Is Catholicism true and...

[danieldemol]

The perspective of truth depends on who is asking. A Catholic is more likely to consider Catholicism true and a non-Catholic to consider Catholicism false.

I consider Catholicism to be founded on truth and there is much to be admired in regards moral and spiritual truths. As the largest faith community on the planet from diverse cultures it has proven capacity to unite people around a common cause. It has already achieved global unity.

Well off you go and join the Roman empire then if you think it has achieved global unity. I believe there is not much need of the Baha'i faith if Catholicism has already achieved the Baha'i faith's central goal.

In my opinion

 

[Glaurung]

The original post according to my understanding makes no connection between whether or not Catholicism is true and how many accept or reject it. Rather it questions whether it is possible for the Catholic Roman empire to be resurected and spread on a global level given that too many have discovered or at least considered Catholicism to be false in my opinion.

Do you think most in the West embrace liberalism and progressivism because they've thought deeply about the world? Or have they embraced these ideologies because secular liberalism is the de facto creed of the overall society in the West? The received truth of modern society.

Most people end up believing what their societies privilege as the received truth. So a hypothetical Catholic empire wouldn't need everyone to immediately accept Catholicism as a matter of personal belief. It would instead just privilege Catholicism as the official religion and restrict everything else to varying degrees. The Caliphates did the same thing. They privileged Islam and after several generations Islam became the received truth for the majority of the Middle East.

Now, whether or not Catholicism could become a serious civilizational force again is another question. I think that is unlikely unless God himself miraculously intervenes to convert the world.

 

[syo]

1. Is Catholicism true

No.

 

[pearl]

They dislike the widespread misunderstandings of the mystery of the Trinitarian doctrine.

The key word here is 'Mystery', and probably the reason there is a development of understanding anew.

 

[pearl]

We are talking about Catholicism here though

Firs mistake, trying to separate Catholicism from Scripture.

 

[soulsurvivor]

1. Is Catholicism true and

2. Once enough people find a thing to be not true, can it unite humans sufficiently to bring about global unity?

I am not sure why you are picking on Catholicism - no religion is completely true; all have some false beliefs. In any case, Catholicism is not that different from other Christian sects other than the belief in the Trinity. Even Islam and Catholicism differ only in the belief in the divinity of Christ and his resurrection (besides the Trinity).

Catholicism is no more false than other Abrahamic religions, and may actually have more truth than most of them.

 

[Muffled]

1. Is Catholicism true and

2. Once enough people find a thing to be not true, can it unite humans sufficiently to bring about global unity?

It's been a while since I looked into Catholicism, and I seem to recall (though my memory is not a particularly good one) coming to the personal conclusion (in my opinion) that most of its central claims fall into the category of highly improbable to be true.

I also believe that if enough people discover a religion to be untrue it loses its power to unite those people and that reaching global unity will become improbable without some means of eliminating the dissenters.

Inspired by the thread;
Will empire return?.

In my opinion.

I left my Baptist church when the pastor called it catholic. I felt that it was a betrayal of Baptist belief. Now I understand better that cathoilc can simply mean that all are welcome to come into salvation.

I believe the Roman Catholic concept that everyone has to be in with them to be a false concept.

I believe unity is achieved by the Holy Spirit. He has one voice, so there can be no other voices.

 

[Muffled]

Do you think most in the West embrace liberalism and progressivism because they've thought deeply about the world? Or have they embraced these ideologies because secular liberalism is the de facto creed of the overall society in the West? The received truth of modern society.

Most people end up believing what their societies privilege as the received truth. So a hypothetical Catholic empire wouldn't need everyone to immediately accept Catholicism as a matter of personal belief. It would instead just privilege Catholicism as the official religion and restrict everything else to varying degrees. The Caliphates did the same thing. They privileged Islam and after several generations Islam became the received truth for the majority of the Middle East.

Now, whether or not Catholicism could become a serious civilizational force again is another question. I think that is unlikely unless God himself miraculously intervenes to convert the world.

I do not believe falsehood somehow becomes true because more people believe in it.

 

[Muffled]

I am not sure why you are picking on Catholicism - no religion is completely true; all have some false beliefs. In any case, Catholicism is not that different from other Christian sects other than the belief in the Trinity. Even Islam and Catholicism differ only in the belief in the divinity of Christ and his resurrection (besides the Trinity).

Catholicism is no more false than other Abrahamic religions, and may actually have more truth than most of them.

I suppose Roman Catholics make a bigger target because they have bigger numbers.

 

[PureX]

If religions are not helpful to all then can they be expected to unite people on the global level?

No. But religions can help people to become more willing to unite for each other's mutual benefit. Religions are just a collection of spiritual tools. They can't make anyone do anything. They can only help people to fulfill their spiritual desires, whatever those are.

 

[danieldemol]

Firs mistake, trying to separate Catholicism from Scripture.

