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

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.

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).]

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

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.

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).]

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

*sigh*


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

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

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

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).]

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).]

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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

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...

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

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.

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).]

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

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

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

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 have said, I hope you will expunge that from your thinking altogether. I am only giving my own reason for believing as I do. I do not want to dissuade anyone from their own beliefs on this matter, and I feel very badly that anything I've said has been taken that way.

--wiz




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

I think Conor, and any other members who hold steadfast to the claim that the RCC is the 100% purebread church of Christ, are making one major claim that simply fails to achieve any sense of logical coherency. The SOLE purpose of the church is to spread doctrine and ensure correct interpretation of the works of Christ. Now, it is such a trivial task to argue that it is impossible for the church to do this, so enough with that. Conor, you misinterpret church with belief. The church, as it stands, is a conglomerate of people working towards a general purpose - to spread the word of Christ. In this sense the church is flawed, for we as humans are incapable of presenting every detail of the works of Jesus in full, unchanged form. I think what you are trying to argue, which you have been arguing under different terms, is that the interpretation of the Bible you follow is correct, and all others are flawed either in a remote aspect or a huge problematic and misguided belief. So, please present how Wiz, as a declared Christian, interprets the Gospels differently so as to warrant terming him as a backwards individual. I think the problem is the RCC makes the claim it is the one true church of Christ, and even if you fail to accept this claim that in and of itself proves the church of flaw.

What you believe juxtoposed how you believe it are two totally different things. Classifying yourself under the RCC will in no way ensure someone who does likewise will have the same beliefs as you do. The church should only ensure WHAT to believe. Jesus was here to present to us that we should love God and love ourselves. Again, I ask what difference does it make if one MUST recognize the Pope as a blessed individual, if one MUST recognize a given church is the only church ordained by God, if one MUST submit that there is a tangible, 100% correct entity that enforces what you need to believe? The church is flawed, no doubt about it. So are you pressing that what the church stands for, what it tries to present, is perfect? If so, then how? And if you can't answer that, how does that make the church any different than another church, or someone like Wiz, for that matter? Your claim is that the church is correct, and then you base your arguments on that sole assumption to prove it. That is illogical.

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

I still think I stated well enough that one Church needs to be perfect. Jesus founded a Way. As He is perfect His Way must be perfect. Religion is no more than a way of life. So there must be one 'religion,' 'church,' what-have-you that still holds the Way without error, because if there isn't that does mean Jesus broke His promise.

Also, wiz, I forgot about it but you said something like the Church claims to be a mediator between God and man. That is simply incorrect. The Church has never claimed such a thing.

TAF, you are completely disregarding the Holy Spirit. Man cannot keep things perfect, but the HS can. If God promised to keep His Church, His Way, whole, He will do it. He will work around human free will if necessary.

Still nobody has given me any evidence the RCC was flawed at any time. If people, even the leaders, act in a way that is not in concert with what their own Church teaches, that certainly doesn't say anything about the actual teachings. It just says a few things about humanity.

Conor:

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.

Perhaps we have nothing to discuss, perhaps we do. I fail to see why it is necessary that there be one church that is 100 percent correct.

To explain, let me use an analogy of a tuning fork. Let's say that the Bible and Christ together are represented by the tuning fork which is tuned to the note of middle C. The Bible/Jesus/tuning fork is at perfect pitch.

Now let's say all the different churches are pianos, each one being tuned by a different piano tuner. Each piano tuner has his own human limitations but does his best to tune the piano to the tuning fork.

One tunes his middle C key perfectly, and proceeds to tune the rest of the piano keys from that one baseline. He does a pretty good job, though he slightly flats the A above middle C.

Another does his best, though his G sharp is a little too sharp.

And so on.

The tuning fork is perfect. The pianos and tuners all listen to the same fork and do their best to replicate a perfect pitch on all 88 keys, though all fall short in one way or another.

The pianos are not perfect, but they are close. They are all a little different from each other, but that's okay. They are all focused on the perfection of the tuning fork.

In the same way, I do not require perfection of the church, because the church is a human institution. It attempts (imperfectly) to tune itself to the tuning fork, but never fully succeeds.

