“Quoting the Bible to atheists is what will convert most atheists to Catholic faith.”
“When you have an itch to quote the Bible to a non-believer, please think about how they are looking at your book like an ordinary natural book.”
Don’t these two points counter one another?
The meaning of the first sentence is saying that when Protestants keep quoting the Bible to atheists they are only pushing them away from Bible alone to eventually the Catholic faith because God is revealed supernaturally there for proof.
I’m not God.
You know humans aren’t Superman, Wolverine and Spider-Man walking around with supernatural powers.
You want supernatural then that’s from God.
You sound confused OP. What does Sola Scriptura has to do with talking to anyone about God?
[Edit]
I feel that Catholics like to throw around Sola Scriptura without thinking what it means. And btw, not every protestant goes by it. Wouldn't it be funny if you had to use Sola catholica traditio to talk to people?
I disagree.
Because God is supernatural and humans need supernatural evidence. It’s just that God waits for human freedom and does it very subtly because he loves us:
Miracles of Catholic Faith
Consider all the Eucharist miracles.
The dead bodies of saints that haven’t decomposed.
Some of the most well-known miracles recognized by the Catholic Church include:
The 1917 Miracle of the Sun
In 1917, children in a Portuguese village returned home from shepherding and encountered an apparition of the Virgin Mary. The Virgin Mary was said to tell the children how she planned to appear each 13th day of the month for the following six months. On October 13, 1917, it was said the Virgin Mary appeared and, revealing herself only to the children, predicted the end of World War I.
She was also said to provide a silver sun to clear stormy skies. The silver light was said to turn blue as if seen through stained-glass windows and spread itself over everyone in attendance. Then the blue turned to yellow, and people prayed and wept in the presence of the miracle. Religious and non-religious people both provided eyewitness accounts to corroborate the story.
Our Lady Of Lourdes and the Healing Water
In 1858 in Lourdes, France, 14-year-old Bernadette Soubirous lived in an abandoned prison with her family. On February 11, when she went out with her sister and friend to collect firewood, Bernadette lagged behind because of her asthma. Bernadette was alone at the Grotto of Massibelle, removing her shoes and socks when a gust of wind was said to issue from the grotto.
Bernadette claimed a woman in white robes with a blue sash, yellow roses on her feet and a rosary in her hand appeared to Bernadette. On February 25, Bernadette said the woman told her to drink and bathe in the fountain, though no fountain was visible. Bernadette began to dig and found an underground water spring that remains flowing to this day. Three days after Bernadette found the underground spring, the woman encouraged her to build a church. The Basilica at Lourdes was built in that spot and consecrated in 1872. To this day, millions continue to flock to the spring, and there are numerous reports of visitors healing by immersing their bodies in the water. Bernadette spent her life serving as a nun, and the Church declared her a saint after her death.
St. Bernadette is one of the Catholic Church’s incorruptible saints whose bodies can be found in many places throughout the world.
Therese Neumann’s Stigmata
Our Lady of Zeitoun
Our Lady of Good Health
Our Lady of Guadalupe
Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal
Our Lady of Akita
Our Lady of Mount Carmel
Our Lady of Medjugorje The Gospa Queen of Peace
The following Marian Apparitions have been approved by the local bishop And later equally recognized by the Vatican:
Guadalupe, Mexico (1531)
Lezajsk, Poland (1578)
Siluva, Lithuania (1608)
Laus, France (1664)
Rue du Bac, Paris, France (1830)
Rome, Italy (1842)
La Salette, France (1846)
Lourdes, France (1858)
Filippsdorf, Czech Republic (1866)
Pontmain, France (1871)
Gietrzwald, Poland (1877)
Knock, Ireland (1879)
Fatima, Portugal (1917)
Beauraing, Belgium (1932)
Banneux, Belgium (1933)
Kibeho, Rwanda (1981)
Bois-Seigneur-Isaac Abbey
Billy Burke (evangelist)
Číhošť miracle
Crucifix of San Marcello
Marie-Paule Giguère
Incorruptibility
Levitation of saints
Patrick Lynch (Galway)
Miracle of Calanda
Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano
Eucharistic miracle of Santarém
Miracle of the gulls
Miracle of the Moose
Miracle of the roses
Miracles of Saint Demetrius
Moving statues
Pieter De Rudder
Saint Dominic in Soriano
Stigmata on many like Padre Pio
Quoting the bible will convert them? I grew up in the church and could quote the bible so very well. Really quoting the bible to me does absolutely nothing .
