Cult/Creed/Ideology Poll:

[Kurgan]

Just for fun, and since we can't ever let the philosophical discussions die on this forum, I decided to take a poll of the members of these forums.

Question: What religion do you consider yourself a member of, or what creed, cult or ideology do you most closely identify yourself with? (if you consider yourself a Secular Humanist/FreeThinker/Atheist/Agnostic I'm still interested in hearing your answer)

Now without getting into any deep arguments (right away at least), or anything of that sort, or any judgements, I would simply like people, in a sentence or two (at most) to describe their category. I'm just curious as to what people here think about their own beliefs or ideals.

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited April 03, 2000).]

[Ikhnaton]

Roman Catholic http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/biggrin.gif

[Vagabond]

I belong to the Cult of Personality.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

[Conor]

Roman Catholic http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif

------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi

[theahnfahn]

My decision will come shortly, with (believe it or not) an actual explanation. Until that time, may I add to this discussion Kurgan?

Who has kept the classification they grew up with? Who has followed in the steps their parents took/take? Who does more than follow behind and believe in their classification, but actually LIVES it? And foremost, why do you believe it, why would/do you live your life in that classification? I think it is fair to say all of these questions must be answered before you can call yourself a believer.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

[Vagabond]

Let me provide this small bit of advice to any would-be posters to this thread:


Less is More


Heed these words, please. I implore you.



------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

[Ikhnaton]

Catholic from the cradle

still Catholic by choice.

[theahnfahn]

Vagabond:
"Less is more - Heed these words, please. I implore you."

I am not here to press my beliefs, if your statement was made to degrade my character. Kurgan was asking what classification we all go by, and I want to know the WHAT and WHY of that classification so that I too may make a choice not on what I believe but what my beliefs fit under. I admit I am ignorant when it comes to religious doctrine and creed. I can't tell the difference between Roman Catholics, Christians, Christian Scientists, etc., and is it a crime for me to pursue this knowledge? I won't post in this topic again, just so you can feel comfortable that my opinion won't ever be presented. But I still would like my questions answered, if you don't mind.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

[Vagabond]

TAF,


...if your statement was made to degrade my character...


Not at all, man, chill. All I was doing was attempting to persuade you to not write the next revision of the Encyclopedia Brittanica in your response. Hence my statement "less is more". But hey if you must, knock yourself out. It's a free world/country.

By the way, you heard any good jokes lately?



------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

[theahnfahn]

Deal, I'll put my response, when it is ready, in another thread.

Ok, hopefully everyone can take this with a smile http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif

A man who smelled like a distillery flopped on a subway seat next to a priest.
The man's tie was stained, his face was plastered with red lipstick, and a half empty bottle of gin was sticking out of his torn coat pocket.

He opened his newspaper and began reading.

After a few minutes the disheveled guy turned to the priest and asked, "Say, Father, what causes arthritis?"

"Mister, it's caused by loose living, being with cheap, wicked women, too much alcohol and a contempt for your fellow man."

"Well, I'll be damned," the drunk muttered, returning to his paper.

The priest, thinking about what he had said, nudged the man and apologized.

"I'm very sorry. I didn't mean to come on so strong.

How long have you had arthritis?"

"I don't have it, Father. I was just reading here that the Pope does."

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

[Vagabond]

LOL! That's a good one. You should post that in the Joke thread that I made. Hehe.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

[lightbulba]

money ain't the only root of evil...

atheist, friend.
------------------
http://www.starwars.com/snapshot/1999/20/img/merchant_sm.jpg
...unless there's a religion that worships caffeine, technology, and obscure music. oh, i'm a geek.

[This message has been edited by lightbulba (edited April 03, 2000).]

[Ikhnaton]

why am i not surprised?

actually the root of all evil is pride.

[psyduck78]

So very true,

.........anyway, that Apocalypse Cult in Uganda was wierd huh? I wonder what the minister said to them?

Here let me put this gasoline on you, so you can slip into the afterlife.

My econ teacher is wierd.
Me?, I have no real true beliefs, but I do hold an interest for biblical stories based upon history.

------------------
Don't be sorry, be yourself.
<font color=black size=1>


[This message has been edited by psyduck78 (edited April 03, 2000).]

[Kurgan]

The actual quote is "For the love of money is the root of all evils" (1 Timothy 6:10)
my sentimental infidel* friends. ; )

In other words "greed," or you could say selfishness, which ties into pride, is what leads to all of what we call "evil." It's all one.

So anybody else care to contribute?

Roman Catholic.

C'mon you Buddhists, Jews, Taoists, Protestants, Moonies, Confucianists, don't be shy! Spill your guts!

If you want my opinion, TAF, you sound most like an Agnostic (in the generic sense). Not a Freethinker, you're a bit too open-minded (Freethinkers feel free to flame me to heck), but only you know what you really think deep down.

Kurgan

* "unbeliever" (not meant as an insult)

[wizzywig]

I was raised Protestant. I sifted through the beliefs I was taught, tested them relentlessly, maintained an open mind toward new data, kept some of my old beliefs, ejected others without mercy or a backward glance.

I have continually tried to distill my beliefs to a pure first century Christianity, stripping away overlays of distortion and dead tradition. I try to continually rediscover and practice the living Christianity of Christ.

It is a journey, not a destination.

--wiz

[wizzywig]

caffeinolatry, lightbulba?

you make me sad

--wiz

[theahnfahn]

You are very close Kurgan, and thanks for taking interest in me. No, I am not Agnostic, and for good reason. Should I openly admit it is impossible to reach the how and why of our existence, then will I admit to being an Agnostic. I am far from this, and wouldn't spend the hours I do every day reading if I wasn't expecting an answer. Whether atheistic, agnostic, or theistic, I will make my choice when my knowledge of who we are and why we are here is focused to a crystal clear view of the facts and the interpretations thereof. I am closer to a decision than I have ever been in my life, and expect a well-founded post covering everything we have already encountered here in the past few months and everything I have encountered on my own to be presented within the next week and a half (I'm really pushing this, but it may take longer). My decision at that time should represent everything I hold as true, but until that time I would greatly appreciate everyone's thoughts and insight on this matter. A simple term such as "Roman Catholic" doesn't really help me in understanding how and why the universe is here, why we are here. For once there will be no criticism on my part, so everyone please unload it all :O)

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

[Conor]

Well I'm not sure what you'd want me to say about Catholicism. It is my unwavering belief that it is the complete and unchanged way of life Christ founded roughly 2000 years ago. It is that original Christianity Wiz was talking about.

The Church doesn't really concern herself with the specifics of creation or the methods of how man got here. We are required to believe Adam existed and was the first 'ensouled' being, but the Church's main mission lies elsewhere.

Basically, the Catholic Church (and Christianity in general) is God telling us what He wants, the best way to have a relationship with Him.

------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi

[Vagabond]

Okay fine, I'll be serious for a momment, but if anyone brings this up later I'll deny it.

I'm agnostic. Why? Because, in my opinion (and I don't want to debate my opinion with anyone), there exists no hard evidence, nor any experiment that can be conducted, which will either prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore taking either a theistic or atheistic stance takes a leap of faith. A leap of faith I, personally, am not willing to take.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

[wizzywig]

Conor--

I want to make a point of clarification--not to argue with you but to simply make a clear distinction. You say:


Well I'm not sure what you'd want me to say about Catholicism. It is my unwavering belief that it is the complete and unchanged way of life Christ founded roughly 2000 years ago. It is that original Christianity Wiz was talking about.


I understand the point you are making, relative to your view that Catholicism is original Christianity. I recognize that as your view, I respect it, and I don't wish to argue that point at all. I believe that Christian faith, whether expressed in Catholicism or in some other variant, is true and validated by reason and evidence. In my view, Catholicism is not (to borrow C.S. Lewis' title) the "mere Christianity" of the first century. Rather, I see Catholicism as that original first-century Christianity plus the accretion of 2,000 years of tradition. This is not a criticism of Catholicism, because I do not in principle object to tradition. But that is my observation. I don't believe that the kind of Christianity that was practiced from home to home in the Book of Acts is exactly the same, in its form and rituals, as what is practiced in the Catholic mass today.

That does not invalidate Catholicism in any way. It is not a criticism of Catholicism. It is merely a distinction I felt I ought to make, in view of your statement that Catholicism is "that original Christianity Wiz was talking about." I don't want to seem to be expressing a view that I don't hold.

I think the fact that Christianity comes in so many "flavors" is confusing and frustrating to some. Personally, I think it is a tribute to the creative genius of God that Christianity has proved so adaptable to different times and cultures, taking many different forms from Catholic to Orthodox to Quaker to Presbyterian to Baptist to Pentecostal, yet in all of them the same Jesus is Lord. The rituals and traditions differ, the faith remains universal. A Catholic, an Anglican, or a Lutheran from Europe or America could go to a church service in a thatch-roofed house in a remote village in Africa or an underground house church in China, and would immediately sense a bond of Christian brotherhood, a oneness of faith, that transcends culture and language.

My reason for asserting that I seek a first century brand of Christianity is this: I do not reject tradition per se, since many traditions serve to embody truth and reality. However, I am wary of traditions and rituals that often arise over time which may tend to obscure the purity of an original truth. It is a human tendency for people to take a living truth and embalm it in tradition; Jesus fought that tendency when He went up against the Pharisees. It was the religious establishment of His day that crucified Him. It is something we must continually be on guard against in our own lives, and the way to guard against it, IMHO, is to continually return to the Source of truth for fresh inspiration.

--wiz

[Conor]

I was pretty sure you hadn't come to the realization that the RCC is the original Christian Church yet. I am certain you will though, just as I am certain Lewis would have if he lived longer.

