from the begining.
06:23
@Marc You said objective truths are those things which “are”, but why is it that the Catholic Church’s objective truths are, and the objective truths of Islam, or even Judaism are not? Did someone named Jesus say it, so it makes it true? Who is this Jesus that I should accept his word over Muhammad?
The Yeshua that I read about speaks true things, and I know they are true because I can rationalize their truthfulness. You said you have a copy of the Quran, but did you give it the same scrutiny that you have given the Scriptures? Did you seek answers in the same manner that you searched for answers about Jephthah or 1 Samuel 15:3?
Muhammad says "Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through, We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, God is ever Exalted in Might and Wise." Quran 4:56. That sounds much scarier than anything in the bible, but when you hear those words, do you feel any sense of fear? Of course not, because that is not objectively true to you.
You see, I can easily disregard the Catholic Church for the same reasons that you easily reject Islam- because it lacks certain things that I personally believe. Perhaps you just misunderstand Islam because you cannot see the objective truths that it espouses. Maybe it doesn't intend to use religion to control the ignorant any more than Catholicism does.
6 hours later…
12:38
It is easy to get sidetracked into the teaching of the Quran or that of Judaism. The Objective truths of Judaism however, are valid.
Quickly, when we read the Quran, we see clearly that Mohamad id is given special license by virtue of being the Prophet. The belief system stems from the Ishmaelites, the son of Haggar. Here the Muslims vaguely reference the Old Testament Scriptures that we have from Judaism,
Quickly, when we read the Quran, we see clearly that Mohamad id is given special license by virtue of being the Prophet. The belief system stems from the Ishmaelites, the son of Haggar. Here the Muslims vaguely reference the Old Testament Scriptures that we have from Judaism,
There is a clear steering away from the enemy of the Muslims, the Jews and additionally a steering away from Yeshua as the Quran inserts a conversation between Mohomed and Jesus posthumously denying the claims of the Prophet Yeshua, yet offering little or no other information concerning his ministry.
Jephthah and the destruction of the Amalekites are arguments often brought to a Christian by Atheists and professed Agnostics. The arguments being, Jephthah killed his own daughter (he would not) and that the destruction of women and Children ordered by God makes God something other than all Good, but in fact, he would be monstrous.
These situations could be addressed. They are, however, a sidetrack, the arguments themselves brought to us by the unbelievers are designed to confuse us, to lead us away from Orthodox Christianity in large and eventually, by secular reasoning, lead us away from God altogether. I do understand how such arguments would lead you to Universalism, it is
a stepping stone to disbelief. First, you question the bible, which for many Christians is the word of God and all you need. after doing this, you start questioning what your denomination, for example, might teach, because you are confused. Yet still have a desire to believe in something, you search and search for a belief system that lets you find comfort in your own skin.
We are called as Catholics to accept those things that have always been in the Church. That Christ is God, the God is One but of 3 Persons. That we are called to sanctity in Christ and we must persevere in that sanctity until the Particular Judgement.
Being Catholic is not easy, in fact, it is very difficult, our standard is Christ. We are called to suffer for Christ. It is not easy to see, and I completely understand the desire to deny the teachings of the Church, but they are sound if you see them through the lens of the Cross.
4 hours later…
16:51
@Marc I see mental anguish in Matthew 10:28 when Yeshua says there is one who is able to cast our ψυχὴν- psyche- into Gehenna. Gehenna is not an interdimensional universe that is somehow separate from God,
and the verses about it are not any more literal than when Yeshua tells us to pluck our eye out so that our “whole body” will not be overcome by our wicked desires- which send us into Gehenna (chastisement) to burn these imperfections away- as tares among wheat.
Yeshua spoke in parables. ”All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them.” Matthew 13:34. I don't believe the Quran, and I don't believe Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to God- because human sacrifice is an abomination.
I also believe the earliest "christians" were the Ebionites, and that Yeshua was a Nazarene. The gentiles who liked Paul (Marcion) preserved his letters and taught all sorts of things that the Church now considers heresy. This explains why John wrote to several groups in Asia (2 Timothy 1:15) and to the only group that received known letters from Paul-the Ephesians- John writes:
« first day (4 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (17 days later) »
Transcript for
Oct28
Oct '1829
Oct30
Protestant deception
To discuss the relevancy of the Catholic Church