Only the tuning fork is perfect. Only the tuning fork is expected to be perfect.

If any church doesn't, that Church is not Jesus' because He is perfect and His bride (the Church) must also be perfect.

There is no need for a church to be perfect in order to be genuine, anymore than there is a need for a Christian to be perfect in order to be genuine.

The biblical principle you are searching for is found in Ephesians 5:25-27--"Christ ... loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."

Now, that clearly does not talk about the Catholic church being perfect in the sense of being infallible, but of the entire Christian church being cleansed of sin by the atoning death of Jesus upon the cross. Christians and churches are not perfect in the sense of speaking infallible truth; Christians and churches are only perfect in that their sins are covered by the sacrifice of Christ. Nothing more, nothing less. The entire context makes it clear.

If the Catholic church must be perfect in its doctrine, why did God not ensure that it be perfect in its actions? Why did He allow a number of grossly corrupt popes to defile the supposed perfection of the papacy? Why did He allow the "perfect" church to persecute the truth?

You say, "There must be one Christian Church that has its teachings completely 100% in tune with Jesus' Will." Doesn't it make more sense that a church's behavior be 100 percent in tune with Jesus' will in order to be considered valid? Jesus himself said that we will know the validity of someone who speaks in His name by that person's fruit (action), not that person's words. A church that has killed and persecuted genuine Christians invalidates whatever lofty words and doctrines it promulgates.

Again, I say this not to tear down your faith or attack your church, but to explain my own position.

More to come...

--wiz


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

It has come to my attention that I have been using the word 'church' somewhat incorrectly, which I think theahnfahn was trying to point out to me. I have been referring to the 'deposit of faith' or church teachings and saying the church is perfect. Using the word 'church' as the whole package, including the people that make it up, no church is perfect. I apologize.

I still don't think your getting my point wiz. By your logic in the last post, any teaching that people fail to live up to becomes flawed. I doubt you meant to say that, because it is nonsense.

God will not invalidate free will. That is why people representing the Catholic Church have been corrupt. They followed the self instead of God, their own will instead of God's Will expressed through Church teachings. God allows us to do this. When a person commits evil in Christ's name it does not make Christ flawed. When a person commits evil in the name of Christ's Church, it does not make the Church's teachings flawed.

To continue with your analogy, it would be my point that the Holy Spirit is constantly struggling to keep the Catholic piano tuned, in spite of what men do to try to undermine it, and at the same time trying to bring all the different pianos back together into one.

------------------
"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--

It has come to my attention that I have been using the word 'church' somewhat incorrectly, which I think theahnfahn was trying to point out to me. I have been referring to the 'deposit of faith' or church teachings and saying the church is perfect.

That distinction is helpful. What you have been meaning by "church" and what I have meant are two very different things.

I still hold that there is error in the RC "deposit of faith," and I do not wish to be any more specific than that. I do not want to widen the discussion any further afield than it has already gone.

(Interestingly, I was researching a quote in MERE CHRISTIANITY a few minutes ago when I encountered a statement by CS Lewis in his preface about why he avoided certain subjects, so as not to touch off a Catholic-Protestant debate! Lewis was clearly a much wiser man than I.)

Conor, you are saying I don't get your point. Actually, I get it. I just don't buy it. Part of the difference between you and me is that you are taught by the church that its teaching is perfect, and since its teaching is perfect, then you believe what it teaches, which is that its teaching is perfect, a neat little circular reasoning which reinforces itself to perfection.

I stand outside of that teaching, I look at the evidence, and I see flaws in the teaching, and I say to myself, "I am not bound by that flawed system."

By your logic in the last post, any teaching that people fail to live up to becomes flawed. I doubt you meant to say that, because it is nonsense.

I am saying that by your logic (as I understood it before you defined your terms), a church can somehow be "perfect" even while committing obscene atrocities. I was saying that is nonsense. It helps, of course, that you have defined the way you use the word "church," as a body of teaching. I still do not agree with your position, but it helps to clarify what you are really saying.

Again, though, I have to ask what practical good is it to claim that a church is 100 percent perfect in its doctrines if it behaves like a monster? The church of the middle ages was a monster, it badly needed reform, and reform took place.

