Is Catholicism a true religion

[pearl]

What about the Eastern Orthodox Church whose final schism from Catholicism culminated in Rome's sacking on Constantinople in 1204?

They, together with Rome, a part of the One Catholic Church. Their differences are juridical. They share the same priesthood and sacraments.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

What is the benefit of needing to base the truth on facts?

I guess the answer to that question depends somewhat on what it applies to. If it applied to a criminal investigation, for example, there can only be a benefit if the associated facts are true. Then you can arrive at the greater truth. But if a fact is actually a misperception or a lie, then it becomes an obstacle to finding the truth. Or if it’s just an opinion or a conjecture, it could be either accurate or inaccurate.

If jesus didn't exist, how would that affect your faith in him and his word?

He has shown me too much tangible proof to even ponder hypothetically that he does not exist. His word will always be absolute truth to me.

We both just separated truth from fact. There are no facts that jesus is god nor there are facts that god of abraham exists. Many believers go by experiences and testimonies of their own and people in the Bible (which I see no difference in quoting scripture and telling me your testimony) and it is considered the truth.

And that is where basing a truth on facts gets more complicated. What one person accepts as either fact or truth is not necessarily what another person accepts. What one person accepts in faith is rejected by another. What is proven to one is disbelieved by another.

My family spirits existing is the truth and they help me. Whether they are facts or not is irrelevant to me. Why is it relevant to you?

Knowing for certain would be relevant to me. If you already are certain, then I suppose you don’t see a need for any further proof. A spirit saved me from death (or at least severe injury) when I was four years old. In my case, I knew as fact that it was an angel, and I never considered a need for further proof either.

I can't lie to myself because I "think" I feel god's presence.

If you think you feel his presence, what lie is there?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

But that is NOT what happened, if you look more closely. Rather, what happened was that some (very few) human beings said things about God, that they claimed to have gotten by revelation from God, which was followed (and is still being followed) by more people making exactly the same claims. At no point in all of it has there been anything that can be scientifically, archaeologically or otherwise demonstrated that was just done by God alone.

I would guess that Jesus is not likely to make himself known to you because of your disbelief. But if he did, and you had a miraculous conversion experience, you would know it as an absolute reality. That is what counts -- not what a believer can prove to others, but what has been proven to the believer.

Therefore, you have simply decided for yourself where you would cut of the prophets -- and since that presupposes some knowledge that you have that the rest of us don't, makes you yourself a de facto prophet -- privy to knowledge directly from the deity himself, and not from what other prophets purport to say.

"The rest of us" are atheists, aren't they? The knowledge I have is very common among believers. No prophet here.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would guess that Jesus is not likely to make himself known to you because of your disbelief.

And you can't even see how utterly ridiculous that is! I don't believe, so Jesus won't make himself known to me, but the reason I don't belief is because Jesus (with, presumably, immeasurably more power than I) has never bothered to make himself know to me.

And when did Jesus "make himself known" to you? When your parents told you to believe in him? Or did he drop by your bedroom, or maybe your grade school class, and explain what he was all about?

But if he did, and you had a miraculous conversion experience, you would know it as an absolute reality. That is what counts -- not what a believer can prove to others, but what has been proven to the believer.

Yes, but notice what you said "if he did." But he didn't. And he could have. And so believers always get to do that -- claim precisely what you did, but not say, while you were doing it, how exactly it was (outside of your religious training by your parents), Jesus made himself known to you. I'm sure we'd all be fascinated! Did you have tea? Discuss heaven? Did he explain exactly how he fits into the trinity? (By the way, I'm betting none of the above.)

"The rest of us" are atheists, aren't they? The knowledge I have is very common among believers. No prophet here.

The knowledge you have doesn't exist. You have beliefs. And many beliefs are very common, and very frequently wrong. "Common" isn't all it's cracked up to be, and billions of people throughout human history have held beliefs in "common" that you would now call dumb.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

guess the answer to that question depends somewhat on what it applies to. If it applied to a criminal investigation, for example, there can only be a benefit if the associated facts are true. Then you can arrive at the greater truth. But if a fact is actually a misperception or a lie, then it becomes an obstacle to finding the truth. Or if it’s just an opinion or a conjecture, it could be either accurate or inaccurate.

