- Oct 2, 2020
- 28,124
- 15,256
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I think I see what the problem is. By extension we're debating with a robot.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think I see what the problem is. By extension we're debating with a robot.Bing (chatgtp) tells me this:
No, that was a definition, not a debate.I think I see what the problem is. By extension we're debating with a robot.
And you've skipped over, or ignored, what I said earlier:no, you skipped a word, the one you eschewed to use of Catholicism earlier.
Christianity is the faith.
Look in any reference book about world beliefs.
FAITHS are, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc etc.
Within the Christian Faith, there are many denominations Anglican, Baptist, catholic Methodist etc etc. ALL hold to the teachings of Christ - rather than Buddha, Mohammed etc.
I understood what you meant. I tried to explain it. To no avail.And you've skipped over, or ignored, what I said earlier:
Catholicism is NOT a separate, independent, faith but part of/a branch of the Christian faith.
The world seems to think that the two are interchangeable. A hospital form/application form or whatever will often ask "what is your faith?" And most people - at least over here - put "Church of England."
The C of E is a denomination - the faith is Christian.
Someone may be Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Catholic etc etc, they are still all Christians. Our hospital chaplaincy team includes Anglicans. Methodists and Catholics. We are all Christians; we pray, study and visit the sick together. Catholics do not have a different god and different belief system - as your quote said, they are a branch of Christianity.
As do I.Nope, i disagree. That's all.
I may be completely wrong and out of line. But I think the true objection is that what a former Catholic has to say regarding certain dogmas of Catholicism, carries more weight than is preferred. Whereas because of that I'd love to hear more from a former Catholic.This has been a strangely contentious conversation that I did not intend to have, it honestly makes me sad to read back through. I will say it again. I love the RCC, I love the men in the KoC, I love the priests that I knew at my parish. But I still disagree on many points of dogma and doctrine, this being one. Ignoring and disagreement are not the same thing, I am perfectly happy to engage and discuss in an amicable manner- but my position will likely not change. That should be OK, we should be able to have conversations where do don't agree in the end but still are kind and can understand one another better.
If I said anything to personally offend you then I apologize. If I said anything that hurt or implied I am not willing to engage in a kind manner, then I also apologize, that was not my intention and perhaps the words chosen were not the best that I could use.
Alright. I think the main point is that there are truths worth taking a stand on while there are others that are disputable-and not worthy of dividing over. Now, if we could just agree on the formerThat's right, and Romans 14 definitely commands us (especially if we notice the full stakes in 1rst Corinthians 8) to never try to demand someone agree with all of our doctrines. Even things we think are totally what scripture says, like how it says over and over to keep the Sabbath on a certain day.... Romans 14 says 'forgettaboutit' and just love them, and totally be comfortable they entirely disagree with you about doctrine X....
(ok, yes, I wrote that a bit hyperbolically
FWIW I'm a "revert": raised Catholic, left Catholicism, ultimately became Protestant, then back to the RCC some 25 years later, to my own surprise. I had bought into the "crux of the Reformation" as Luther put it, the doctrine of justification, Sola Fide. That is, until I began to find myself appreciating Catholicism more, just a bit, through a series of circumstances that unfolded in my life, and then began to read Catholic doctrine for myself. At that point a sort of epiphany began to take place, slowly, as I studied more and more. There's an absolute wealth-an ocean-of material out there that has been generated by our ancestors in the faith, dating back to the beginning. Anyway, I found that my objections, on the basics, were not at all sound, while the teachings on justification, for one, were quite sound- and superior-whether or not they've been taught well and correctly or thoroughly at any one point in history.I may be completely wrong and out of line. But I think the true objection is that what a former Catholic has to say regarding certain dogmas of Catholicism, carries more weight than is preferred. Whereas because of that I'd love to hear more from a former Catholic.
This is possible but you must choose your words with proper care if you do not intend to offend.we should be able to have conversations where do don't agree in the end but still are kind and can understand one another better.
Absolutely, we would all do well to be so careful. Unfortunately we all fall short frequently, occasionally choosing words carelessly or not realizing how they may be perceived. We can also apologize and try to rectify the situation when we fall short, whether purposely or on accident, which I have tried to do here.This is possible but you must choose your words with proper care if you do not intend to offend.
That also is valuable.FWIW I'm a "revert": raised Catholic, left Catholicism, ultimately became Protestant, then back to the RCC some 25 years later, to my own surprise. I had bought into the "crux of the Reformation" as Luther put it, the doctrine of justification, Sola Fide. That is, until I began to find myself appreciating Catholicism more, just a bit, through a series of circumstances that unfolded in my life, and then began to read Catholic doctrine for myself. At that point a sort of epiphany began to take place, slowly, as I studied more and more. There's an absolute wealth-an ocean-of material out there that has been generated by our ancestors in the faith, dating back to the beginning. Anyway, I found that my objections, on the basics, were not at all sound, while the teachings on justification, for one, were quite sound- and superior-whether or not they've been taught well and correctly or thoroughly at any one point in history.
Yes, well, that was the point. I was a former Catholic who had objections but whose objections were resolved once I understood the Catholic faith.That also is valuable.
Although it seems less likely that you have any problems with Catholic dogma to point out.
I was always taught (when I was in the RCC) that it meant that we knew the most assured path to Salvation was through the Church (The RCC), but we did not know that there is not salvation outside of the Church as God is ever merciful. Basically CC847 gives an "out" to people that just have no real chance to embrace Rome but live a "Christian" life.
I do not think that the Catholic Church teaches the damnation of anyone, but it does state that for those who knowingly and wilfully break with the Church there is grave danger. That is sufficient I would think, to make anyone of sound mind stop and take note. But if what the Catholic Church says does not matter and you are persuaded that the warning she gives may be safely ignored because you think that they are in error, then the risk is yours and you are in all likelihood unable to participate in this discussion constructively, because Catholics know full well that former-Catholics who are now protestants are persuaded that their current perspective is true and right.Now, those of us that perhaps reluctantly but purposely left the RCC, after study and prayerful consideration (but remained in a Christian church), I believe the RCC teaches that we are outside of the faith entirely and are damned. Fortunately we also believe that those teachings are incorrect in the first place so take comfort that our souls are secure.
Twas just a jest.No, that was a definition, not a debate.
It is not helpful to make a claim and when answered to say "it was just a joke".Twas just a jest.
Right but I'd also be interested in hearing from someone who didn't resolve their objections even though they understand the Catholic faith.Yes, well, that was the point. I was a former Catholic who had objections but whose objections were resolved once I understood the Catholic faith.
I had a feeling I was going to regret that.It is not helpful to make a claim and when answered to say "it was just a joke".
Better to avoid statements that you will regret.I had a feeling I was going to regret that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?