The early church fathers were Catholic (today's Catholic) in every way. I have seen this verified by many (mostly ex-protestant) scholars. The Dogmas of Christianity remain unchanged in the RCC. It is only some disciplines that have changed, which reflect the times and have no bearing on the eternal Word.

As for the thousands of Christian denominations, I don't think that is a good thing at all. The Bible states very clearly that there should not be any dissentions in Christ's Church (I'll find the verse when I get home). It is the work of men, not God.

------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi

[wizzywig]

Conor--

Re:

I was pretty sure you hadn't come to the realization that the RCC is the original Christian Church yet.


Actually, I will not dispute that statement. Viewing all of Christendom as a tree with many branches, the RCC is doubtless the trunk. But to say that the RCC is the trunk does not invalidate any of the branches. The word "catholic" means universal, and I believe that the truly catholic church includes the RCC, the Protestant denominations, the nondenominational Christian communities and house churches, etc.


The early church fathers were Catholic (today's Catholic) in every way.


I will not dispute this either. See how agreeable I am? http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif


As for the thousands of Christian denominations, I don't think that is a good thing at all. The Bible states very clearly that there should not be any dissentions in Christ's Church (I'll find the verse when I get home). It is the work of men, not God.


I think there is a subtle distinction here--perhaps even a paradox--that you may be missing. I agree with you that schism and dissension and discord in the church are terrible. But I do not think that diversity in the church is terrible at all. It is beautiful.

Some of the diversity we see today initially arose from schism, yet the old wounds were eventually healed and Christian brothers from different and diverse traditions now come together in unity. There is even growing rapprochement and dialogue between the RCC and Protestant denominations.

There are many places in the New Testament that warn against dissension in the church, such as 2Cor. 12:20: "For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder." Fact is, the early church was filled with problems, and most of the letters of Paul were written to address one problem or another in the church, including the problem of dissension and factions. If the early church had not been so human and problematical at times, the New Testament would only be about half as long as it is!

Look at the story of Paul and Barnabas in Acts. Two Christian brothers, fellow missionaries, had an argument over a young man named John Mark (who is believed to be the author of the Gospel of Mark), because Mark had shown a lack of character and maturity on a previous missionary journey. Paul didn't trust Mark, Barnabas wanted to give him another chance. Paul and Barnabas argued and split up, and Paul took Silas as his missionary companion while Barnabas took Mark.

Now the dissension between Paul and Barnabas is certainly unfortunate. But the result is that Paul went one direction while Barnabas went another, and twice as many new churches were founded. So I believe God, in a paradoxical and profoundly beautiful way, takes our human frailty and mistakes and He manages to weave something grand and good from it for His own purposes.

Clearly, the RCC at the time of the Reformation was a flawed organization. The corruption in the church at that time was real. Equally clearly, Luther and his fellow reformers were flawed individuals. Whatever his flaws, Luther initially tried to reform the church from within, but when it became clear that it would not be possible, he chose the route of schism.

Who should we fault for the breakaway of the Reformation? Both sides share some blame. But the fact is that (like the Paul-Barnabas split) God was able to bring good out of the flawed conditions we human beings created. The schism of the Reformation is a bad thing, I'll grant you, but the resulting diversity is a good thing.

I realize that you may not think it a good thing that there are Christians who are not under the authority of the Vatican. Well, that's as may be. I see the good that is done in the Catholic Church and the good that is done in the Protestant denominations, and I have to believe that God is working out His plan wherever people are faithful to Him.

I don't mind if you disagree with the view I just expressed. I don't even mind if you say I'm wrong (I expect you to think so). I just wanted to better explain my view, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so.

--wiz

[Kurgan]

Well, I tried. So much for that idea! lol

You guys. ; )

I guess Agnosticism is probably the "safest" route for a person to take, that is, a kind of theological fence ride. You don't have to make up your mind, because you CAN'T. I am not trying to diss on anyone who honestly believes in this system. If that's the best system you can come up with, that's your business.

However, for me, I tend to want to resolve things. Granted, in many ways there's a certain arrogance, implying I can find the "truth" that mankind has sought since the very beginning. However, I guess I am not content to simply "let it all go" and admit I have no chance of figuring even a bit of it out. So I try...

As to the "evidence" I suppose a theist and an atheist, based on their own private biases, will interpret the evidence to support their side. I tend to think that the evidence supports a theist more than an atheist position. Without endorsing any particular creed (okay, mabye the acknowledgment of a monocentric deity).

I have heard some atheists argue that "having a god or gods doesn't help you solve the problem of evil" which is them basically saying "if God exists, he isn't just" or "believing in God doesn't make you moral, and you can't trust God himself to be moral, so why bother?" So basically they don't know whether or not God exists, but they insist that if God did, there would be no reason to believe in him, other than out of fear (which, being our egos are what they are) we would be urged to oppose on the basis of some "intellectual stand." Or something like that. I'm still struggling to understand the mindset.

Anyway, I am examining a variety of faiths to see what "truth" if any I can glean from the history, tradition, practice, and example of its believers and teachers.

My personal faith in Christianity (and Catholicism) seems mainly to have been validated by my searches, but also to have been enriched, by the ways in which other faiths have attempted to discern the "hidden truths" (or the Mysteries or whatever you want to call the stuff in life and existence we only dream about).


That is not to say my beliefs are unchangable or unchanging. From day to day I think they change, at least in small ways. The question is, where does it all lead to?

Kurgan

[Kurgan]

What I mean to say is that, I wish to be right, primarily for the sake of the truth, not for some personal wish-fulfillment.

If I have an obligation to honor a Deity, then I want to uphold that. If an objective morality exists, I want to try to follow it. If there is an afterlife, I need to take that into account in my life.

Kurgan

[Conor]

I'm sure God did use the reformation and other schisms to bring people to Christianity.

However, the fact that God can bring good out of bad does not mean the bad should not be corrected where possible.

If The RCC is Christ's original Church, it would stand to reason that the dissents should be cleared up eventually and everyone brought back to the fold. Besides, most of the Protestent Churches are in serious error on some things. Luther threw out books of the Old Testament because he didn't like what they said, and most Protestant groups reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is a pretty central point to Christianity.

------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi

[Vagabond]

Grrrrrrrrrr....


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

[wizzywig]

Conor--

You say:

The fact that God can bring good out of bad does not mean the bad should not be corrected where possible.

I agree with that statement, but would apply it differently than you would. The RCC at the time of the Reformation was steeped in corruption, and the Reformation movement was a conscientious attempt to correct the bad. I think the principles you state are correct, but sometimes you miss the larger picture. I see all of Christendom as the church, the catholic (universal) church, whereas you seem to view everything outside the RCC as false or in error. If that is your view, fine, I accept that. But I want you to be aware that we have no disagreement on these principles, just on where we apply them.


If The RCC is Christ's original Church, it would stand to reason that the dissents should be cleared up eventually and everyone brought back to the fold.


To be "original" does not mean to be right in all matters. The original must be continually renewed in order to remain true (and I do see many positive signs of ongoing renewal in the Catholic church today).

The idea that "dissents should be cleared up eventually and everyone brought back to the fold" assumes that the RCC is 100 percent correct and everyone else is in error. If it is the so-called "fold" that is in error, then those outside the "fold" are wise to remain where they are. I know you don't see it that way; I'm just trying to get you to see that there is another point of view (I don't expect you to agree with it).

But perhaps I was too hasty in agreeing that the RCC is "original," at least in the sense you intend it. In an even deeper historical sense, the church of Acts was the only original church--everything after the close of the first century, you might say, was add-on and outgrowth. There were churches planted in remote regions during the first century that never came under RCC authority, did not break off from the RCC, and had just as much claim to be "original" (if not moreso) than the RCC. An example is the Axumite community in Ethiopia (which may have been planted by Phillip when he converted the Ethiopian eunuch in the desert); Axum was a non-RCC Christian community that flourished until the spread of Islam in the 7th century. There are other examples.

If you read through the book of Acts you see that minor "reformations" took place from time to time within the primitive church of Acts because it is simply human nature to stray from the truth and add human error into the mix. The RCC and the Protestant denominations are in continual need of renewal and reformation, because human error continually creeps in. Our tendency is to take a pure relationship with God and turn it into religion, which is manmade. So we must go back to the Source, again and again.


Besides, most of the Protestent Churches are in serious error on some things. Luther threw out books of the Old Testament because he didn't like what they said.


I have already stated that Protestant denominations are imperfect. No human system is perfect. No human being is perfect. I have already said that Luther was flawed; but he acted according to his conscience, taking considerable personal risk in order to reform a corrupt system, and I deeply respect that.


Most Protestant groups reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is a pretty central point to Christianity.


Transubstantiation is a central point in RCCdom, not in Christianity as a whole. I'm glad you raise that as an example because it is a perfect example of a late accretion to original Christianity. The doctrine of transubstantiation was formulated in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. There is no rationale for it in Scripture. It was not a doctrine of the church in Acts, nor is there any reference to it in any of the letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. To you it is central; to the rest of Christendom, it is a non-issue. The rest of the church practices Communion, but without the 11th century overlay of transubstantiation.

I know how committed you are to Catholic doctrine and I would not attempt to persuade you that you are wrong. I have no argument with you on this matter. I merely point out that there is another viewpoint, and it is based on the validity of Scripture.

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 05, 2000).]

[wizzywig]

Grrrrrrrrrr....


Careful, Vagabond. You can crack your molars doing that... http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif

-w

[Vagabond]

wizzywig,

Although I don't share you faith, allow me to compliment you on your superb response to Conor. You were polite, while presenting your differing point of view, and without delcaring either of you as having a right or wrong belief. Excellent!


