Knowing Christ without the Sacred Scriptures

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Aug 1 2005, 11:40 AM']hey now! i started this thread and it was locked. no fair!

but since we're here, has anyone bothered to ask the really important question?

LittleLes. why do you waste your time on the Phatmass Phorums? Does some small part of you really hope that catholicism is true. and you are just waiting to have your doubt proven wrong? or are you here simply to mock us all?
[right][snapback]667197[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Not at all! As I mentioned in my earlier response, I am not locked into any belief system, so I am open to new ideas, further proof, new evidence, better interpretations of the evidence, etc. etc.

My religion is a work in progress. And I encounter useful input from a variety of places/persons.

But I must say, I do occassionally feel I am wasting my time when I have to read posts which do not present an realistic evidence pertaining to the topic under discussion. Yes, I'd like to believe that classic Catholicism is ture. But, unfortunately, so much myth has gotten mixed with it, a very carefull skeptical approach must be used in evaluating claims and separating fact from fiction.

[point5]

LittleLess

Please define what it is required to be a member of the Catholic Church.

and

Show how you fit the criteria

since that is your claim

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Aug 1 2005, 11:49 AM']RESPONSE:

Not at all!  As I mentioned in my earlier response, I am not locked into any belief system, so I am open to new ideas, further proof, new evidence, better interpretations of the evidence, etc. etc.

My religion is a work in progress. And I encounter useful input from a variety of places/persons.

But I must say, I do occassionally feel I am wasting my time when I have to read posts which do not present an realistic evidence pertaining to the topic under discussion. Yes, I'd like to believe that classic Catholicism is ture. But, unfortunately, so much myth has gotten mixed with it, a very carefull skeptical approach must be used in evaluating claims and separating fact from fiction.
[right][snapback]667214[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

thanks for finally explaining atleast a little bit of what and why you believe. honestly, i can respect someone like you who has obviously atleast done your homework. There are plenty of other people out there will will also be like "meh, jesus is teh f4ke" but who just dont care at all and dont want to back up that belief.

though, it is, in my view, unfortunate that you have come to the conclusions you are currently at. I hope one day you change it, and believe in catholicism. i will certainly pray for that.

in anycase, let me just say that you do infact come off as making fun of us/catholicism at times. *shrug* just letting you know. and i know that we have pulled the sarcasm card a few times too. maybe we can all be more friendly and humble at times. and just a simple reminder to my phello phatmassers, debating the faith with someone of opposing views isnt a contest. If you go into it thinking "i can win/beat them" its not going to work. We must be humble, and have the glory of God be our goal - not personal satisfaction.

i know i have to remind myself this every so often.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='point5' date='Aug 1 2005, 12:16 PM']LittleLess

Please define what it is required to be a member of the Catholic Church.

and

Show how you fit the criteria

since that is your claim
[right][snapback]667255[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

(1) Belief in a supreme being or at least a supreme guiding principle of goodness.
(2) Acting in accordance with one's conscience ( formed carefully).

I believe that these are the two basic requirements contained in the Catechism.

CCC# 781 At all times and in every race, anyone who fears God and does what is right has been acceptable to him.

If the Catholic Church claims that ONLY members of the Catholic Church can be saved, yet those who believe in a supreme being and act in accordance with their conscience can be saved, then those who believe in a supreme being and who act in accordance with their conscience, are, by the Church's definition, (at least informal but true )members of the Catholic Church.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Aug 1 2005, 12:46 PM']thanks for finally explaining atleast a little bit of what and why you believe. honestly, i can respect someone like you who has obviously atleast done your homework. There are plenty of other people out there will will also be like "meh, jesus is teh f4ke" but who just dont care at all and dont want to back up that belief.

though, it is, in my view, unfortunate that you have come to the conclusions you are currently at. I hope one day you change it, and believe in catholicism. i will certainly pray for that.

in anycase, let me just say that you do infact come off as making fun of us/catholicism at times. *shrug* just letting you know. and i know that we have pulled the sarcasm card a few times too. maybe we can all be more friendly and humble at times.  and just a simple reminder to my phello phatmassers, debating the faith with someone of opposing views isnt a contest. If you go into it thinking "i can win/beat them" its not going to work. We must be humble, and have the glory of God be our goal - not personal satisfaction.

i know i have to remind myself this every so often.
[right][snapback]667308[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Well said, Sirklawd.

I hope I don't come across as sarcastic, but every once in awhile someone really sets themselves up for a humorous retort.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='point5' date='Aug 1 2005, 12:16 PM']LittleLess

Please define what it is required to be a member of the Catholic Church.