From my point of view, the RC church swerved off-course, and when the Reformers broke away, they moved onto a more correct path, in line with Scripture.

Now, I don't expect you to accept that view. But if you can at least step out of your own parochial viewpoint for a moment, look at history from that point of view (just temporarily), then you will see why I think as I do.

I can clearly see why you think as you do, and I am not trying to change your mind. You, however, are trying to change my mind. That's okay. I'm serene in my own views, though I am always open to new data. If you present compelling evidence that my view is incorrect, I guarantee I will be influenced by it. If all you present is church authority, which I have very good reason to reject, then we are at stalemate.

When a person commits evil in Christ's name it does not make Christ flawed. When a person commits evil in the name of Christ's Church, it does not make the Church's teachings flawed.

Agreed. But when the Church qua Church itself commits official, institutional, sanctioned evil, as the old RC church did, it disqualifies itself from presenting itself as flawless. That is the situation we have here. I do not see any way around it.

Again, again, again, this is not to tear down your beliefs. This is wholly and solely to answer what you say and make my own position clear.

--wiz

Conor--

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.

Yes, they can all be Christ's Church, because the church is a spiritual body, not a sect or institution. Moreover, it was the RCC's corruption that produced the division, not the Reformers. The RCC was oppressing and killing people and suppressing the truth. The division was caused by the RCC. This is incontrovertible.


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?

I've probably addressed this sufficiently, but just in case--

The church as a total body, including RC and non-RC people, is perfect in its position before God, covered by the atoning sacrifice of Christ. No individual church is perfect in its teaching because all use human means to interpret God's revelation. All are flawed to a greater or lesser degree in their teaching, but perfect in their position by God's grace through Jesus Christ. I'm not asking you to buy that, I'm just explaining my position and showing you why your logic does not persuade me.

Yes, it would be nice to be in a perfect church rather than a flawed one. Since no perfect church exists (IMHO), I choose the one that best represents God's teaching as I understand it, the least flawed I can find.

I happen to attend a church that has never killed anyone or persecuted the truth. To me, that's less flawed than the RCC, and that's close enough for me.

Again, I underscore, this is my reasoning for my position, not an attack upon the RCC.

--wiz

Conor--

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.

I am very cautious with miracles. As I've said before, I've seen what I am convinced are miracles first-hand. But I also know that miracles can be deceptive. There is a Protestant author-preacher named Benny Hinn who sounds a lot like this Rutkoski fella. Large crowds, best-selling books, miracles, signs, wonders. Personally, I'm convinced Hinn is a con-artist and a fraud. I'm not extending that to Rutkoski because I know nothing of him but what you've told me. But I have no more reason to accept Rutkoski than I do Hinn.

I need more than miracles to validate anything. There must also be a conformity to the truth.

Miracles can be faked or can come from false sources. My attitude is always to beware of miracles.

--wiz

Conor--

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.


Again, you call it "Luther's pride." Perhaps this is an RCC term. I insist it was Luther's conscience, not pride.

What the Reformers should have done, is to try to get the Church leaders back on the rails, to go back to Church teaching.

Nice theory, impossible in practice. The church at that time was too far gone, too evil, too corrupt, too vindictive, too dangerous. It was killing people who opposed the corruption. Many people who tried to do exactly what you said ended up dead.

Instead they decided to branch off on their own, and they changed Christian practices to suit their own will, not Christ's.

My perspective, they restored the church to Christ's will, as informed by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. I know you don't see it that way, but that is my perspective.


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.

Again, you make assumptions that I reject, that the RCC church is the one true church that compiled and promulgated truth. I reject that assertion. Given my view, it is clear that the Reformers restored the church to truth and reshaped it closer to God's own image.

Again, I don't expect you to buy this. But I'm trying to get you to step outside of your parochial view and just SEE my point of view. I'm not trying to persuade you. I don't want you to change your views. But I'm showing you why my views are logically and biblically and spiritually consistent and valid, even though you don't buy them.

--wiz

Conor--


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.