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

[Conor]

Well I certainly took it like he is telling me I am wrong. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif I don't mind though.

I certainly don't exclude Protestants or Orthodox from Christianity. All Christians are members of the mystical body of Christ.

It is my belief that the RCC is 100% correct. Members of the Church have taught things that contradict the Church itself, even high-ranking members, but Church Doctrine has not changed no matter how corrupt those in power were. In fact, Christ's true Church must be 100% correct, as He said the gates of hell would never prevail against it. That implies, at least to me, that only one of the Christian denominations can be correct. I think it is also safe to say that one particular denomination must have been static since Christ's founding of it.

I totally agree on the Reformation. The idiocy going on in that time almost invited it.

As for the Real Presence, you are seriously incorrect if you think it isn't supported by the Bible or wasn't believed from the very beginning. I am certain the writings of Scott Hahn would convince you of this. I haven't read as much of his stuff as I would like, but I am sure I can forward you the applicable titles.

------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi

[wizzywig]

Thanks, Vagabond--

And Conor--

All Christians are members of the mystical body of Christ.

Thanks for that statement. That's helpful clarification.


In fact, Christ's true Church must be 100% correct, as He said the gates of hell would never prevail against it. That implies, at least to me, that only one of the Christian denominations can be correct.


To me, who's correct and who's not is not even at issue.

On transubstantiation (or the Real Presence)--as you can see, I'm already very familiar with the issue. I do not have time or resources (or intense inclination) to reinvestigate it now. But if you have any arguments to offer or quotes by Hahn, I will certainly read them.

--wiz

[Conor]

I don't have a lot from Hahn at the moment, but you can look for yourself.
http://members.tripod.com/ka_johnson_chohrach/rhahn.html

These seem to be full transcripts of some of his talks. the Eucharist one works anyway (I've got to do some reading myself).

The early Church Fathers on the Real Presence:

St. Ignatius(110 AD):"[heretics] abstain from Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ..." Letter to Smyrnaeans 6,2.

St. Justin Martyr (150 AD):"...not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but ... as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that incarnated Jesus." First Apology 66,20.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (195 AD): "He [Jesus] has declared the cup, a part of his creation, to be His own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies." Against Heresies 5,2,2.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (350 AD): "He himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, 'This is My Body,' who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said 'This is My Blood,' who can ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?" Catechetical Lectures: Mystagogic 4,22,1.

Also Cyril: "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy by the Body and Blood of Christ." ibid 4,22,6.

I will do a little reading and try to defend it from a purely bibilical point of view soon, but probably not tonight.



------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi

[Conor]

I think I will try.

The following argument is outlined (i.e. telling what to say and in which order) in Beginning Apologetics 1, How to explain and Defend the Catholic Faith by Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham. San Juan Catholic Seminars. I basically just said what they said. I also got the quotes of the Church Fathers above from them.

In Jn 4:31-34 the disciples urge Jesus to have something to eat. He says "I have food to eat you do not know about." The disciples ask one another, "Has someone been bringing Him food?". Jesus says, "My food is to do the will of the one who sent me, and to complete his work."

Mt 16:5-12 goes:

The disciples, having crossed to the other shore, had forgotten to take any food. Jesus said to them, "Keep your eyes open, and be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." And they said to themselves, "It is because we have not brought any bread." Jesus knew it, and he said, "Men of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you not yet understand? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand and the number of baskets you collected? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand and the number of baskets you collected? How could you fail to understand that I was not talking about bread? What I said was: Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Then they understood that he was telling them to be on their guard, not against the yeast for making bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

In these two examples Jesus talks about food, and the disciples interpret Him literally. Jesus corrects them that in no uncertain terms He is speaking figuratively.

Now take John 6. In Jn 6:51 it says, "I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world."

In Jn 6:52-56, the Jews interpret Him literally, "Then the Jews started arguing with one another: 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' they said. Jesus replied: 'I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him." This is not the language of symbolism.

In verse 60 the Jews say, "This is intolerable language. how could anyone accept it?" In my first examples Jesus corrected his disciples when they interpreted his words literally when he was speaking figuratively. If He was speaking so in this case he would have corrected those who left Him over this, but He didn't.

NEXT POST...

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited April 06, 2000).]

[Conor]

CONTINUED...

Many Protestants claim that, in Jn 6:60-70 Jesus claims He was being symbolic. I.e. in verse 63, Jesus says, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."

What one must realize is that:

1) Jesus' Eucharistic talk ends with verse 58. The next versus talk about faith, not the Eucharist.

2) 'Spirit' is nowhere used in the Bible to mean 'symbolic.' The spiritual is just as real as the material.

3) In verse 63 Jesus is contrasting carnal man, i.e. 'the flesh,' with the 'spiritual' or faith-filled man. 1 Cor 2:14-3:4 offers a good explanation of what is meant by 'the flesh.' Jesus says 'my flesh' when discussing the Eucharist and says 'the flesh when discussing carnal man who will not believe anything beyond his senses and reason. Jesus' flesh is certainly not 'of no avail' as it was the means of our salvation.

4)The unbelievers leave after verse 63. They would not have left Him if He was only speaking symbolically. This is the only recorded time in the NT where any of Jesus' disciples left Him because they found a doctrine of His too hard to accept. Of the twelve Apostles, apparently only Judas rejected the Eucharist (Jn 6:70-71).

Now to other passages in the Bible. Note 1 Cor 11:27, when it says, "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord."

In Aramaic to symbolically "eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" of someone meant to persecute and assault him. See Ps 27:2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, 2 Sam 23:15-17 and Rev 17:6, 16. So if Jesus was only speaking symbolically in Jn 6 about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, then what He actually meant was "whoever persecutes me and assaults me will have eternal life." This makes the passage nonsense of course.

In all four last supper accounts (Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:17-20, 1 Cor 11:23-25) Jesus says plainly that, "This is my body" and "this is my blood." There is no hint of symbolism. Any symbols would have been clearly explained.

Some non-Catholics will insist that we engage in cannibalism and violate the Biblical prohibition of drinking blood. This is the same misunderstanding that led some to reject Jesus when He spoke about the need to eat His body and drink His blood. At the Last Supper, Jesus revealed to them that they would receive His body and blood in the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, not in the bloody cannibalistic way the unbelievers had imagined.

All the early Church Fathers believed in the real presence (see way above http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif). Until the Reformation, all Christianity accepted the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist except for a few heresies. Even Martin Luther confirmed it. See below:

"Who, but the devil, hath granted such a license of wrestling the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposeth upon us by these fanatical men...Not one of the Fathers, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely it is not credible not possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous." (Luther's Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7, p. 391).

Lastly, there are many scientifically verified Eucharistic miracles that confrim the Real Presence. A good suggestion is Joan Cruz's Eucharistic Miracles (Rockford, Ill.: TAN Books, 1988).

------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited April 06, 2000).]

[wizzywig]

Thank you, Conor.

Fascinating presentation. I don't find opinions of church fathers in any way persuasive, but the biblical arguments are interesting and well-reasoned, and I'm copying your message into a reference file I keep on religious matters.

This is not to say that I find the biblical arguments persuasive. You make a good reasoned case in support of beliefs you already hold as a result of church authority. But every conclusion you make is an inference from inconclusive and highly ambiguous evidence that, in my mind, is more reasonably understood as metaphor.

Jesus continually spoke in metaphor and images. He told Nicodemus, "You must be born again," prompting Nicodemus to wonder how he could re-enter his mother's womb. He spoke of His body as a temple that would torn down and rebuilt in three days, prompting His hearers to think He referred to the Temple in Jerusalem.

The passage in Luke 22 reads:


19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my
body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new
covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.


Here, He clearly states the purpose of Communion--it is a remembrance symbolizing His broken body on the cross. The cup is the new covenant, symbolizing His blood--not His literal blood.

Sometimes, when Jesus used difficult metaphors, He corrected people's misimpressions right away, sometimes He allowed the confusion to stand in people's minds, knowing it would become clear after events unfolded. He often spoke cryptically about His upcoming death and resurrection, and people didn't understand what He had meant until after the resurrection.

Conclusion: I really appreciate the work you did to educate me in this regard, and I find it very instructive. I think you have ample biblical support for your belief, but not sufficient to persuade me to change my belief, which concerns a matter that I consider peripheral rather than central to faith. I always approach Communion with a deep sense of respect and gratitude for what Jesus Christ went through for me; I do it, as Jesus said, in remembrance of Him.

And that, I think, is enough.

--wiz

[wizzywig]

P.S.--

I find that the term "scientifically verified" becomes highly elastic in reference to miracles.


-w

[Conor]

Scott Hahn deals with the term 'remembrance' somewhere in his writings, maybe on that website.

Either the actual word used or the way it is used means more than simple memory. It means literally a 're-living' of the event. He elaborates on how this is supported in the Bible and how Jesus literally meant us to re-live the Sacrafice at each mass.

As for the Church Fathers not being given as much weight...they were the direct successors of the Apostles, often trained by the Apostles themselves. If they don't know what they are talking about, the Church went off the rails very quickly.

BTW, I don't think the evidence is ambiguous at all, and I think Jesus made it very clear the metaphor route does not apply in this situation. I also think it is very, very important. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif

P.S. If Jesus actually did mean a metaphor and was just waiting for it to become 'clear' He made a mistake. It would only have become 'clear' 1500 years after He founded His Church. I find it impossible to believe Jesus would have deliberately made something fuzzy enough that it fooled everyone for 3/4 of Christian history.