How did I try to separate Catholicism from scripture?
Is anything I said about Catholicism in the post you responded to untrue? If so what and why.
In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

I am not sure why you are picking on Catholicism - no religion is completely true; all have some false beliefs. In any case, Catholicism is not that different from other Christian sects other than the belief in the Trinity. Even Islam and Catholicism differ only in the belief in the divinity of Christ and his resurrection (besides the Trinity).

Catholicism is no more false than other Abrahamic religions, and may actually have more truth than most of them.

Mainly because of what I perceive as the call of a certain Catholic and his accomplice to call for the resurrection of the Roman empire.
I agree though that I believe it is unlikely that any Abrahamic religion is completely true or completely false.
In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

Do you think most in the West embrace liberalism and progressivism because they've thought deeply about the world? Or have they embraced these ideologies because secular liberalism is the de facto creed of the overall society in the West?

In any movement there will be pioneers who thought about it more deeply and those who just imitate once it becomes established, and I believe there are no shortage of blind imitators in Catholicism for the same reason.

Nonetheless secularism is in my opinion a much more well thought out creed than Catholicism, even if it was only due to the founders of it having more collective human experience than the church fathers had to draw on.

In my opinion.

 

[Ella S.]

The key word here is 'Mystery', and probably the reason there is a development of understanding anew.

That's special pleading to excuse the cognitive dissonance of believing in something that is necessarily false. It's not an actual counter-argument. Calling it a mystery doesn't change the fact that it's impossible. Believing in the impossible is always illogical, no exceptions.

 

[paarsurrey]

#23 of friend pearl religion (Catholic), thread " Is Catholicism true and... "

“It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds”*

"God is love" (1 Jn. 48:16)

In chapter 4, verse 8 and again in verse 16,, 1JN we read that "God is love,"

The above quotes/references are from Post #23 of our friend @pearl, Religion " Catholic".

Friend! The above quotes/references are neither from (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, nor originated by him, please, right?:
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.

How could a Catholic base the concepts/creeds of his religion on what is not from (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, please?
Do the Catholics deem themselves greater than (Jesus) Yeshua that they do like this, please? Right?
Isn't it a disrespect to (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, please?
Right?

Regards
_____________
*“It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds”.
The above quote is not from (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, it is from
Fourth Lateran Council, (1215), the 12th ecumenical council, generally considered the greatest council before Trent. The council was years in preparation as Pope Innocent III desired the widest possible representation. More than 400 bishops, 800 abbots and priors, envoys of many European kings, and personal representatives of Frederick II (confirmed by the council as emperor of the West) took part."
Fourth Lateran Council | Description, History, & Facts

 

[Glaurung]

In any movement there will be pioneers who thought about it more deeply and those who just imitate once it becomes established, and I believe there are no shortage of blind imitators in Catholicism for the same reason.

It's not about "blind imitation". It's just the simple truth that people will generally believe what those around them believe.

Nonetheless secularism is in my opinion a much more well thought out creed than Catholicism, even if it was only due to the founders of it having more collective human experience than the church fathers had to draw on.

That's just your own bias speaking. No, the fundamental human experience is the same as it has always been. As to whether or not secularism and progressivism are better worldviews than Christianity we'll have to wait another thousand years to determine that. There's no reason to assume that liberal ideas will maintain their currency even a hundred years from now.

 

[danieldemol]

That's just your own bias speaking. No, the fundamental human experience is the same as it has always been.

I'm not sure that we are referring to the same thing here.
The fundamental human experience according to my understanding is that we are born, eat, sleep and eventually die.

But in my opinion it would not be correct to sum up the collective sum of human experiences by referring to the fundamental human experience alone.

The collective human experience we have includes our experience of the development of such things as sciences, art and philosophy among other things.

It includes our knowledge of ourselves which i believe is much greater today than in Jesus's time due to developments in the fields of psychology, neuroscience etc.

As to whether or not secularism and progressivism are better worldviews than Christianity we'll have to wait another thousand years to determine that. There's no reason to assume that liberal ideas will maintain their currency even a hundred years from now.

Even if they don't maintain their currency a hundred years from now i believe it has been a better time under the liberal/progressive reign where a person may choose to openly express their opinions without being fed to the lions and a better time for minorities than it was under the Roman empire.

And the only reason I can see for liberal ideas declining is either due to violent disruption of civilised society due to the overbreeding of the religious or due to the breakdown of mechanised Labor which frees us from the grip of slavery when the fossil fuel runs out if we haven't turned to alternative energy sources.

As far as the violent disruption of society due to over breeding goes I believe that would be a major sin (against humanity) on behalf of religion for that to occur.

As far as the breakdown of mechanised labor goes it looks to me unlikely as we have nuclear and renewable sources of energy to fall back on.

In my opinion.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Let us take for example Russia's disbelief about USA's disinterest.

To be fair, our history is chocked full of examples of us not keeping our noses out of everyone’s business.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It's possible that "peace" could be imposed externally

I believe that the key is to make people think that they thought it first.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Mainly because of what I perceive as the call of a certain Catholic and his accomplice to call for the resurrection of the Roman empire.

Ugh. God no. I’m not going to wipe myself off with a sponge on a stick.