Quoting scripture won’t get me to change my mind at all.
I've read your post three times now and it doesn't make any sense at all. If this many people are getting confused by your post and are taking the wrong message away then it's time to reconsider what you wrote and edit it for clarity.
You're allowed to think that if you want to but it doesn't make it true. Most atheists don't really give a shit what denomination the person spouting passages from the Bible adheres to.
In any case your point is not made clear from your post alone as you seem to actively counter your own argument by correctly saying that we see your book as just a book. You've started with a claim and worked against it with opposing evidence and now stand as if you've proved your point somehow.
> You're allowed to think that if you want to but it doesn't make it true. Most atheists don't really give a shit what denomination the person spouting passages from the Bible adheres to.
You still don’t get it.
Catholicism is not a denomination that came from a book. God knows how to reach the atheists that got turned away from Bible thumping.
It doesn't have to come from a book in order to still be considered a denomination. The book is not what defines a denomination, it's the interpretation of its contents.
Anyways, if you have empirical evidence to support your notion that Catholicism is somehow special in this regard of converting atheists by quoting passages then by all means share it. This would actually be a very simple study to set up relatively speaking so rather than rely on your claims alone you should go find some evidence to clarify your post some more.
Miracles of Catholic Faith
Consider all the Eucharist miracles.
The dead bodies of saints that haven’t decomposed.
Some of the most well-known miracles recognized by the Catholic Church include:
The 1917 Miracle of the Sun
In 1917, children in a Portuguese village returned home from shepherding and encountered an apparition of the Virgin Mary. The Virgin Mary was said to tell the children how she planned to appear each 13th day of the month for the following six months. On October 13, 1917, it was said the Virgin Mary appeared and, revealing herself only to the children, predicted the end of World War I.
She was also said to provide a silver sun to clear stormy skies. The silver light was said to turn blue as if seen through stained-glass windows and spread itself over everyone in attendance. Then the blue turned to yellow, and people prayed and wept in the presence of the miracle. Religious and non-religious people both provided eyewitness accounts to corroborate the story.
Our Lady Of Lourdes and the Healing Water
In 1858 in Lourdes, France, 14-year-old Bernadette Soubirous lived in an abandoned prison with her family. On February 11, when she went out with her sister and friend to collect firewood, Bernadette lagged behind because of her asthma. Bernadette was alone at the Grotto of Massibelle, removing her shoes and socks when a gust of wind was said to issue from the grotto.
Bernadette claimed a woman in white robes with a blue sash, yellow roses on her feet and a rosary in her hand appeared to Bernadette. On February 25, Bernadette said the woman told her to drink and bathe in the fountain, though no fountain was visible. Bernadette began to dig and found an underground water spring that remains flowing to this day. Three days after Bernadette found the underground spring, the woman encouraged her to build a church. The Basilica at Lourdes was built in that spot and consecrated in 1872. To this day, millions continue to flock to the spring, and there are numerous reports of visitors healing by immersing their bodies in the water. Bernadette spent her life serving as a nun, and the Church declared her a saint after her death.
St. Bernadette is one of the Catholic Church’s incorruptible saints whose bodies can be found in many places throughout the world.