------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited April 06, 2000).]

[Conor]

You will probably want to especially look these parts of the site: The Eucharist: Holy Meal, as well as The Fourth Cup: The Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Of course, the rest of the stuff is interesting too.

------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi

[Conor]

I have to say something else. I honestly don't think you realize just how important this issue is, wizzywig.

I wasn't entirely accurate before when I said the Eucharist is a central tenet of Catholicism. It would be better to say it is the central, focal point of Catholicism and Christianity. Any and all dissensions to the Real Presence were considered heresies by the Church for 1500 years, and in fact they still are.

The Eucharist is the central point of the Catholic Mass, which is the focus of our Christian life. It is where we come (sometimes once a week, sometimes daily) to go back to what you are so fond of calling 'the source'. The source, ultimately, is not the Bible. The source is Jesus Christ, who makes Himself physically present every day in countless places across the world. It is the eternal sacrifice of the Passover Lamb, which must be eaten. He commands us to do so.

I think that to deny the Eucharist is to miss out on Christianity in a very real way.

------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited April 06, 2000).]

[Conor]

I am just trying to impress upon you that I am not simply quibbling over doctrine. It is ever so much more than that. It is the reason the Christian Churches will never be reunited as long as this situation persists.

I hope you understand. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif



------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi

[wizzywig]

Conor--

Re:

I have to say something else. I honestly don't think you realize just how important this issue is, wizzywig.


I realized very early on that you do consider this a core issue, and I respect that. That's not just an idle, patronizing statement, like "I hear you." No, I really honestly respect the seriousness of your devotion, and I honor and admire that very much. I absolutely understand that you consider this an extremely crucial issue, and I have read your comments and your evidence very carefully.

Conor, my friend, I sense the genuine concern you have. I do not think you are merely trying to win a debate. No, you are seeking to share your conviction of the truth out of a real sense of Christian friendship. I am really grateful for the time you took not to merely educate me on this subject, but to enlighten me. Thank you.


The source, ultimately, is not the Bible. The source is Jesus Christ, who makes Himself physically present every day in countless places across the world.


The Source: I'm not sure why I used that term in a couple of previous posts. It's not a term I use on a recurring basis, but it just seemed to have the right connotation. Reflecting on it, I realize that what was in my thinking when I referred to the Source was the Word--both the living Word and the written Word, the Logos, by Whom everything was created. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." You are entirely right. He is the Source.

In a very real sense, I'm not sure how far apart we truly are on the Eucharist, or Communion, or the Lord's Supper (as it is variously known). You believe in the Real Presence--that, even though it looks and tastes like a wafer and wine, miraculous transubstantiation has taken place.

When I take Communion, I sense His presence with me in a special way. When I partake of the bread and the cup, I "feed" on Him in a very real way.

I don't want to minimize or blur the difference between your view and mine. I know that what separates us on this issue is more than mere semantics--but perhaps not as much as we might think. I don't know. Just a thought.


I am just trying to impress upon you that I am not simply quibbling over doctrine.


I understand that.

I will say this: I am well aware that I don't have the corner on the truth. I am always open to new input, new data, always seeking to ever more closely align myself to the Reality, to (as TheAhnFahn said in another thread) what IS.

However imperfectly, I'm muddling along and doing my best to follow my Lord. I know I screw it up from time to time. For example, there are times on this forum that I get annoyed with people where Jesus would be patient, I have sometimes blasted where Jesus would have blessed. (For example, I know there are times I've probably been harder on Vagabond than I should have been--sorry, V!)

But for all my imperfection, I also know that His hand is on my life and that He's showing me new things every day. It's an exciting way to live, every new day an adventure of discovery.

You may be right about the centrality of the Eucharist and transubstantiation to Christianity qua Christianity. I don't see it that way, I am not persuaded, but my mind is never closed to new input.

I do know that, however deluded or ignorant or unenlightened I may be about many things, however much I have yet to learn about what IS, I know that God is real, that Jesus is Lord, that life has meaning and purpose, and that He is working out His plan through my life. I know He is doing so through your life, as well, Conor.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your convictions with me. I genuinely appreciate it.

--wizzywig



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 07, 2000).]

[Conor]

Thanks for the response.

I am going to read <u>The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth</u> by Scott Hahn (hopefully soon) and I will comment on anything I find relevant.

On a different note, I'm reading a small book by a guy named Thomas Rutkoski called <u>Apostles of the Last Days</u>. It is basically his conversion story (lapsed Catholic to basically nothing and back to Cathlolic) and how the virgin Mary's appearences in Medjugorje in Yugoslavia played a big role in him coming back to Jesus.

The really fascinating thing is he claims Jesus literally talks to him in his head, has conversations with him and guides him. My mother once heard the guy speak and she says he was one of the most amazing people she'd met.

------------------
"If there were not God, there would be no atheists."
-G.K. Chesterton

[Vagabond]

wiz,


...For example, I know there are times I've probably been harder on Vagabond than I should have been--sorry, V!...


No problem man. I'm a big boy - I can take it http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif Thanks anyway though.



------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

[Kurgan]

As to transubtation, just look in the Gospels.

Most of those early Church councils were not to FORM NEW DOGMA, but only to clarify what was already believed by the Church.

That is, those things were brought to light because of heresy.. somebody teaching something else that was contrary to the true message, thus it was important that these councils were formed to combat the "false" (as the orthodox believers saw it) teachings.

When Jesus says "this is my body" and "this is my blood" and etc, is he being metaphorical, or is he being literal? And how would you know if he was meaning it only symbolically? Apparently the early Church believed that it was really his body. And numerous sources can be sited (if more are needed) on this point.

I will freely admit, at the time of the Protestant Reformation (unlike earlier reformations), the institutional RCC was having some problems with corruption. Thus, it was only natural that some would speak up about it. The problem is, I think the "Reformers" went about it in the wrong way. Essentially, they only made the problem worse, by further splintering the Church.

We are all working towards a common communion though, or I should say most are (apart from some minority sects that may claim all but their particular church are agents of Satan, destined for eternal fire). Continued dialouge and peaceful discussion and sharing have contributed to better understand, and has helped heal the old wounds, misunderstandings, and grudges that unfortunately arose centuries ago.

Vagabond: don't worry, if this discussion bothers you, back off, nobody is forcing you to participate. No offense, of course. ; )

Nobody is condemning anyone (and if they are going to, they shouldn't), just expressing themselves, and trying to help others see their point of view, which is a step towards understanding. Nothing wrong with civilized discussions, even if it does get a bit heated at times (as long as everyone keeps cool, we can work it out).

Kurgan

[wizzywig]

Kurgan--

The discussion has been entirely civil. All light, no heat whatsoever.

Interesting, though, that you can't just ask for a simple poll without the thread turning into a philosophical discussion of encyclopedic proportions! http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif

See what you started?

--wiz

[Vagabond]

Kurgan,


...Vagabond: don't worry, if this discussion bothers you, back off, nobody is forcing you to participate. No offense, of course. ; ) ...


Jeez, where'd that come from? My comments in this thread have been very minimal and non-hostile. In any event, I'm sure you know me well enough by now to know that if I don't feel like participating, then I won't http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif

How's that DSL working out for you?



------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

[wizzywig]

Vagabond--

Kurgan may have been responding to that little parenthetical of mine, above. I was referring to some of our discussions in other threads, not this one.

--wiz

[Vagabond]

wiz,

Okay. I was wondering what Kurgan's comments were all about. Was wondering if he was referring to my, "Grrrrrrrrrr..." speech.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

[Zoom Rabbit]

Greetings. I'm ba-ack... http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif

Without having read the mass of following debates, I'll answer Kurgan's original question. If forced to label my beliefs and put what is different about my background into words, I would have to call myself a Christian Mystic Samurai.

But that's silly...

<font color=red>Banzai!</font>



------------------
"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

[Conor]

Referring to that book by Thomas Rutkoski I mentioned above, here is something Jesus told him to type into the book.

Can't you understand the absolute necessity of the Eucharist in your lives? That it is truly the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ? The miracles surrounding the Eucharist are astounding. Teresa Neuman lived on <u>just the Eucharist</u> for years. It is documented, in several instances, that at Mass when the Priest broke the Eucharist it bled real blood and turned into real flesh. Angels, in apparitions, have presented the Eucharist to seers in Garabandal."

He goes on:

The Lord Jesus Christ has given me a mandate to tell the world that salvation comes from Jesus Christ, through His "bride", His Holy Catholic Church. There are saints whose bodies do not deteriorate as proof of their holiness. This testifies to the truth that the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, under the spiritual leadership of the Pope is the true Church...

All other churches came from a fight, an argument that brought division. That division, through pride, caused an organization to be be formed that others call a "church". Twenty-two (25 now, this was written in the late 80's/early 90's) thousand different denominations exist! That is impossible because Christ has only one "bride", and His house is not divided. His children are. Those children need to be converted back to the Universal Faith, the Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus Christ started when He said to Peter, "On this rock I will build My church <u>and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.</u>" He, who dares to say the gates of hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church, calls Jesus Christ a liar. It is not that other religions don't have some or even most of the truth; it is just that they don't have all of the truth, the most important truth. Only a Catholic priest has the power to make the Sign of the Cross over bread and wine and change them into the Living Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

---------------------------------------------

This guy had an amazing story in his book, how he went from being completely oblivious to religion, to realizing Jesus exists and cares, eventually talking to Him on a regular basis and being led back to the Catholic Church.

------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

[Kylilin]

I beleive in a higher power, I just don't know what yet, whether it be God, or Allah, or Buddah. I am positive in my mind that there is some force greater than us that is responsible for us and the life on our planet, but I am not positive of what that force is.

