Sigh

Post #319,601 by crazy 1/5/10 11:27:18 PM Reply	Sigh It is also possible for people to come to a genuine, life-changing faith from the Catholic teaching and be truly Christian in their outlook whilst remaining Catholic. Sigh. And that is the cornerstone of why you don't know any Catholics. They don't want to know you. Since I'll never be a Christian (all hail the Great Spaghetti Monster), I can't be damned with that kind of faint praise. I hate being put in a position of defending any organized religion. But in this case, I guess I don't have a choice. You are part of a branch of a sub-group of people. Guess what? So are they. They are like elder cousins on a branch on a tree. But you consider them not to be Christians. From your perspective, it is probably (now I'm making shit up) a deep loss, since hey, they're gonna end up in hell and they were so close, just so close, if only they believed a few more things they would have made it. And maybe you even have a couple of people you consider your friends, that you flew across the poind to see, who are Catholic. And they're going to burn. That was the generous interpretation. No matter what, while you may never see how a little bitty comment may make people not talk to you about their beliefs, it happens.
Post #319,608 by static 1/6/10 3:10:41 AM Reply	I led you to mis-interpret me. My apologies. I inadvertantly fell into theological terms, without providing context. Basically, I failed to distinguish between "Christian" meaning regularly attends a recognised christian church, and "Christian" meaning one who adheres to a faith outside or alongside the religious trappings seen. What I meant was that there are adherants of the Catholic tradition who have acquired a faith which the rituals hold genuine meaning. They are not Catholic or Christian because they do the rituals, they do the rituals because they believe. There are also people in the Catholic church who have acquired a faith in spite of the problems of their organised religion. Yet they remain in the Catholic church with rituals that might not have much if any meaning. In other words, I was referring to Catholics who they themselves believe are Christians whilst believing most of their fellow Catholics are not. I do not profess to be able to tell the difference so I do my best not to even try. If someone calls themselves "Christian" but does not have any interest in comparing their "Christianity" to mine, then I try to just take their declaration at face value and leave them be. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,611 by crazy 1/6/10 5:27:36 AM 1/6/10 5:48:48 AM Reply	Oh, I accept you are doing this with best intentions In other words, I was referring to Catholics who they themselves believe are Christians whilst believing most of their fellow Catholics are not. Except you don't know any. Or very very few. And you certainly have an outsider's view, with very little research, so you are delving in an area you could not possibly know. And then you made a broad assumption about select people within the group, what they believe, and even sillier, what they believe about other within their select sub-group. You guys came later and grabbed the term, the broader one, the first one, and then decided it applied only to you. Note: The you here is the historical group of people that came before the "individual" you. And this term, being a christian, is used by every religion that has Christ as a cornerstone. I've met many, of varying branches, and I'm always willing to trigger a religious discussion to see where it goes. To tell one of these people they aren't christian is an incredible insult. Any of them. At least when this group of people broke off from the Jews they didn't simply decide to call themselves Jews and the elders needed to come up with a new name. You seem to feel it applies just to your subgroup (or any-sub group that shares your beliefs, but certainly not the Catholics) in the specifics. Which sets them up nicely as being "others", and not part of your core group. This comes down to identity. Who gets to choose their own? And when an outsider is labeling the group, and the group competes with the outsider, someone is going to lose. Go read up on "The Whore of Babylon" to get a feel why some people may be touchy about it. So there seem to be a couple of problems here. #1 - You don't get to appropriate such an important historical term while denying it to others. Especially if they were using it first. Wars get started over this. It is a direct provocation. #2 - You make assumptions about levels of deeply held beliefs in others that seem to be very contradictory to their stated beliefs to justify these assumptions. I suggest you try to get to know a few. As much as this broadly shared delusion may cause damage, I've found that the Catholics (when they aren't running the inquisition or supporting Hitler) usually aren't the ones trying to kill the Jews. That is usually the later splits. So I have an affinity to that branch as opposed to most of the others. Remember, from an outsider's point of view (an outsider who doesn't believe that Christ was any more special than any of the thousands of prophets babbling in that time frame) whether or not you are Christian is really easy. It means you went to a church that has a cross on it, said a few select things, the priest (and/or congregation) said a few select things back, and poof, you're a Christian. It doesn't mean that on a day by day basis you are a "good" Christian, people can judge you on your actions for that, but only the individual gets to state the claim that they are a Christian. At that point, if they are part of the sub-group that believes in hell (a large portion of them), if you tell they they are not a Christian, you are telling them they are going to hell. It's pretty clear. To me, the varying Christian branches can be shown via a Venn diagram of overlapping beliefs, with the center being the belief in Jesus being something special that is shared by all of them. Oh well, as long as you guys are fighting amongst yourselves, at least the rest of us have a bit less to worry about. Edited by crazy Jan. 6, 2010, 05:48:48 AM EST Expand All History
Post #319,615 by static 1/6/10 7:13:11 AM Reply	I do not speak from a position of no knowledge. One of the things that happens in churches is the concept of visiting speakers. I'm sure you've heard of it; it is not a phenomenon isolated to churches. Some of my knowledge about what Catholics believe and how they behave and think are from such visiting speakers who are or have been Catholic and are there to teach, amongst other things, how other christian groups behave and what they believe. My exact example about Catholics who believe they are Christian whilst they believe that those around them in their own Catholic church are not, was directly from people who really believed this (much like there are Jews who also believe Jesus is the Messiah, but otherwise remain Judaistic Jews). Most other knowledge I have is from theological writers who identify themselves as Catholic, even to the point of having office in the Catholic church, and writers who have cause to discuss the image of the Catholic church in the wider society. Now, as to who are "christians" and who are not... in my experience, for most people I have spent time with who identify as "christian", it is not a daily concern as to whether they consider attendees of a catholic or orthodox church as "christian" or not. I couldn't even say whether most would say 'yes' or 'no' on the question: most of the time, it simply doesn't come up. But most such people I have known would include Catholics as part of the Christian Church, just in a "more distant cousin" kind of way. I have seen this slight differentiation cause problems. Note this requires the distinction made between being "christian" in belief and being an attendee of a Christian Church. Most Protestants I know and have known through the years will make such a distinction, as do I (usually), regardless of what others may do. OTOH, once the topic turns to church history, the Catholic church is always acknowledged as an irremovable part. In fact, "catholic" is nearly as old as "christian" and is applied by some to refer to all who call themselves "Christian". It is why the organisation based around the Pope is called the Roman Catholic Church so as to avoid ambiguity and perceived bias. Surely I don't need to remind you that the history of the Christian Church(s) is a highly complex story with many points-of-view. I also have not mentioned at all desires to kill Jews, as this is a topic in church history I feel I do not know enough about to comment on. I notice you have your discussion. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,620 by crazy 1/6/10 8:56:36 AM Reply	Tada!
Post #319,617 by folkert 1/6/10 7:18:26 AM Reply	Its about faith, not belief. There is a difference. Faith does not require them to believe. It helps but is not required. Belief does require faith, as without it nothing would be believable.
Post #319,619 by crazy 1/6/10 8:52:10 AM Reply	Thanks

Welcome to IWETHEY!