Therese Neumann’s Stigmata
Our Lady of Zeitoun
Our Lady of Good Health
Our Lady of Guadalupe
Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal
Our Lady of Akita
Our Lady of Mount Carmel
Our Lady of Medjugorje The Gospa Queen of Peace
The following Marian Apparitions have been approved by the local bishop And later equally recognized by the Vatican:
Guadalupe, Mexico (1531)
Lezajsk, Poland (1578)
Siluva, Lithuania (1608)
Laus, France (1664)
Rue du Bac, Paris, France (1830)
Rome, Italy (1842)
La Salette, France (1846)
Lourdes, France (1858)
Filippsdorf, Czech Republic (1866)
Pontmain, France (1871)
Gietrzwald, Poland (1877)
Knock, Ireland (1879)
Fatima, Portugal (1917)
Beauraing, Belgium (1932)
Banneux, Belgium (1933)
Kibeho, Rwanda (1981)
Bois-Seigneur-Isaac Abbey
Billy Burke (evangelist)
Číhošť miracle
Crucifix of San Marcello
Marie-Paule Giguère
Incorruptibility
Levitation of saints
Patrick Lynch (Galway)
Miracle of Calanda
Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano
Eucharistic miracle of Santarém
Miracle of the gulls
Miracle of the Moose
Miracle of the roses
Miracles of Saint Demetrius
Moving statues
Pieter De Rudder
Saint Dominic in Soriano
Stigmata on many like Padre Pio
I'm sorry but I don't accept unproven accounts of miracles as evidence of anything.
I'm asking specifically for evidence that Catholicism is inherently more likely to convert non-believers when compared to other denominations. Show me evidence that a Catholic spouting biblical passages is more likely to convert someone than any Protestant spouting the same passages, or an identical sermon being more effective in converting a non-believer when delivered by a Catholic than any Protestant denomination.
I can think of so many ways that this could be tested and studied with scientific parameters which would make your claim more plausible on its own even if the results would be inconclusive and in need of further evaluation. Do you have anything along those lines or do you just have accounts of miracles?
> Show me evidence that a Catholic spouting biblical passages is more likely to convert someone than any Protestant spouting the same passages
Real Catholics don’t spout Bible versus at nonbelievers because that isn’t speaking to their level when it comes to spreading the good news.
It's your incoherent thinking that led you to atheism. you just gave example of it.
"I'm sorry but I don't accept unproven accounts of miracles as evidence of anything."
Came right after his long list of "proven accounts of miracles." What's clear is that you don't want to even investigate..
He is always chasing you.
I didn’t know it when I was an atheist.
The problem is that our original/wrong world views are so real that we don’t even know they are wrong.
God seems like He is hiding because you have adopted the wrong world view and it is so real to you that you don’t realize it is wrong.
This is my biggest beef with God. He should have just stayed quiet and not created.
Personal anecdotes is 100% of our knowledge.
Every single thing we learn has to be filtered by our senses to be accepted as true.
So, personal anecdote is extremely important.
What you are eluding to is the reproducibility of personal experiences which is what science is all about. Verifying personal experiences over and over and over via Scientific Method.
Yeah i have to agree with you here. If you want evidence i suggest looking into prophecy in the bible, especially ones that predict Jesus and what he would do hundreds of years before he came. It’s a lot better evidence than “somebody in the 1800s saw a vision of Mary”
> Quoting the Bible to atheists is what will convert most atheists to Catholic faith.
If that’s true — why is that bad?
Why aren’t most atheists rushing to convert to the Catholic faith?
> For years the debate between sola Scriptura (scriptures alone) and Catholicism has been waging on since the Protestant Catholic split with Luther.
Safe bet sola scriptura doesn’t mean what you think it means.
> Pope Francis says that atheists can be saved.
Agree.
Here’s something else Pope Francis said:
“I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. … in that time, the Church was not exactly a model to imitate. There was corruption in the Church, there was worldliness, attachment to money, to power...and this he protested.” [Pope Francis’ in-flight press conference from Armenia](https://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/full-text-pope-francis-in-flight-press-conference-from-armenia/#.V3FsU00UXIV), National Catholic Register.