Yes, there are obvious differences between the Paul/Barnabas split and the RCC/Reformation split, and more than just differences of scale. However, this principle obtains in both situations:

Human beings err and divide from one another. God overrules and brings good out of human frailty, weakness, and error. God is bigger than our human mistakes. He overrules our stupidity and division--

Even on the scale and seriousness of the issues of the Reformation split.

At that time in history, I see the RCC as moving away from truth. You see the Reformation as moving away from truth.

We're both entitled to our own opinion and neither will change and I have no problem with that. To me, the issue is that the overall Christian church is the one true church, not any particular sect. That you and the entire RCC disagree with me troubles me not in the slightest.

I know beyond any doubt that I am part of the one true church, which is all of Christendom, and I am confident that God is greater than all our divisions, whether great or small.

--wiz

Conor--

I don't know if you are aware of it, but you frequently make flat pronouncements as if they are statements of fact when they are actually statements of opinion, either yours or the RCC, and quite open to dispute.

You say:


The Bible can be interpreted infinite ways depending on which statements you take out of context.

I have often found this sort of statement annoying. It is usually offered by skeptics and agnostics; I was surprised to hear it stated by a believer. The Bible is not some sort of Rorschach test, an inkblot upon which everyone projects his or her own inner "truth." The Bible is rarely ambiguous or difficult to understand. When it is difficult to understand, it is often because of some difficulty in translating from the Greek to English, or because of a failure to take context into account, etc.

One of the great achievements of the Reformation was the formulation of a clear and rational set of rules for interpreting Scripture so as to get at the real truth of the text. Those rules are:

First, examine the text itself to see if you understand what it says (which often means going to the original Hebrew or Greek to make sure you understand the original intent);

Second, examine the immediate context; and

Third, examine the text in the whole context of the Scripture (what the Reformers called "the analogy of faith"--the principle that "Scripture interprets Scripture").

Reformation theologians and ministers would be the LAST people in the world to wrench a verse out of context and twist its meaning. Context is crucial to the Reformation view of Scripture.

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.

There is a mistaken assumption. Assuming that there really are 25,000 denominations (a number I don't for a moment accept), you infer from that number that there are 25,000 conflicting interpretations of Scripture. That also is not a valid conclusion. You also seem to infer that each of those alleged 25,000 groups thinks it has the corner on the truth and all the rest are wrong. That also is not true. Some may practice a different mode of baptism (sprinkling v. immersion) or some other small distinctive, yet almost all (except the most rigid and unreasonable groups) get along well, cooperate with each other, and fully recognize the validity of each other. Few if any of them would say, "We're the one true church and the rest of you are going to Hell."

It certainly seems to me then that individuals are incapable of interpreting the Bible correctly.

THAT IS A KEY ERROR IN RC THINKING (IMHO)!!

That was one of the errors that Luther and the Reformers objected to. The RCC hierarchy maintained that very position, and they kept the Bible out of the hands of the people. Luther wanted to put the Bible into the hands of the people, and he was RIGHT to do so. The church was WRONG to suppress the Scriptures and keep the Bible out of the people's hands.

As the Bible itself says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

The Reformation went hand in hand with the printing press, putting the Bible out to the people, encouraging literacy, leading to the rise of both literature and industrialization, which led to raising the standard of living in nations where the Reformation took hold. Literacy rates remain low and poverty rates high to this day in nations where the Catholic church continued to keep the Bible out of the hands of its members for centuries. This is a major historical factor in the disparity in living standards between North and South America.

The Catholic Church made the Bible. ... It is a Catholic book.

This is the kind of statement of opinion as fact that I mean. The Catholic Church did not "make" the Bible, nor is it a Catholic book. The canon was decided by the early Christian church, by people who were as much my spiritual ancestors as they were yours. The Bible is not a Catholic book; I found that statement to be absolutely bizarre.

I insist that the early church is not the same as the RCC. Over time, an accretion of traditions and practices grew up in the early Christian church that caused the church of the 1500s to be very different from the church of the 100s. The Reformation was a true attempt to reform, not merely to rebel. It is the Reformation view that the RCC had fallen into such a low state that the only option for preserving a true and faithful church was to leave the RCC institution. Leaving the RCC institution was not a rebellion against the true church; it was an act of renewal and restoration of the true church. I point this out just so that you can see the other point of view.