If it isnt a fact (say jesus existence) it wouldnt mean its a lie or not benefitial to people. Given their personal attachment, theyd find it uncomfortable to think otherwise. Can you hypothsize?

He has shown me too much tangible proof to even ponder hypothetically that he does not exist. His word will always be absolute truth to me.

I can ponder that Im 6'1 but the fact is Im 5'1. I can ponder what if my grandmothersl didnt save me but the fact is she did. Is it too personal to want to ponder, against the word, or the inability to do so?

And that is where basing a truth on facts gets more complicated. What one person accepts as either fact or truth is not necessarily what another person accepts. What one person accepts in faith is rejected by another. What is proven to one is disbelieved by another

Fact has no favorites. If jesus was fact, regardless if people chose to believe in him, we wouldnt need go question his existence. People like to make it a big deal because its religious. We All would know.

Fact isnt a "your belief vs my belief". If your fact is not universal, its not a fact its your belief. Does that make your belief irrevelant? Does your belief need to be a fact (something we know and all can experience not favoritism) for you to experience god?

Knowing for certain would be relevant to me. If you already are certain, then I suppose you don’t see a need for any further proof. A spirit saved me from death (or at least severe injury) when I was four years old. In my case, I knew as fact that it was an angel, and I never considered a need for further proof either.

I knew too but I can hypothosize it because I know no one shares my experience. How I define fact does not make it fact by definition. Its just something " I " experienced, how I see it as fact, and how it benefits me.

A fact has no favoritism. You should be able to experience the same thing from my grandmothers and spirits as millions of others who practice ancestral religions. You dont.

So how can "our" experiences be fact if it cannot be experiences and tested regardless if we believe in it or not?

If you think you feel his presence, what lie is there?

Think and know are two different things.

I "think" that I will get home safely tonight. So I will bet 100 percent I will.

Life does not work that way. We do not know. So I will not lie to myself and say I know I will get home safe regardless of what I think.

Religiously, I rather Know that god is jesus. I would be lying to myself if I continued to practice.

How can you find truth in a lie?

 

[Dawnofhope]

They, together with Rome, a part of the One Catholic Church. Their differences are juridical. They share the same priesthood and sacraments.

There is no United Catholic Church after 1054 that includes the Eastern Orthodox Church and for the most part not before with the division of the Roman Empire with the development of the Byzantine Empire. Perhaps we understand the word schism differently.

Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences - Wikipedia

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I would guess that Jesus is not likely to make himself known to you because of your disbelief.

I just want to comment. If Jesus was a fact, our belief and disbelief wouldn't be necessary for knowledge that he exists. He would exist independent of our beliefs.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

And you can't even see how utterly ridiculous that is! I don't believe, so Jesus won't make himself known to me, but the reason I don't belief is because Jesus (with, presumably, immeasurably more power than I) has never bothered to make himself know to me.

Have you ever believed, prayed, or wanted to know God? Have you ever been receptive to him?

 

[Desert Snake]

I just want to comment. If Jesus was a fact, our belief and disbelief wouldn't be necessary for knowledge that he exists. He would exist independent of our beliefs.

Are you saying that Japan didn't exist before it was known by people elsewhere?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Huh??? Commentary please?

Are you saying that Japan didn't exist before it was known by people elsewhere?

I wrote a short story about a girl at Christmas. Every year she put stockings on the family fireplace hooks. One day, she found one sock missing. Santa took it. Then her father and mother told her that her father is santa and took the stockings because, she said, she's santa's little angel.

It's not a fact. It's a made up story that I briefed up (surprisingly). However, I was thinking of using this same girl in other stories and creating a personality in her.

These things aren't based on facts. It's based on imagination. Facts are not relevant in many imaginary stories.



Likewise, god doesn't exist. What about his actual existence change how your and other people's relationship with him?

If he was concrete and everyone experienced and know god exist, then the question wouldn't make sense. However, that is not the case. It isn't common knowledge and it isn't a fact that god exist independent of our beliefs. Without our being here, he wouldn't exist.

How does that change your experience with god? If you are able to hypothesize for a minute.

 

[Desert Snake]

Huh??? Commentary please?


I wrote a short story about a girl at Christmas. Every year she put stockings on the family fireplace hooks. One day, she found one sock missing. Santa took it. Then her father and mother told her that her father is santa and took the stockings because, she said, she's santa's little angel.