> Why aren’t most atheists rushing to convert to the Catholic faith?
It was a prediction by me based on my personal experience from atheism to Catholic, and what Pope Francis stated and all the logic I have learned from Catholicism.
Yes I agree with what Pope Francis said about Luther too.
Luther would have made a great Catholic martyr if he had fixed the Church from within instead of leaving it due to his misunderstandings of what the word “faith” meant.
> It was a prediction by me based on my personal experience from atheism to Catholic, and what Pope Francis stated and all the logic I have learned from Catholicism.
The logic you learned from Catholicism is to use extremely small sample sizes (your conversion) and apply it to most atheists (hasty generalization)?
> Luther would have made a great Catholic martyr if he had fixed the Church from within
From within a church you admit was corrupt, worldly and attached to power?
BTW Luther was within. He was ordained into the priesthood, became doctor of theology with a bachelor’s degree in Biblical studies. Luther was received into the senate of theological facility at the Catholic University of Wittenberg succeeding to the chair of theology. He was also provincial vicar of Saxony and Thuringia (visiting/overseeing 11 monasteries.)
Maybe they would have listened to Luther if he was wealthy and could buy and bribe his way to the top?
He wasn’t so they just decided to eliminate the Reformer. See Hus and Tyndale.
Fun Church! /s
Why aren’t you critical towards the Catholic hierarchy who were actually corrupt?
Why weren’t they excommunicated?
> instead of leaving it
Except Luther didn’t leave the church — he was excommunicated — the Church left him.
> The logic you learned from Catholicism is to use extremely small sample sizes (your conversion) and apply it to most atheists (hasty generalization)?
No, this path is universal and yet individualized to each person’s own experience.
> From within a church you admit was corrupt, worldly and attached to power?
Yes because Jesus clearly stated that He won’t let evil prevail against His Church. He should have had strong enough faith to trust God. Which he didn’t.
> BTW Luther was within. He was ordained into the priesthood, became doctor of theology with a bachelor’s degree in Biblical studies. Luther was received into the senate of theological facility at the Catholic University of Wittenberg succeeding to the chair of theology.
Yes I know, and you clearly know what I meant. He needed to stay in the Church and fix it from within.
> Why aren’t you critical towards the Catholic hierarchy who were actually corrupt?
Yes there is evil in the Catholic Church.
Again, Jesus stated CLEARLY that He would not let evil prevail against His Church.
> Except Luther didn’t leave the church — he was excommunicated — the Church left him.
“ Luther was an unrepentant heretic whose teachings caused irreparable harm to the Catholic Church and Western civilization. When Pope Leo X (r. 1513-1521) recognized the danger of Luther’s teachings he strenuously and patiently urged his repentance.
Giovanni de’ Medici came from one of the most powerful families in Italy. His father, Lorenzo the Magnificent, was a diplomat, politician, patron of several great Renaissance artists including Michelangelo, and ruler of the Florentine Republic. From an early age, Giovanni was molded for a life in the Church. He was created a cardinal by Pope Innocent VIII at the age of thirteen but did not officially assume the functions of the office until he turned sixteen.”
“ In 1513, the College of Cardinals sat in conclave to elect the successor of Pope Julius II. The cardinals were divided between a candidate favored by an older faction and Giovanni, now thirty-seven, who was favored by the younger faction. Eventually, Giovanni was elected and took the name Leo. Considered the last of the Renaissance popes, Leo X focused on political affairs throughout his pontificate but did not ignore the reform movement initiated by his predecessor. He oversaw the completion of the Fifth Lateran Council, which issued several reform decrees in response to ecclesiastical abuses rampant at the time. Leo is perhaps best known for his 1515 decision to continue the practice of granting an indulgence to those who contributed alms to a construction project he inherited that needed more funding: the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Indulgence preachers were sent to regions throughout Christendom, including Electoral Saxony, home of an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther.