There have been a number of branching points in the history of the church, not just the Reformation. Some occurred much earlier, as I pointed out in previous posts. The Reformation was the largest and loudest of these branching points, but as I see it, the Reformation was a fork in the road. The true church divided, and one half went one way, the other half went the other. Protestants rightfully consider the early church councils and fathers to be as much a part of their own heritage as they are a part of the RCC heritage.

This is a symptom of an attitude that you show, which is a view of non-RCC churches as bastardized, illegitimate, invalid renegade heretics rather than authentic heirs of Jesus, the apostles, and the church of Acts. This is an erroneous view on your part. I don't expect or intend to change your view, but I am trying to make you aware of how narrow your view is on this point.


Now, I think I have shown that people are incapable of interpreting the Bible by themselves, as it results in contradictions galore.

No. You have shown the danger of the idea that the people cannot be trusted with God's Word. The Bible was given to all, not to a few priests or theologians. It can be understood by anyone. Once it is placed under lock and key, and dispensed only in homilies, corruption and oppression take place.

That is why I was so shocked when you said you didn't give the early Church Father's much weight.

I didn't say that. I said that on the specific issue of transubstantiation, the particular church fathers you quoted on that particular subject cut no ice with me. The church fathers are part of the common heritage of the Protestant and RC churches. The RCC does not own them.

This, I think, sums up my response. I will let you have the last word, and I will read anything you care to say with genuine interest. I doubt I will post any more on the subject, although I may respond to clarify a point if it appears that I left something unclear.

I've enjoyed and learned from the dialogue. I think it has been conducted in a good and brotherly spirit on both sides. I appreciate the kind way you've communicated with me. I hope you feel you have been treated the same way.

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 19, 2000).]

Conor--

An afterthot, something to ponder:

If the RCC of the 1500s had not been so corrupt, would there have been a Reformation? Would there today be many denominations--or would there just be ONE church?

It is impossible to say for sure, but I do have an opinion...

--wiz

Dang. Lately I'm the only person posting on this thread. Maybe it's a dead issue. But I just had to post this because...

Conor, I was doing research on a totally unrelated subject having to do with the book I'm currently working on when (just moments ago) I came across a webpage that contained this footnote citation:

The Bible is a Catholic Book, Knights of Columbus Religious Information Bureau, St. Louis, 1948.

Sproinnnnggggg!

Well, now I see why you made that very same statement ("The Bible is a Catholic book") in one of your posts. You are speaking out of the very center of established Catholic tradition, which holds these views. It helps me to understand the thinking, which is in many ways quite foreign to me (and that is one of the reasons I'm grateful to you for this dialogue, because it has been a fascinating education).

When "Aha!" moments leap out at me like that, in a way that seems too improbable to be mere coincidence, I tend to believe that I'm getting a direct nudge from above. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

All the best,
--wiz

I have been trying to keep up with this post, but it's growing to fast, and I'm not in here enough... but anyway, I would like to say that even though I am not Christian, I think that they can heal just about anybody. Not physically, but with like addiction and stuff, there are some caring individuals in that religion and If I ever despratly needed help in my life, I would turn to some christians.

With that in mind, you can prolly guess that I don't hold myself to any religion, my lifestyle is Taoist in essence. I do believe in a higher force, and I also think that the christian bible is correct. Although I think alot of it is analogies and examples. I think christians preach to love. Not much bad can come from that, great religion. I was baptised Roman Catholic, but refused to get confirmed. I went to a catholic school too, so I know alot about the religion. I just didn't stand for everything it did.

Sorry to make this post so long, but this is a great topic to talk about, and I have a few things I'd like to say.

I generally think that all religions are one. they all believe in something, if it's not God, it's Nature, or Ancestry or a great person that did good... you get the point. Anyway, I think that every religion has great aspects, and once you bring all those great aspects together you gain a deeper understanding and faith in whatever it is you believe in. For instance the Christian healing and caring, the Buddist way of perfection. The Taoist way of simplicity and inner strength. how pagans feel passion about nature and mankind. It's a perfect blend.