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Actually, point5, your question touches upon an interesting issue. I've pointed out - although some just won't admit it - that some teachings in the faith and moral areas which could be claimed to be infallible in that they were taught at all times and in all places (universal ordinary magisterium), have in fact been reversed (e.g. slavery and usury).

What you have raised -perhaps inadvertantly - is a teaching that was infallible by reason of a formal extraordinary magisterial teaching, ie. an ecumenical council.

Council of Florence, 1435-1445:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Does the Catholic Church still maintain this position?

Some apologists, to be sure, engage in what I call the "apologetic two-step" or the "in context" argument, in both cases claiming that the Council did not mean what it very plainly said.

[point5]

question with a question?

it should be easy for you to define what it take to be a member of the Catholic Church...since you claim you are one.

and then show how you fit the requirements.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='point5' date='Aug 1 2005, 03:46 PM']question with a question?

it should be easy for you to define what it take to be a member of the Catholic Church...since you claim you are one.

and then show how you fit the requirements.
[right][snapback]667541[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I answered this question. See post # 44, about three or four above in this series.

[dUSt]

LittleLes, with all due respect, your definition of a Catholic is based off of your own understanding of what YOU think a Catholic is.

As long as you're making up your own standards, you might as well call yourself a brain surgeon or an astronaut. Why not? In fact, go ahead and loosely define the characteristics of an 80's rock star for me as I've always wanted to be one of those too.

[Sirklawd]

this isnt the first time in the history of the world that a person called themselves catholic when they werent. I hope LittleLes doesnt label himself a catholic, he would be doing himself an injustice after all the time he's spent tearing down everthing the catholic church goes by. After that its like.. whats the point.

the man goes in and tears down all that defines buddism and claims it to be invalid and then says "im a buddhist".. why do that?

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 29 2005, 05:34 PM'][b]Littleles[/b], you have made it evident that you take the Sacred Scriptures (especially the gospels) as being fiction in nature.  If that is true, how do you, as a self-claimed "Catholic", answer the following:
1)  What do you know about Christ? 

2)  What does He mean to you?

3)  How would you describe your relationship with Him?
It is extremely important and vital that every Catholic answer these questions, because Christ is (or should be) the center of our daily lives.
[b]Note:[/b] Considering you do not recognize the teaching authority of the Magisterium, you wouldn't be able to cite Church documents for your answers.
[right][snapback]664432[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I dont know if this is irrelevent, but, although saint jerome said igorance of scripture is ignorance of christ, and even though all scripture is Christocentric, i don't think one need be a scripture scholar to know Christ, or even Catholic for that matter.

Edited August 1, 2005 by Semperviva

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Aug 1 2005, 06:23 PM']i don't think one need be a scripture scholar to know Christ, or even Catholic for that matter.
[right][snapback]667720[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Correct, but I wasn't implying that one has to be a scripture scholar. It's disappointed that someone will hold onto such a position.

[White Knight]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 31 2005, 06:52 AM']The historical sources for information on Jesus can be divided into two basic categoies, Christian and nonChristian. (The difficulty with the nonChristian sources is that over time many of them passed through Christian hands while being copied).

Christian Sources:

A large number of gospels four of which became "canonical:"
Synoptics:
    Matthew
    Mark
    Luke
Gospel of John
Paul and Pauline Epistles
Other Epistles
Acts of the Apostles
Revelation
Various Gnostic writings (recently discovered)

NonChristian Sources:

Josephus  (a Jewish historian)
Tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Suetonius
(Perhaps) Lucian of Samosata

Any additions or deletions or arguments for or against?
[right][snapback]666043[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[color=orange][b]LittleLes: Why can't you answer people's questions? why must you always change the subject in each one of your posts. You know, your iding yourself to be a preson who can't tell ya what he or she believe, as opposed to what you do disbelieve.[/b][/color]

[color=blue]Why can't you answer the three basic questions PaladinD posted, with a simple answer. to explain yourself.
You are way off track. in each thread, you have done this. I and I'm sure other folk on the Phatmass phorums, request of you to acknowlolege where you stand. Give us a solid answer to what you believe, we already know what you dont believe just by your agruments. Tell us what you "DO BELIEVE."[/color]


[color=green][b]Give some solid firm explainations that tell us your beliefs, as opposed to your disbeliefs.[/b][/color]

Edited August 2, 2005 by White Knight

[Cam42]

Psssttt:

He's been suspended....so he can't respond to you.

[White Knight]

For How long? is he Banned for good or just like a week or what? I'm kind of wondering now if my post is even worth mentioning, especially if he wont/can't respond to it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Aug 2 2005, 05:02 PM']For How long? is he Banned for good or just like a week or what? I'm kind of wondering now if my post is even worth mentioning, especially if he wont/can't respond to it.
[right][snapback]668928[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

15 day suspension started yesterday.