It's not a fact. It's a made up story that I briefed up (surprisingly). However, I was thinking of using this same girl in other stories and creating a personality in her.

These things aren't based on facts. It's based on imagination. Facts are not relevant in many imaginary stories.



Likewise, god doesn't exist. What about his actual existence change how your and other people's relationship with him?

If he was concrete and everyone experienced and know god exist, then the question wouldn't make sense. However, that is not the case. It isn't common knowledge and it isn't a fact that god exist independent of our beliefs. Without our being here, he wouldn't exist.

How does that change your experience with god? If you are able to hypothesize for a minute.

Your equation is faulty, so I can't 'answer' your premise/question. Deity isn't real in your opinion, it has nothing to do with me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

He has shown me too much tangible proof to even ponder hypothetically that he does not exist. His word will always be absolute truth to me.

Sorry, keep finding things to say with your posts.

It can't be absolute truth "to me" to be fact. It has to be absolute truth for all. It has to be a fact not a truth (having to do with morals), not beliefs, and not opinions. I should know jesus exist regardless if I think he is a bad person or he loves people.

Facts exist without our needing effort to validate it as facts. One and one will always double even if I don't test it out. It's just the law of nature. When one thing on either hand is put together, it always doubles.

Beliefs, on the other hand, don't have that. Prayer doesn't validate jesus existence anymore than reading the bible because both are going by faith and trust.

How can you state what you believe is universal fact (my words) when that fact has to be universal to all without need for validation for it to exist whether it be by ancient scripture or prayer?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your equation is faulty, so I can't 'answer' your premise/question. Deity isn't real in your opinion, it has nothing to do with me.

Please don't use red. I can see and read better with regular font. My vision is faulty (medical wise).

Outside of that, I'm just asking: Can you still benefit from experiences even IF god does not exist?

This has nothing to do with me. Facts are independent of my opinions, beliefs, and questions.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

If it isnt a fact (say jesus existence) it wouldnt mean its a lie or not benefitial to people. Given their personal attachment, theyd find it uncomfortable to think otherwise. Can you hypothsize?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I think it has something to do with this:

Is it too personal to want to ponder, against the word, or the inability to do so?

I don't want to because I think it would be disrespectful.

If jesus was fact, regardless if people chose to believe in him, we wouldnt need go question his existence.

Maybe you and I aren't seeing the scope of the word "fact" in the same way. I'm thinking of it a just a true reality, whether it's known or accepted or not. Here, it looks like you see a fact as something that has been universally established.

How I define fact does not make it fact by definition. Its just something " I " experienced, how I see it as fact, and how it benefits me.

Yes, I understand that.

You should be able to experience the same thing from my grandmothers and spirits as millions of others who practice ancestral religions. You dont.

So how can "our" experiences be fact if it cannot be experiences and tested regardless if we believe in it or not?

We might believe something that can be tested and proven as fact. On the other hand, we might believe something that we cannot validate. In that case, we can only subjectively regard it as a fact. But if a belief is proven to the one who believes it, then it is a fact, whether or not he/she can prove it to anyone else.

How can you find truth in a lie?

The fact that you felt something is not a lie, so why is what you felt a lie? Because it was contrary to intellectual reason?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

I just want to comment. If Jesus was a fact, our belief and disbelief wouldn't be necessary for knowledge that he exists.

But how can disbelief reconcile with knowledge?

He would exist independent of our beliefs.

Yes!

 

[Desert Snake]

Outside of that, I'm just asking: Can you still benefit from experiences even IF god does not exist?

the question doesn't make sense. You can't theorize an answer without the context. ie 'if you didn't know Japan exists, would you like Japan'

This has nothing to do with me. Facts are independent of my opinions, beliefs, and questions.

But you aren't presenting 'facts'...you're presenting your opinions.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

It can't be absolute truth "to me" to be fact. It has to be absolute truth for all.

Absolute truth is not accepted by all, but it's still absolute truth. For example, gravity is not a reality because everyone believes it is, and would not cease to be a reality if everyone disbelieved.

How can you state what you believe is universal fact (my words) when that fact has to be universal to all without need for validation for it to exist whether it be by ancient scripture or prayer?