Thanks for taking the time to read all this. I know it's alot.

------------------
A Jedi feels the Force running through him.

Ki-Adi-Mundi

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. No need to apologize about the length of your post--it was amazingly short compared to some of my previous posts on this thread!

I would like to dialogue with you some more when it's not so late and I have more time.

I wish you well.

--wiz

Just to help you see where I am coming from wizzywig, I don't see any of your beliefs on this matter to be the least bit logical, scriptural or rational. I really don't.

It is a fact (no, not an opinion) that the vast majority of protestant Churches reject the Real Presence. Since it is so central to my faith, that Jesus says we must eat His real Body and Blood, and other Christian churches reject this, they cannot both be right in interpreting Jesus' Will. No matter how it is spun, people are interpreting a contradiction in Jesus' Way. One is not a valid belief. You can't just lump everyone together, contradictions and all, and say Christ's true Way is in there somewhere (which I see you as doing). There must be one church that interprets everything correctly, without contradictions. I will back this up from the Bible when I get home. However, I know you will just come up with another off-the-wall (as I see it) interpretation of them, which proves my point of people being unable to interpret scripture by themselves (If they could, we'd get the same answer). I honestly think it is the worst form of pride to think we can individually interpret the Bible with more wisdom than 1500 years of Christians, including the Apostles' successors.

I am not trying to be antagonistic here, but I really don't see where you are getting these ideas of yours. The Reformers didn't go back to any original Christianity. The things they changed Christianity to were never, ever believed in the first place.

You seem to be saying that the early Fathers were split as well, some believing my way and some believing your way. Sorry, but they were all Catholic, today's Catholic, with every bit of doctrine intact. Another opinion again, you assume, but read them for yourself, and find one that didn't believe in the Real Presence, Purgatory, or anything else Catholic.

The Church never kept the Bible from the people. She just reserved the right to interpret it. I see that as very right, you see that as wrong somehow. Look what happened when everyone was encouraged to interpret it themselves. Division after division, break-off after split. Everyone coming up with changes (mostly little) saying I'm right, I'm right, I'm right! People cannot help but interpret the Bible according the thier own worldview.

You cite Reformation tactics in interpreting the Bible, when I see the entire Reformation as evil, why would they impress me? (Although you almost certainly knew I wouldn't accept them).

Just to clear up a misunderstanding (I think), I didn't say the infinite interpretations of the Bible were at all valid. People can use Scripture to say anything they want, because it has been done. It is impossible to take the Bible as a whole and do so, but statements taken out of context can mean anything. I was sure you would agree with this.

I will try a few more points later, but I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this.



------------------
"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

I really am trying to see where you are coming from, but I can't. It is getting frustrating.

At least we're probably all learning something. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)

Conor,

I don't mean this as an insult, but I think your judgement is so clouded by your own zeal, your own point of view, that you are incapable of empathizing and understanding anyone else's point of view.

Since I am not privy to your own thought processes I can not say for certain, but the impression is that since you feel you are sooooo right, that you reject any critisism of the RCC out of hand. And your confidence in the infallable interpretation of Christ's teachings by the RCC seems to be the source of your apparent closed-mindedness.

Tell me Conor, honestly, are you actually weighing wiz's comments objectively and thoughtfully, or are you just immediatly rejecting them because they are different from your beliefs and that of the RCC? Are you even open to the possibility that the RCC has interpreted something incorrectly? Since the RCC is composed of fallable Humans, don't you think that it is logical that these Humans could make a error in their interpretation?

Conor, you're a decent person, no doubt. I want to be clear about that. But you need to accept that no Human Being has ever been perfect, save Jesus - if you believe is the son of God. With the acceptance that all Humans are and have been flawed, then the implication can be made that since the RCC is composed of these same Humans, it is logical to conclude that the members of the RCC could have made flawed interpretations of Christ's teachings, despite their good faith. Your attitude regarding the perfection of the RCC seems irrational bordering on delusion.

I'm not pefect, Conor, and neither are you or the RCC.



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

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

Conor--

I can sense your frustration, and I feel badly about it.