[wizzywig]

Conor--

I debated whether or not to comment on your post, because I don't want to get drawn into a long thing. But I take it your post was directed to me, so, without wanting to be argumentative, I want to give you a response.

I am always skeptical whenever anyone, from whatever religious tradition, says something like you say Thomas Rutkoski said, that "Jesus told him to type into the book" some very specific statements. I have friends in the Pentecostal tradition who make similar statements. It is very common for them to cite miracles and say, "God told me such-and-such." Whenever they say that, I always try to find out how God spoke to them so directly, and invariably the answer I get is highly subjective, and related to inner feelings and thoughts which they identify as God's voice. I am convinced it is very easy for people to identify their own thoughts, their own feelings, as God's voice or urging. I see no reason to receive Rutkoski's inner urgings as any sort of objective and authoritative word from God. I cannot really understand how you accept it as such without hesitation--except that it supports what you believe to be true.

Unverified miracles such as the Teresa Neuman anecdote are meaningless to me. I don't accuse anyone of dishonesty. I don't even claim it is untrue. It is simply a tale without support, and thus holds no meaning for me whatsoever. Other similar "miracles" are claimed as "documented." In other words, documents exist which make such claims. Well, many claims are documented; few are scientifically verified. And if they were, so what?

There is a hard core of illogic at the heart of Rutkoski's argument--and yours. It is this: He claims that his inner message, combined with certain alleged miracles, prove that there is only one "true church," the "one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, under the spiritual leadership of the Pope." That is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow logically from the data. If a miracle occurs in my church, it does not logically follow that my church is the only true church and that the church down the street is a false church. I have witnessed what I consider to be bona fide miracles myself; I do not derive from that the conclusion that I am the only true Christian believer and that everyone who does not witness such things is false or fraudulent or second-class.

Like I said, I know people who try to convince me that the Pentecostal church is the one true church, and they do so on the very same basis--an inner voice from God and alleged miracles. My friend, it is not logical for them to make that case, and it is not logical for you to make that case either.

All other churches came from a fight, an argument that brought division. That division, through pride, caused an organization to be be formed that others call a "church".

This is a rather arrogant and demeaning statement on Rutkoski's part. First, it was corruption in the institutional Catholic church which led to the fight. The RC institution has shown itself over the centuries to be flawed and corrupt and in error at times, and has itself admitted those flaws. The Reformers initially did not want to break with the RC church. The RC church pushed the Reformers to that extreme measure by resisting internal reform.

Second, Rutkoski clearly considers all non-RC churches (or "churches" in quotes) to be illegitimate and false, not part of the universal or catholic (lower case c) church. He is obviously wrong, and such a destructive, divisive, insulting message could not have come directly from God. The way to bring about Christian unity is not to demand that all Christians everywhere knuckle under to the Vatican, but to celebrate the rich diversity and harmony and validity of the entire Christian church, both RC and non-RC.

Third, I submit to you that it is completely false to say that divisions are necessarily the result of "pride." Often, divisions are the result of conscience. The Reformation was a conscientious division, and the motivation behind the Reformation was a desire for justice and purity and obedience before God--not pride. The same can be said of many other divisions among Christians, including the division between Paul and Barnabas in the Book of Acts.

Fourth, it is arrogance and blindness on Rutkoski's part to assume that the statement of Jesus to Peter ("On this rock...") refers specifically to the RC church alone. Without question, it refers to the entire Christian church in all its varied and beautiful forms. All true Christians--RC, orthodox, protestant, whatever--can trace their origin back to apostolic times and the church of the Book of Acts. The RC church does not own the patent on Christianity, no matter what bigoted statements may pour from the imagination of Mr. Rutkoski, parading as direct inspiration from God.

He, who dares to say the gates of hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church, calls Jesus Christ a liar.


This is a marvelous inversion of logic. It's also very clever, setting up a straw-man argument and saying, "If you disagree with my interpretation, you're blaspheming Christ!" I reject that clever but misleading premise. There was no RC church when Jesus made the "gates of hell" statement. There were only a handful of disciples. Jesus was speaking about all believers, present and future, not just the RC church.

My point here is that I would really encourage you, as I have all along, to recognize another way of looking at the entire Christian church. I don't ask you to agree with it, just see that there is another way of looking at these issues and biblical passages such as the "Upon this rock" statement. That statement of Jesus does not apply narrowly to the RC church, but to the catholic (universal) Christian church, of which you and I and all other believers, Catholic and Protestant, are fully and equally a part.

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 17, 2000).]

[Conor]

I have looked at your view of Christianity and many 'churches', through my Church and the eyes of many ex-protestants. I think you are completely, utterly wrong.

Diversity in Christianity is evil, the work of the devil. Divisions in Christ's Church can never be a good thing no matter what the state of mind of those who split. Your belief in the nature of Christian churches is incompatible with mine. I do not think other churches can be called "Christ's" because they split from His one, true Church, thus the invalidity.

The Pope is the spiritual head of Christ's Church on earth, given the position by Christ Himself, and I believe I can prove this. The statement of Rock undoubtedly refers to Peter being declared the head of the earthly Church, the Rock on which the Church will be built. Well guess what? Every single church but one has split from Peter's authority, and I say that means they have split from Jesus' ideal.

As for Rutkoski, we are to judge the authenticity of people by their fruits. He has been the catalyst for thousands of people, Protestants and non-Christians alike, to come back to Christ and His Church. Miracles follow him everywhere he goes. Just about everything he prays for comes true.

One miracle in particular (that he sees frequently) happens all over the world, in many different circumstances, to sometimes thousands of people at once. The miracle of the dancing sun is a strange one indeed. At its first appearance in Fatima (and Our Lady's apparitions there) in 1914 (I think, but may be off by a year or two) the sun came out in the middle of heavy rain, moved around the sky, zoomed out and then hurtled toward the earth so fast that nearly everyone threw themselves to the ground. When they looked up the sun was in its rightful place, the rain had stopped and everyone was perfectly dry. This miracle is well documented. It also continues to happen today. It happens a lot in Medjegorje, Yugoslavia and my mother saw it in Colorado when the Pope visited. Rutkoski sees this miracle all the time.

Everything about him from the fruits of his labours to the miracles surrounding him to the things Jesus is supposed to be saying to him convince me he is authentic.



------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

[Conor]

Again, I respect you and I'm sure you believe you are right.

But I can't agree with you, and I think I have every reason not to.

[wizzywig]

Conor:

Again, I respect you and I'm sure you believe you are right.

But I can't agree with you, and I think I have every reason not to.

My position is the mirror image of yours. I respect you, I know you believe you are right in all good conscience, and I can't agree with you, because you have given me no good reason to agree with you--only unsupported claims and bald assertions.

You'll recall that whenever I have discussed these issues on this forum, I have always tried to offer verifiable evidence, not mere unsupported claims. This dancing sun business, for example: People in one location claim to see the sun behaving like an idiot in the sky. Meanwhile, everywhere else in the world (at least, wherever the sun is shining and it is not night), there are no such reports. The sun remains in place as always. What am I to logically make of such an absurd claim? Must I believe it simply because you say so?

I have experienced or verified several miraculous events, and they are always meaningful in nature. The miracles that I have verified to my satisfaction are never the kind of meaningless gosh-wow, bizarre fireworks-and-laser-light-show type event you describe. The miracles I have seen or verified are not like parlor magic or sci-fi SP/FX; they are more like the miracles in the Bible--they always have a meaningful, compelling, spiritual point to make, and they do so in a majestic, dignified way.

It is like the old Groucho Marx line, "Who are you going to believe--me or your own eyes?" You seem to expect me to abandon my reasoning faculties in favor of wild and unsupported claims.

Christianity is a reasonable faith, based on reasonable evidence, not wild absurdities. I don't say this to attack your faith, but to explain why I cannot accept the claims you make.

The Christian Scriptures make it very clear that we are not to accept every religious-sounding claim with abject gullibility. Rather, as 1 John 4:1 says, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

I am practicing the honest and careful and sincere skepticism that is demanded by genuine Christian faith. I respect your beliefs (by that, I mean I believe your Christianity is authentic, even though I think you are sincere but misguided in some non-essential areas).

Though you say you respect my beliefs, I don't know what that means. You clearly consider my position as a Christian to be inferior to that of a Catholic Christian--you see my beliefs and my Christianity as false compared to RC belief. I cannot help that, and I am not bothered by that. This is what you have been taught in the RC tradition, which you accept without question, and I understand and accept that to be your position.

But here I stand, as Luther rightly said. I can do no other.

Ah, well. I know you mean the best for me, and I consider your words an act of friendship, even though I must reject them. I wish you the best.

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 17, 2000).]

[Conor]

I have every bit of confirmation I need that the miracle of the dancing sun is real. You can call thousands and thousands of people liars if you want (that is what you are doing, really, if you don't believe it happens), but my mother saw it, and that is more than enough for me. I have also seen silver-coloured rosaries that were turned gold-coloured instantaneously, for no other reason than to show God is there. My aunt has a few of these.

Also, I do not believe without question. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif I have read the testamonies of quite a few prominent Protestants of various backgrounds come to the conclusion, through reasoned analysis of the early Church and the Bible, that the RCC is the one, the only, true Church of Christ, and the rest should not have been formed and should not exist, as such divisions are contrary to God's will expressed in the Bible.

In regards to a previous statement, no we should not knuckle under the vatican just because the Church says so. We should obey Christ, and He says to submit to the authority of Peter. I can say with absolute confidence that Christ wants everyone to be in the Catholic Church. Rather than print whole books on here (for that is what it would take) I can get you the titles of a number of testamonies on why these people left whatever they were doing and became Catholic. A decision they only came to after questioning and reasoned discourse.



