Fair enough, but your own anecdotal evidence doesn't disprove a larger trend. And lets not forget you also see evidence of lots of Jews attending Catholic Schools. And lots of Protestants seeking out Catholic Priests to administer important sacraments. And lots of Catholics referring to our faith as "the pearl of great price." So, your "evidence" is a little shaky.
Changing topics - Whether you believe he was the Son of God or not, is it universally accepted as historical fact that Jesus Christ walked this Earth?
i don't believe he was the son of god, i am highly skeptical of his existence as well. there is no better template than him on how to treat others, but i dont believe at all. if he did exist, he probably was just a good man who ruffled the wrong feathers. i highly doubt he wanted to be the "rock star" that the world makes him out to be, just wanted to be a good man with a great message. born to a virgin, turning water into wine, feeding the masses, walking on water, rising from the dead, i cannot look anyone in the eye with a straight face when i am told with all certainty that this all happened. its not intelligent.
No, you can't minimize him as a good man with a good message. CS Lewis addressed this perfectly; either he was the Son of God, as he claims, or he was a sociopathic liar whose goal was to deceive and manipulate for his own glory. That is not a good man. I'm paraphrasing of course but the meaning remains. There is no "good" middle ground for Jesus. He is either what he said he was or a fraud, and likely not sane.
kinda makes me scared for the guy if he returns as "everyone who believes" says. he'll be written off as a kook and they'll probably kill him again. human beings are broken toys.
You are so predictable, I knew that was coming next, just like before I could see you coming back with "the holocaust was just tabloid trash in the papers". You mean the "survivors" who waited 50 or 60 years to decide to tell their story, after the priests they were accusing are dead and can't defend themselves? lol. Sad, just sad, what some people will stoop to for a big cash settlement from the church. And btw those settlements happened outside of court, and the vast majority of those Priests were never proven guilty. But some people want to ignore those facts so they can continue their juvenile smear campaign. smh.
Well, as someone who attended Catholic Schools myself for a number of years, I can tell you that I personally knew some Jewish students; they attended all classes except religion. The school respected their religion, btw, and did not want to impose the Catholic Faith on them. That's why parents of children of all religions, or those with no religious beliefs, still send their kids to Catholic Schools. They want them to benefit from a solid education with discipline and values. And I have personally known people in my life who did those other things you quoted me as saying, so how can you call that evidence "shaky"? I'm telling you, honestly, that I've seen those things with my own eyes......and JStokes always complains when I refer to the papers of the media in evaluating NFL players, and tells me not to go by someone else's opinions, but trust what I see and my own evaluations of the players. So he, and the others here who keep pointing to NY tabloid articles for their "facts", need to be consistent here. I trust my own eyes, and my own experiences, when it comes to religion, not what someone else tells me.....so who's really the "sheep" or "lemmings" here?
You always complain when I refer to the papers or the media in evaluating NFL players, and tell me not to go by someone else's opinions, but trust what I see and my own evaluations of the players. So you need to be consistent here. You just keep pointing to questionable tabloid articles when attacking the church, or priests. I trust my own eyes, and my own experiences, when it comes to religion, not what someone else tells me.....so who's really the "sheep" or "lemmings" here?
. "The quote attributed to Einstein, “The more I study science, the more I believe in God,” is getting a lot of play around the internet. I though it might be interesting to look at what he might have meant by the statement. First, Einstein was neither a Christian or even a Jew. He was raised as a Jew and was schooled as a Catholic. He had ample education in the Abrahamic religions, but rejected them nonetheless. Still, Einstein is not properly classified an atheist either. He rejected the notion of a personal god. Instead, he said, “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” In other words, he was a Deist, and was in the spiritual company of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine. Deists believe that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of a creator." http://timscogitorium.com/tinblog/2012/08/einsteins-god-was-not-yahweh.html
It's pretty simple. Just the same as people can choose to do good things without being inspired by God, not every evil deed has to be attributed to the devil. It takes away responsibility from the person doing the deed
Dude--you've cut and pasted 10,000 word essays handed down by your church elders. None of them your original thoughts. You even screw it up when incorrectly quoting the Mormon Faith as Catholic. You're a sheep who can't think for himself. When I post articles about priest being convicted of raping children, they aren't editorials or opinion pieces. They are factual accounts of priest raping children and being convicted. You wouldn't know a good QB from a bad QB until you read someone else's opinion on it. You have consistently shown yourself to be a sheep. _
I don't have a closed mind. I am open to many possibilities as being agnostic, which is just being honest with yourself. It is very mind opening to be okay with the fact that I don't know and might never know. I'm focused on being the best person I can be without the promise of divine reward or the threat of eternal damnation. I guess I will find out if thats good enough
Well, yes and no. First of all, when the Pope is speaking to the press, he is talking about his own personal views, not official Catholic doctrine. And he is NOT infallible in general, only in very specific cases where he is producing official documents on matters of Church doctrine. Not everything he says, or even writes, is considered infallible. So Popes do make mistakes, like all fallible human beings. And frankly, I don't trust this Pope; he scares me a bit, because he seems too liberal and too concerned about popular opinion. A Catholic friend of mine reassures me that the Pope will not, and actually cannot, alter church doctrine....it's a good thing that he is welcoming to all people, and compassionate with all people. That's how Catholics are supposed to be. But he should not give the impression that he is open to changing church doctrine to appease the whims of the masses at a particular time in history. Truth is Truth, and it is unchanging....that's what makes the Catholic Church authentic, and the largest Church on earth. People really want an authentic Church that will challenge them to grow and improve themselves, not a permissible quasi-church...