I am frustrated, too--not because you refuse to come around to my point of view. I honestly don't want you to. My frustration is that I explain my position as carefully and clearly as I possibly can, and then you make a response that sounds as if you haven't even heard me.

And I don't think it's because you are not trying to hear me, I believe you are. And I don't believe it's because what I have said has been unclear, I think I have made my case well.

I think what we have here is practically a cultural divide or gulf between us. Yes, we are both Christians, yet in the way we view some aspects of the faith it is as though we come from different planets. You are so steeped in the Catholic worldview, including, I now realize, a deep sense of (for lack of a better word) loathing toward the Reformation and Protestantism, that you are unable to, even in a hypothetical sense, step into my shoes and see spiritual reality from my viewpoint.

I think it may be something like this: When I think of Communism, I actually get a vague picture in my mind of something dark and malevolent and sinister, something that enslaves and kills, a monolith operated by evil men bent on controlling the lives of others.

I suspect that when you think of Protestantism, you have some similar sort of sinister impression in your mind. You yourself say you see "the entire Reformation as evil." That mindset, which saturates every aspect of your thinking, blocks any possibility that you can even grasp my point of view.

I was listening to a radio call in show yesterday. A female college student called a conservative talk show host with a problem. She was in a forensics class and had been assigned to debate the abortion issue from the pro-choice side, even though she is passionately pro-life. She wanted a way out of the assignment. The talk show host, who is aggressively pro-life herself, told her she needed to be able to at least put herself temporarily, for the sake of argument, in the other person's viewpoint. The student repeatedly averred that she could not do so, it was impossible, she was too passionately pro-life to argue the pro-choice side, even for the sake of a class assignment.

I think, Conor, my friend, that you are in a similar position. I have not tried to convert you to Protestantism. Wouldn't think of it. I have simply tried to explain the biblical logic of my position when you seemed to be pressing the Catholic p.o.v. on me. You seem unable to step into my shoes for even a few moments, because to even acknowledge that my position is self-consistent and logical from my p.o.v., given the information I have presented would be a betrayal of all you have been steeped in, all you hold dear.

I think that is where we are, and where we will probably have to leave it.

You say my beliefs are not "the least bit logical, scriptural or rational." You say that my responses are "off-the-wall." The logic of everything I have said seems so pure and crystalline clear and inarguable, that from my p.o.v. you seem to be deaf and blind. I mean, I am truly astounded that you are unable to minimally say that you can at least see that my views are not groundless or insane, even though you disagree with them. But no, you respond to me as if I am babbling nonsense.

Again, I don't believe you are being deliberately dense, and I don't believe I have been unclear. It is a cultural difference, a difference in cultural thoughtforms. You really are unable to step inside my thinking, even for a moment, and that prevents you from even tolerating my viewpoint (by "tolerating," I mean you feel that you must make the attempt to convert me; I tolerate your viewpoint, because while I explain my own p.o.v., I am making no attempt to convert your p.o.v.).

Again and again, you state, "There must be one church that interprets everything correctly, without contradictions." You can't explain to me WHY there MUST be one such church (except that the RCC says it must be so, and it is the one). Logically, if you hypothetically and momentarily accept the premise that the RCC is a human religious institution like every other church, then it becomes clear that there is no LOGICAL REQUIREMENT that any one religious institution be 100 percent correct. The only reason that one perfect church is logically required in your thinking is the a priori assumption that such a church does exist and the RCC is IT. Because you cannot clear that a priori assumption from your thinking for even a moment, you keep making the same statement to me again and again, hoping I'll eventually get it. But I won't, because I do not make that same assumption.

That's just one example among many.

Now, I don't say any of this with rancor or malice or anger, just a kind of sadness. I never expected we would come to full agreement (the only way that will happen is if I convert to Catholicism--that much is obvious). But I had hoped that you would be able to at least understand my position, which has been carefully and rationally thought out over a period of many years of study and consideration. But we are at this impasse, and I think I have explained why.

Vagabond--

I think your analysis is correct. I do not, however, expect that Conor should question the church as potentially fallible. A good Catholic could never do that.