------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

[Vagabond]

*sigh*


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

[theahnfahn]

Conor:
I have to say I am siding heavily with Wiz here. I almost fear for you, because it seems as though you follow this church more than the words and works of Jesus Christ. What you are putting forth in terms of "proof" is based solely on the word of the church, backed by meaningless "miracles" of material transformation. The message Jesus gave us was to love God and love our fellow man. This in and of itself, when carried out in full, exemplifies a perfect life. I want you to think about that. A church is needed to ensure a supposed truth is freely presented to its people in hopes of salvation, learning, and understanding. A church is not needed for every living person, something that one MUST classify themselves under to follow a given doctrine. I fail to see how a governing body should decide for you in how you must interpret and follow Biblical text. If you argue you do not need this then I argue your church is nothing more than a symbol - something you classify yourself under with the sole belief that it is inherently correct and so it follows you are as well. I feel it more important to lead a life as would Jesus, not live a life under his supposed church.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

[wizzywig]

Thanks, AhnFahn. I substantially agree with what you say. I am convinced that it is very important for believers to be in regular fellowship or community with other believers. But the exact form that the fellowship takes is not of critical importance in determining the validity and genuineness of one's faith.

I do understand where Conor is coming from. The RC church claims to be the one true church. It claims to have authority that is equal to the authority of Scripture. It claims to be the mediator between God and human beings. This is one of the areas in which I believe the RC church is in error, because Paul, in 1 Timothy 2:5, says, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." The church took over that role of mediator between man and God in the middle ages, and that was one of the areas of corruption that Luther and others objected to. But the RC church maintains that position to this day.

I do not consider that a serious enough error to say that RC believers are not genuine. I believe Conor and other RC believers are genuine Christians. He does not seem to reciprocate that belief with regard to me and believers outside the RC church. Again, I understand that is what he has been raised to believe, and I'm okay with that. In order to be a good Catholic, Conor must believe that way. But I don't have to believe that way in order to be a good Christian.

Conor:

You ignore some of my main points. I'm going to number them and I would be interested in a response to them. However, I am not demanding a response, and if you choose not to comment on them, that's okay.

1. I said that the Scriptures require me to verify spiritual claims with extreme care. I cited 1 John 4:1: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." How do you square that with your urgings that I believe what you say without any proof?

2. You do not consider my Christianity to be valid or true, am I right? If there is one true faith, then mine is false, correct? I think I already know the answer, but I think it is important for you to face the full brunt of what you are saying, which is that no one outside the Catholic church is a genuine Christian.

3. You did not address what I call "the hard core of illogic at the heart of Rutkoski's argument--and yours." It is the idea that if a miracle occurs in THIS church, then it means that THAT church over which did not experience the same miracle MUST be a false and invalid church. Let's say that the dancing sun miracle is true. So what? Does that invalidate all of non-RC Christianity? Show me the logical steps which produce such a conclusion.

4. You ignored my point that it was corruption in the RC church that produced the Reformation. The corruption of that era is undeniable. Equally undeniable is the fact that the Reformers did not want to break from the RC church. They wanted to reform the church, not leave it. It was the RC church hierarchy that demonstrated arrogance and pride on top of corruption, refusing to reform itself while persecuting the Reformers. The Reformers were threatened, the Church refused to change, the corruption was real and rampant. You tell me: What were the Reformers supposed to do? I submit to you that they did the only thing they could do, and they did exactly what God led them to do.

I will agree with you that division and disunity is not God's first and chosen way to bring about His purpose. It has been said that the best Christian witness is oneness. But God takes the circumstances people generate and He uses those circumstances to further His purposes. So human beings fight and argue and dissent, because that's what human beings do. But God takes our crap and uses it as fertilizer to grow something beautiful--diversity and harmony, unity without uniformity, churches that are different in character (reflecting the many differences of human culture and personality) but the same in purpose and spirit. If you cannot see that, you miss so much that is beautiful and splendid about worldwide Christianity.

5. You have never commented, that I recall, on the split between Paul and Barnabas in the Book of Acts. Was that a terrible thing or a good thing? I submit to you that it was an unfortunate division among Christian brothers that God used to produce good results and further His purpose in the world.

You say:


I have every bit of confirmation I need that the miracle of the dancing sun is real. You can call thousands and thousands of people liars if you want (that is what you are doing, really, if you don't believe it happens)...


What thousands and thousands of people? I have never met one of these alleged people. I am not calling you a liar or anyone else a liar. I have simply never been presented any evidence that the event really happened or the people really existed.

There is a story making the email rounds that "NASA scientists" have used computers to prove that a certain Bible miracle took place. The story is a crock. Now, if I go to some believers and say, "That story is a crock," I'm bound to hear one of them say, "You mean you're calling those NASA scientists liars?" No, I'm saying the whole story is a crock.

I'm not saying the dancing sun story is a crock. I am only saying that I have no evidence whatsoever for the dancing sun story--including no evidence for the existence of the alleged witnesses.

Similarly, I have no evidence for the other miracles you claim. I'm not calling anyone a liar. There are plenty of explanations for such occurrences other than dishonesty, so let's not go there.

And that brings us back to my earlier point. Let's say the miracles are all true as you claim. So what? Does that invalidate my beliefs? Does that invalidate my church? No. Such a conclusion is illogical, as I have clearly shown.


I have read the testamonies of quite a few prominent Protestants of various backgrounds come to the conclusion, through reasoned analysis of the early Church and the Bible, that the RCC is the one, the only, true Church of Christ, and the rest should not have been formed and should not exist, as such divisions are contrary to God's will expressed in the Bible.


You like to cite Protestants who have turned RC, and that's understandable. There are also RCs-turned-Protestants that we could discuss. I don't bother going there because it proves nothing. People change their minds and their beliefs. I have no problem with people going into the RC church or coming out of it because I see the TRUE church as much larger than one particular sect. You see ONLY the one sect as true, which is unfortunate but understandable.

We should obey Christ, and He says to submit to the authority of Peter. I can say with absolute confidence that Christ wants everyone to be in the Catholic Church.

That is your interpretation of the "upon this rock" statement of Jesus. It's the RC interpretation. It is not the only reasonable interpretation and it is clearly not my interpretation. Do not expect me to buy into an interpretation of Scripture which makes no rational sense to me.


Rather than print whole books on here (for that is what it would take) I can get you the titles of a number of testamonies on why these people left whatever they were doing and became Catholic. A decision they only came to after questioning and reasoned discourse.

I personally know people who have gone the other direction, from the RC church into protestantism. I also know people who have gone from the RC church into atheism, but that in no ways proves atheism is correct.

I could cite all kinds of cases, but why? It's not relevant. Everyone has their personal reasons for their beliefs, but that proves nothing in an objective sense. You need not bother going there, for I will not pursue that line of inquiry. As you can see, it is of no interest, relevance, or validity to me.

I think I am approaching the end of my ability to engage in this dialogue, my friend, though I would read any response you have to make with interest. Again, I want to underscore that I sense your genuine conviction and concern in everything you say. I affirm and applaud your motives, even if I cannot agree with your conclusions.

And I consider you a Christian brother and friend, despite our differences on these issues.

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 17, 2000).]

[Kurgan]

I thought I posted (maybe it didn't post) Vagabond, that your growling was all that was tipping me off to an "anger" growing on the thread. ; )

Oh this reminds me of other debates between Protestants and Catholics I see in writing.

The Protestants accuse or imply that the Catholic is following the Pope instead of Christ.

The Catholics accuse or imply that the Protestants are following the Reformers instead of Christ.

Catholics, the Protestants say, are trusting the Church above God.

Protestants, the Catholics say, are trusting the Bible above God.

You certainly can't have it both ways.

I must say that I reject both the concepts of Sola Scriptura and [i]Sola Fidela[/b].

To be honest, I really am not certain what "saves" or "condemns" a person, but I am certain that God knows. If, however, you are going to simply follow the Bible, you cannot really force those two square concepts (above) into the round holes of Scripture.

The trouble between Christian denominations is not in the text itself (well not usually, most of us should know a bad translation when we see one), nor in the organization (I feel), but in their INTERPRETATION of the signs and words of the God we all believe in.

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited April 17, 2000).]

[wizzywig]

Kurgan--


The Protestants accuse or imply that the Catholic is following the Pope instead of Christ.

The Catholics accuse or imply that the Protestants are following the Reformers instead of Christ.


I haven't said (or implied) a word about the Pope. And I have not attacked the modern Catholic church (though the corruption of the old RCC is beyond dispute).

My principal point is that the Christian church, the truly "catholic" or universal church made up of all true Christians, is much larger and broader than the Roman Catholic Church alone. This is a concept that Conor obviously cannot accept. But the evidence leads me to that conclusion, and he offers me no convincing evidence to alter my conviction.

--wiz

[theahnfahn]

Wiz:
Good thoughts. So far, that is precisely what I have learned from reading the Bible and how I have interpreted it.

Conor:
What difference does it make? This is in no way meant as a negative remark. All I am asking is that if Wiz is living under a flawed worldview, what will the outcome be? That is the heart of this matter. Anyone can beleive whatever they want, and the only affect this will have is if there are consequences for these beliefs. The universal theme present in all of Christ's teachings was that ritual is not a necessity, it is a celebration. The Pharisees serve a tremendous purpose in qualifying what I just said. So, I repeat, what difference does it make? Clearly, you believe it does because you press that you have the only true faith, but I fail to see where you are headed with this if you are true to your claim.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

[wizzywig]

TheAhnFahn--

The universal theme present in all of Christ's teachings was that ritual is not a necessity, it is a celebration. The Pharisees serve a tremendous purpose in qualifying what I just said.