If you witnessed an event, then you would know the reality of it. And if everyone you tell about it disbelieves, and you have no way to prove what you saw, you still know it's an absolute truth.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Maybe you and I aren't seeing the scope of the word "fact" in the same way. I'm thinking of it a just a true reality, whether it's known or accepted or not. Here, it looks like you see a fact as something that has been universally established.

Yeah. That's what I mean. I use the one and one is two for example a lot because it's universally known (and unknown) all around the world, in the universe that one thing on either hand put together doubles. So, it's a fact regardless if we test it or prove it true or not. It exist independent of our beliefs, etc.

I don't see religion as "fact" in the terms I mentioned above. It is true to me and I probably use the word true because I can't prove spirits but I know they exist. So, it's a catch-22.

We might believe something that can be tested and proven as fact. On the other hand, we might believe something that we cannot validate. In that case, we can only subjectively regard it as a fact. But if a belief is proven to the one who believes it, then it is a fact, whether or not he/she can prove it to anyone else.

I can see that, seeing something subjectively as fact. I spoke with a very good priest before confirmation. I asked him about the Eucharist. You know, the common argument about how it's jesus etc. He says that not all facts (I forgot the word he mentioned) are things we can detect with our five senses. Although I detected my grandmother with the sense of touch and the spirit I saw with sight, I would not think anyone can believe something that they have not actually experienced to know.

Like taking the Eucharist isn't an isolated "belief" experience anymore as praying the rosary. So how can truth/fact be abstract and unrelated to reality? And if those that say abstract truth is different than universal truth, I understand that and from my experience (seeing it differently for a minute) I don't understand how that can be.

The fact that you felt something is not a lie, so why is what you felt a lie? Because it was contrary to intellectual reason?

Naw. I never believed jesus is god. I can't prove it, I just know by my own feeling and scripture combined. I never stopped believing the sacraments exist. I believe the spirits of the deceased (for lack of better words) exist on earth and jesus is no exception. I do believe jesus is in the Eucharist and everything else.

However, belief and knowledge is very different devotion and sacrificing oneself to the things you believe and/or know is true. There are a few religions I know that some of their spirits exist. A lot of the ancestral religions agree and we can talk all day long about the spirits that I cannot find in the Catholic faith.

So, it's beyond faith/belief and knowledge. It's something you give yourself to. I don't have that inner conviction to give myself to christ. When I do go through his passion, it makes me feel the opposite. That feeling is terrible and its a contradiction to how I felt when I took the sacraments.

That contradiction feeling is the reason I left. Not intellectual and not belief. (I'm not your average atheist )

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes!

I wouldn't think so. Even though he existed, a lot of the things christians believe does not mean he actually taught it and some events actually took place. Given the fact we nothing from him directly (as many teachers who taught orally) I'd think believe would be a key fact.

But in the other post, you said knowledge (or what I also say fact) can be abstract so whatever you believe can also be fact. We see differently. What we believe IS fact not belief. God doesn't give life, god IS life. He isn't a deity, he IS life. Type of thing With that mindset (I wish Catholicism had it) then I can see better how jesus is intune with god. As long as he is a deity or spirit, naw. It's a belief dependent on our selves rahter than a fact independent of ourselves.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

the question doesn't make sense. You can't theorize an answer without the context. ie 'if you didn't know Japan exists, would you like Japan'

I can't remember if I gave the story-example to you. I can therozie Zanith exist instead of what was planet Pluto, even though it doesn't. I can theorize that two and two is five and make an logical explanation of why I made a theory of that answer regardless if it is true or not.

However, I leave the theology aside since you see it direspectful.

But you aren't presenting 'facts'...you're presenting your opinions.

My experiences aren't opinions. If I were to compare it to others, millions of people have the same experiences I have just they have religion and culture to shape their experiences; I don't.

If I made an opinion, I'd probably say "it's a good thing my grandmother saved be. She probably did because she loved me."

The fact is she did it is not an opinion or belief regardless if I believe it or not. It happened. That's like saying how you express and experience taking the Eucharist is an opinion.

Is it?

Wouldn't the Eucharist exist independent of your beliefs and opinions etc?
Your existence even?

That's what I meant. Facts are independent of my opinions and beliefs unless we are talking about how you define fact. Then I wouldn't say beliefs, I'd say they are subjective facts. If one likes. I think that's an oxymoron.