I was only hoping he could TEMPORARILY and HYPOTHETICALLY step outside of the box of his thinking so that he could understand my thinking for a moment. But I now see that the exercise of doing so, even for a moment, would feel like an act of blasphemy and betrayal to him, and so he is unable to even go there for a moment.

Now that I understand that, I accept it.

--wiz

I don't mean to get into your argument, but seeing as how I pretty much have the bible memorized, I can't help contadicting Connor. Perhaps he should sit down and read the whole thing. Like the eating the body and blood. Analogies, analogies, analogies. that whole book is full of them. You don't think he really walked on water to prove himself. Jesus was not a show off. He was just a nice guy trying to preach love. So he's kinda like a tree huggin hippie from the 70's. LOL!
anyway. All jesus meant by the eating of body and blood, was when he broke the bread at his supper. He wanted to tell the apostles that he wanted to be aprt of them, he was saying "I love you and goodbye" simply that. All Christian churchs eat it for almost the same symbolism. I would also like to point out that Conor has said that both churches cannot be right. I would like to say that both churches are wrong. I believe that no church has interpreted it correctly, It's too hard. It's an old book and hard to understand. We all try to do the best, struggling for power. It's a big mess. Organized religion was a bad Idea, almost as bad as political parties or Veitnam. I mean no offence to any of you. I just feel as if Connor is trying to make a strong argument and Wiz is feeding into it. Neither are putting in the facts that should be stated. Most are giving interpretations which can never be proven. Neither has an argument, It sounds like deseration to hold belief to me.
I'll say it again, I do not mean offence by this post. I would like to state that I'm focusing most of my blame on Connor. I too was baptized Roman Catholic, read the bible, went to church for years. Went to a private school. Had RC religion stuffed in my ass for about 12 years!!!! I'm not saying it's bad, I posted before, they are excellent healers. But in alot of cases they have lost sight of god's will according to their own interpretation. "The meek shall inherit the earth" I would like to say that the RCC is the most Un-meek group in the world, Did you know that in the states alone, we send the vatican over 10 billion dollars in donations. WTF is that all about, it's buisness. I think what jesus meant about helping people even if we go broke was not to let some organization like the RCC take care of it. You can't feel the personal achivement that way, If you should find someone that needs help, do it. These are the true roman catholics. The love for God Created a whole government in the RCC. The pope is changing the religion back to the way it should be, but they have dug a hole too deep. they have made commitments with other organizations. I'm sure The pope knows he can't go back, but he can go forward and slowly change things to the way they should be. I agree that the church should have a great means of communication like the pope and the vatican keeping track of everything, but I don't think they should have set interpretations or spend millions on building churches or anything. This is where the mormans. Yes I know, the missionaries are annoying going door to door. But they build a church with their own money, small and cheap. if more people come, they expand. They interpret the bible the same as the catholic church. only they add to it. They preach morals, and good ones they are. Perhaps one of the only good parts of the religion. Smith had a good idea making the religion, he wanted people to love again. it's EXACTLY like the old roman catholic church. EXACTLY!!!!!

Sad but true. Personal belief will always conquer a church. Everyone sees a different picture. That is why I'm more Taoist than anything else. I believe in a God, I believe in re-incarnation. I believe we are all part of the earth. I believe we should love, we should keep morals, we should folow our hearts.

Sorry this is so long, I thank you for reading it!

------------------
A Jedi feels the Force running through him.

wiz,

I know..I wasn't trying to get him to reject his beliefs. But as a hypothetical, I at least wanted him to admit the possibility, just the mere possibility that the RCC could have misinterpreted something. If he could accept that remote possibility, then his mind might open to the remote possibility that both the RCC and Protestant churches could coexist harmoniously with equal validity.

But I think you hit it on the head, wiz. If he even hypothetically accepted the fallability of the RCC, then then he seems to fear that the foundation of his entire belief system would be on the verge of unraveling. It's sad if true, because this implies that Conor is not truely interested in discovering the truth, but more interested in maintaining his current beliefs, right or wrong, at any costs.

Ki,

Your belief system sounds interesting. Kind of Jedi-ish 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...