Stunning insight...

Again and again in the gospels, you see Christ stripping away the accretion of confining religious rules and meaningless rituals (I'm not saying all rituals are meaningless, but some definitely are), in order to lay bare the REALITY of authentic faith. Ritual is good and positive, as you point out, when it serves to focus worship and generate celebration of truth and God. When it becomes a spiritual straightjacket, ritual becomes a destructive religious force. Pharisaism is truly instructive in this regard.

Again, a stunning insight...

--wiz

[wizzywig]

I should add that the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Reformers had become a very Pharisaical institution, oppressing the people with rules and observances and indulgences that mimicked (with uncanny precision!) the Pharisaic oppression that Jesus fought in His day. The church that Jesus founded had come to resemble the very institution He had fought against and which had nailed Him to a tree.

But that is not surprising. It is the normal tendency of human beings to take a vital, living relationship with God and, over time, corrupt it into dead, oppressive religion. Pure Judaism was corrupted into dead Pharisaism, and pure Christianity was corrupted into the institutional oppression that was Catholicism in the Reformation era.

When Luther and the other reformers attempted to reform the church from within, they were living after the example of Christ, who fought the very same kinds of corruption in the all-pervading religious institution of His day. Not that the Reformers were perfect, but they sought in good conscience to cleanse the church they loved.

When the church institution resisted reform and tried to destroy them, the Reformers had no choice but the seek to re-establish the purity of the church OUTSIDE of the jurisdiction of the RCC. The church left them no options. The goal of the Reformers was to restore the purity of first-century worship by stripping away the accretion of oppressive rules and confining ritual that had overgrown the original purity of the early church.

There is no question that the RCC of Luther's day was a far cry from the simple house-to-house style of worship that was practiced in the Book of Acts. Many Christians today, from Red China to America, are rediscovering the same simplicity of worship that the early church practiced.

Reformation and renewal must be an ongoing practice, not only in churches and denominations, but in individual lives.

--wiz

[Conor]

I'll get back to you, probably later today.

I haven't been ignoring points because I don't think I can answer them. I am writing finals and I haven't had a whole lot of time on the internet. I have only wrote some of what I wanted to say. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif

------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

[Vagabond]

Conor,


...I haven't been ignoring points because I don't think I can answer them...


Speaking for myself, I do not equate not replying with one not thinking one can answer. After observing where your debate has lead, one might logically conclude that you'd realized a stalemate has been reached and that any further debate would be simply beating a dead horse.

In any event, I hope that you didn't reach this conclusion about me after I withdrew from some of our previous debates, because if so you'd be fantastically mistaken. There comes a point when debating the same point over and over becomes tiresome rather than enlightening.

And everyone, please don't interpret my comments here as my attempting to discourage any further debate - not at all. I'm merely commenting on what Conor said and the perceived implication that simply because one does not reply, then that person is unable to form a reply.

Carry on http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif



------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

[Ikhnaton]

I have to agree with Vagabond... the Catholic vs. Protestant debate will not ever come to any resolution. The only thing that can ever unite Christians is true love for Christ and a yearning to for the truth and to obey God. That and a lot of prayer.

But my viewpoints on other Christian denominations has changed over the years. I am much more relaxed about it. Not for an instant do I think that one religion is as good as another, but i do realize that what DOES matter is that the faithful have a true love for God and a strong desire to serve him. That supercedes, in my opinion, any membership to any denomination or creed. The unity that we already have is starting to be realized, in my opinion. Many churches, RC included, are suffering again from Pharisee-ism. I think people are starting to realize the spirit of the law a bit more, instead of just following the letter.

Remember, God will be as lax or as harsh with us as we are with our brother.

[wizzywig]

I agree with you, Ike, if I understand you correctly.

I believe a relational and spiritual unity is far more important than an organizational and institutional unity. It is this relational and spiritual oneness that I believe Jesus was talking about in His high priestly prayer before the cross in John 17: "...that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you."

When the world sees that Christians can be united across the lines of diversity that differentiate them, it becomes a witness to the reality of the living Christ within them.

--wiz

[wizzywig]

Conor--

I didn't mean to imply that you had no answer for those points--I have every confidence that you do! http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/biggrin.gif

I know that, as the discussion burgeons, it becomes increasingly more of a chore to cover every point.

--wiz

[Ikhnaton]

wiz, it is a paradox, to be sure. On one hand, we are all unified in our purpose, to love God and to serve Him. However, the diversity that exists is not necessarily a good thing. If one church says X is wrong, and another says it is ok, which is right? Which one is loving God in the more proper way?

Fortunately for us, God will sort it out, but anyone who seeks the truth will have to ask themselves that question, and will, if they seek it hard enough, arrive at the church that Christ himself founded. I won't give it a name, but you know where I stand http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif

There can be only one. There is only one church that is faithful to all that Christ taught. That is the truth of the matter.

The spiritual unity that Jesus prayed about almost exists. But I also think that with total spiritual unity, there will be a lot more organizational unity as well.

[wizzywig]

Ike--


There can be only one. There is only one church that is faithful to all that Christ taught. That is the truth of the matter.


I would say there can only be one at most. That is logical, in theory.

But in actual practice, I don't believe there is any one church that is correct in every respect. All churches/denominations are composed of human beings and thus fall prey to human fallibility. I wouldn't presume to say which churches practice which errors, since I am human and fallible, too, and I have no doubt that some of my ideas about reality are off the mark (if I knew which ones, I'd change them, of course, to conform with what IS).

Catholics believe the RCC is 100 percent correct. But which wing of the RCC? The conservative wing? The liberal wing? The charismatic wing? The Marxist liberation theology wing? The RCC was horribly corrupt during the time of the Reformation, so it cannot always have been 100 percent correct. Even the papacy has been corrupt in past times.

(Remember Alexander VI, pope from 1492-1503? He purchased the office through simony, fathered four children, used his wealth and power for worldly pleasure and to punish enemies, and arranged the trial and execution of church reformer Girolamo Savonarola).

So you will never convince me that the RCC holds the corner on truth. No church does.

Only God holds the corner on truth. The rest of us just do the best we can to follow Him, trusting His grace to make up for our error and limitation.


The spiritual unity that Jesus prayed about almost exists. But I also think that with total spiritual unity, there will be a lot more organizational unity as well.


I can't disagree with that.

--wiz

[Vagabond]

wiz,


...Catholics believe the RCC is 100 percent correct...


I'm sure I don't need to point this out to you, but this statement is false. Why? Technically I am Catholic, yet I view many of the RCC's core teachings as intrusive and oppressive. No, my friend, this Catholic believes the RCC is quite flawed, and very far behind the times. Let's face it, any institution run by men is inherently flawed due to the mere fact that men are themselves flawed, hence can not be 100% correct.

P.S. If I don't respond, it's not because I can't, it's because I choose not to.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

[wizzywig]

V:


Technically I am Catholic, yet I view many of the RCC's core teachings as intrusive and oppressive. No, my friend, this Catholic believes the RCC is quite flawed, and very far behind the times. Let's face it, any institution run by men is inherently flawed due to the mere fact that men are themselves flawed, hence can not be 100% correct.


You're quite right. I should have said "intensely committed Catholics"--Catholics of the Conor/Ike variety most definitely believe the RCC is 100 percent correct. They have said so on this forum. But as you rightly point out, there are Catholics and there are Catholics (including "technically" Catholics).


P.S. If I don't respond, it's not because I can't, it's because I choose not to.


Understood. Agreed.

--wiz

[Ikhnaton]

wiz, you're falling into the error of not separating the institution from the individual. Just because a Pope is a bad person does not change the doctrine taught by the church. In fact, NO pope, bad or good has ever introduced NEW doctrine, and has never changed doctrine so that it means something totally different, and has never taught false doctrine from an official standpoint.

There were abuses and there still are, and there are in every church. That stuff happens because we are all human. But that doesn't change the fact that those abuses were wrong. It is called objective truth. It doesn't change. In Matt 16:18, Christ promised that his church would never be corrupted by false doctrine. What kind of God would set up a church and then just leave it to humans who always screw up?

you've also got to distinguish between doctrine and disciplines.

[Conor]

Just for starters, I haven't found any of your points, wizzywig, very convincing. I've heard them before, been shown why they are wrong, and they don't bother me.

I think one point must be made, or everything else is irrelevant. There must be one Christian Church that has its teachings completely 100% in tune with Jesus' Will. If any church doesn't, that Church is not Jesus' because He is perfect and His bride (the Church) must also be perfect. If we can't agree on this, there is nothing to discuss.


1. I said that the Scriptures require me to verify spiritual claims with extreme care. I cited 1 John 4:1: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." How do you square that with your urgings that I believe what you say without any proof?


Maybe I am unreasonable in thinking you should believe my claims about certain miracles, but I would hope that you would trust me enough to see I wouldn't be lying. Also, I made this self-same point when talking about Rutkoski. We must look at a man's fruits, what he has done, and what results have happened. Rutkoski is an intensely holy man, who has converted thousands (if not many times that) to Jesus. Miracles of healing and wonder follow him around, to confirm God is with him would be my guess. After reading his book as well as learned things from other sources I have no question the supernatural hovers around him. And if it is the Devil he should do this more often, for the fruits are amazing.


2. You do not consider my Christianity to be valid or true, am I right? If there is one true faith, then mine is false, correct? I think I already know the answer, but I think it is important for you to face the full brunt of what you are saying, which is that no one outside the Catholic church is a genuine Christian.


My beef is with the assertion that all Christian groups are equally valid and acceptable. I will be first to admit that non-Catholic Christians really are Christians. Their love proves it. But there are contradictions in major doctrines from one church to the next. They cannot possibly all be Christ's Church, because the Bible clearly says divisions are wrong, and Christ's Will could not have any contradictions.

This is where my first assertion comes in. Because of the contradictions and differences in doctrine between Churches, and because Christ promised his Church would never be overcome, there must be one Church that has it all, and the other churches by extenstion don't. Which is better? To be in a flawed church or the perfect Church? They are still mostly valid (in most cases) but not entirely valid.


3. You did not address what I call "the hard core of illogic at the heart of Rutkoski's argument--and yours." It is the idea that if a miracle occurs in THIS church, then it means that THAT church over which did not experience the same miracle MUST be a false and invalid church. Let's say that the dancing sun miracle is true. So what? Does that invalidate all of non-RC Christianity? Show me the logical steps which produce such a conclusion.


I am not aware I made any conclusion that any specific miracle proves a church to be the Church. It lends weight to its validity does it not? I was trying to show that if miracles follow a guy wherever he goes and he does great works in the name of Jesus there might just be something going for him. Makes me want to listen to what he says too. An elaboration on the sun miracle: My mother said when she and hundreds of others all saw it in Colorado, it went on for about 20 minutes. It moved around the sky, spun off colours, some people saw pictures of the holy family within the disk, everyone could look at it directly without hurting their eyes, and at one point it even split into three different suns that moved independantly. I think it is neat. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif


4. You ignored my point that it was corruption in the RC church that produced the Reformation. The corruption of that era is undeniable. Equally undeniable is the fact that the Reformers did not want to break from the RC church. They wanted to reform the church, not leave it. It was the RC church hierarchy that demonstrated arrogance and pride on top of corruption, refusing to reform itself while persecuting the Reformers. The Reformers were threatened, the Church refused to change, the corruption was real and rampant. You tell me: What were the Reformers supposed to do? I submit to you that they did the only thing they could do, and they did exactly what God led them to do.


It is a good thing theahnfahn brought up the Pharisees, because it makes my point beautifully. What was Jesus' problem with the Pharisees? Was it the law they practiced? Or that they had perverted the law? Mosaic law was not the problem. Jesus came to fulfill it, not abolish it. It was the leaders themselves, not the old law, that was the problem.

Leading me to say this: Neither at the Reformation nor any other time in history has the Church repealed any doctrine or taught something new. It was the leaders, the new Pharisees if you will, that were corrupt. They were not following the Church. If they did, everything would have been fine. Then came the Reformers, who took a bad situation and made it much, much worse. Luther's pride has caused so much division in Christ's Church. What the Reformers should have done, is to try to get the Church leaders back on the rails, to go back to Church teaching. Instead they decided to branch off on their own, and they changed Christian practices to suit their own will, not Christ's. They thought they could interpret the Bible better than the Church that compiled it. They thought they could take Christianity and remake it, in their own image as it were.

God does bring good out of evil, so that is why there is so much love, so much Christianity, in many Protestant churches. But because of their roots, they are not in tune with God's Will, not completely. That is why it is a problem and should be rectified.


5. You have never commented, that I recall, on the split between Paul and Barnabas in the Book of Acts. Was that a terrible thing or a good thing? I submit to you that it was an unfortunate division among Christian brothers that God used to produce good results and further His purpose in the world.


I honestly can't see how this is supposed to support your point. They did not divide the Church. They did not change doctrinal practices. They did not create different sects. I just read Acts to make sure. As far as I can tell it was an argument between two people that resulted in them going different ways geographically, not spiritually. Yes, God did take the unfortuneate split between two people and use it to expand the Church more than it would have been. But the Church stayed one, and did not change.

I will continue...

------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis


[This message has been edited by Conor (edited April 18, 2000).]

[Conor]

This point is always a bit hairy, but it is necessary to point out.

All Christians base their beliefs on the Bible. However, it is a fact that the Bible can be interpreted infinite ways depending on which statements you take out of context. Because most of these interpretations contradict each other, they certainly can't all be right, and logic dictates that only one interpretation can be correct. That means that everyone, techincally, should be getting the same answer when they try interpreting it. That is not the case. There are at least 25,000 different Protestant groups interpreting the Bible the same number of ways. It certainly seems to me then that individuals are incapable of interpreting the Bible correctly. Any and all interpretations must first pass through ourselves and through any filters we have built up. Certain interpretations simply will not enter our heads because our upbringing or a multitude of other reasons. I honestly can't understand how anyone could claim that they expertly mined the Bible and came up with pure gold when everyone else has dross mixed in.

Then comes the Catholic teaching on the matter. The Catholic Church made the Bible. She took all sorts of writings and decided which to throw out and which to keep in. If anyone wants to use the Bible they have to first thank the Catholic Church for creating it and preserving it, as well as trusting that she got it right.. It is a Catholic book. Now, I think I have shown that people are incapable of interpreting the Bible by themselves, as it results in contradictions galore. The Church teaches that the only possible way of interpreting the Bible is in the light of Sacred Tradition.

Since the Bible is God's Word, it must be interpretable. Who are the only ones that actually knew for sure what the Bible meant? The writers of course. Do we have the writers' insights on the matter? They must have left behind more than is in the Bible, as they said to pass on both their oral and written teachings. Who has these oral teachings and insights? The Protestants can't, claiming sola scriptura and all, which strangely enough isn't in the Bible. It seems obvious that the successors of the Apostles would have these teachings, this Sacred Tradition, as they were the only ones to pass it on to, and it wouldn't shine very kindly on Jesus if a great deal of His Aposltes' work was lost at the beginning, what with His promises.

That is why I was so shocked when you said you didn't give the early Church Father's much weight. They are the closest link we have to the Apostles, yet not all their teachings are found in the Bible directly. Such things as the Trinity could only come with insight found outside the Bible. They were also undeniably Catholic in preaching and practice.

That is why I don't think you can hold your own interpretation of the Bible against the Catholic Church's. I will show you why Peter is prime, and why if Christ founded a stewardship for His Church, that office would not die out within a generation.

In short, I think all interpretations not done in light of Sacred Tradition are doomed to fall short of the truth.

As for which Catholic is right or not, there is only one Catholic teaching, the rest are dissidents against this one. Catholic teaching can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and anything that contradicts the statements therein is not Catholic.



------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

[wizzywig]

Ike--


wiz, you're falling into the error of not separating the institution from the individual. Just because a Pope is a bad person does not change the doctrine taught by the church. In fact, NO pope, bad or good has ever introduced NEW doctrine, and has never changed doctrine so that it means something totally different, and has never taught false doctrine from an official standpoint.

I haven't "fallen" into any error. I'm aware that the Catholic church has come up with some rather tortured workarounds to explain its way around the massive corruption that was rampant particularly in the 1400s and 1500s. But when a church puts conscientious Christian reformers to torture and death for the "crime" of speaking out against corruption, that church loses any claim to be 100 percent correct in any meaningful sense of the word. Whatever sense you claim the church to be infallible has little practical meaning in the face of the horrendous things the church has occasionally engaged in at various low points in its history.

I have really not wanted to go in this direction because it was never my intention to attack or undermine anyone's faith. Quite the contrary. I have tremendous respect for what the Catholic church is and does today. I have respect for the present Pope.

But people have been asking me to believe what are to my mind absolute absurdities, abundantly contradicted by a wealth of historical data. So I have tried to explain why it is logically impossible for me to do so.

If you feel that I have attacked the RC church, please understand that is not my intention.


In Matt 16:18, Christ promised that his church would never be corrupted by false doctrine. What kind of God would set up a church and then just leave it to humans who always screw up?


The same God who gave human beings free will in the first place, by which sin entered the world.

There is nothing in Matthew 16:18 which says what you say it says. That is an interpretation imposed on that verse by the RC church, which then imputes that interpretation to refer to itself. It is quite a stretch, IMHO.

To me, it is a statement regarding the entire Christian church. Jesus said: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it." Peter was the first among many believers to recognize Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, and thus Peter was the first Christian among many who would later come. The statement that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church is much more reasonably a statement that the church would advance against evil, and would ultimately triumph over evil, and could not be conquered or persecuted out of existence by the forces of evil. That is a reasonable reading of that statement.

I have to ask you: What kind of God would set up one infallible, incorruptible, 100 percent perfect church--then allow it to persecute and torture Christians, elect corrupt and evil popes, persecute scientific truth (Galileo, Bruno, et al), and on and on? If the church is perfect in doctrine, why is it so abysmally imperfect in so many ways?

Again, I am not attacking the RC church, just answering your question and showing why I cannot accept your perfect image of what is clearly a profoundly imperfect and ultimately human (though God-worshiping) institution.

Conor--I'll get back to you.

--wiz

[wizzywig]

An afterthot:

No church is perfect. Only Jesus Himself is perfect.

The history of the church is marred and blemished because it is made up of human beings. The life of Jesus has no such blemishes, because He alone can claim perfection.

--wiz

[wizzywig]

Conor, very briefly, I want to correct a misimpression:

Just for starters, I haven't found any of your points, wizzywig, very convincing. I've heard them before, been shown why they are wrong, and they don't bother me.

I am not trying to convince you. I don't want anything I say to bother you. I don't in any way wish to talk you or anyone out of being a Catholic. I have enormous respect for the Catholic church.

Understand: I do not see this as a Catholic v. Protestant debate!

If that is your impression of anything that I