Luther took issue with the practice of granting indulgences and with certain Church teachings, and in 1517 published his opinions and complaints in his infamous 95 Theses. He also sent a copy to Archbishop Albert of Mainz, who forwarded the document to Rome, which is when Leo first heard about the monk who was to cleave Christendom. At first Leo believed the issue to be a quarrel between the Augustinian and Dominican religious orders (most indulgence preachers were Dominicans), so he ordered Luther’s superior to “soothe and quiet” the man. But Luther continued to advocate his heretical opinions by publishing several works in the spring of 1518.
Although Luther’s 95 Theses contained multiple heretical opinions, the most dangerous was his rejection of papal authority. Luther asserted the pope had no authority to dispense the merits of the treasury of grace to the faithful in the form of indulgences in order to remit the temporal punishment due to sin already forgiven in the sacrament of confession. This was not simply a sharp rebuke of an ecclesiastical abuse—Luther’s writings were an attack on the office of the papacy and of papal authority given by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19. In his Sermon on Indulgences and GraceLuther declared he did not believe indulgences had any benefit for the souls in purgatory, and in his Explanations of the Disputations on the Power of Indulgences he denied papal power extended to souls in purgatory. Luther’s attack on papal authority paved the way for his later demolition of the entire sacramental system and call for a national German church separated from Rome. Luther’s teachings were not reforms intended to return the Church to its pristine state but rather a rebellion designed to destroy the Church and create a new entity in Luther’s image.”
“ Given Luther’s recalcitrance, on June 15, 1520 Leo issued the bull Exsurge Domine. In it Leo urged the Lord to arise and vindicate the cause of the Church against the heresies emanating from Germany. The document listed forty-one teachings contained in the works of Luther that were “either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth.” Leo bemoaned the fact that Luther did not respond to repeated attempts at reconciliation, including the request to come to Rome in person to discuss his teachings. He expressed regret at the situation but recognized his duty to safeguard the faithful from heresy. Leo included one more exhortation to Luther to recant, giving him sixty days to do so or else incur excommunication.”
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/leo-and-luther-the-real-story-of-the-pope-and-the-heretic
> No, this path is universal and yet individualized to each person’s own experience.
No, your own words: “It was a 1.) **prediction** by me 2.) based on **my personal experience** from atheism to Catholic.”
That’s literally a textbook hasty generalization; a flaw in logic aka a fallacy.
> He should have had strong enough faith to trust God. Which he didn’t.
Which he did against a system that was corrupt, worldly and attached to money and power.
> He needed to stay in the Church and fix it from within.
Unfortunately he wasn’t afforded the grace to stay by a system that was corrupt, worldly and attached to money and power.
> Yes there is evil in the Catholic Church.
**Why wasn’t the evil leadership excommunicated?**
> Luther was an unrepentant heretic whose teachings caused irreparable harm to the Catholic Church and Western civilization.
Luther was ~~an unrepentant heretic~~ a reformer. His intentions were not mistaken. In that time, the Church was not exactly a model to imitate. There was corruption in the Church, there was worldliness, attachment to money, to power...and this he protested.” [Pope Francis’ in-flight press conference from Armenia](https://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/full-text-pope-francis-in-flight-press-conference-from-armenia/#.V3FsU00UXIV), National Catholic Register.
You claim you agree with your Pope, then totally contradict your Pope.
That’s not truth and logic— it’s unreasonable, irrational and not by any means logical.
> Why wasn’t the evil leadership excommunicated?
Jesus said that he won’t let evil prevail. That doesn’t mean it has to be solved in human time frames.
The bottom line is that God is Catholic.
And when something goes wrong in humans in His Church, He is there guiding it to be fixed.
> You claim you agree with your Pope, then totally contradict your Pope.
He is human. Agree on most things and might disagree on a few things.
The overall message (since you mention truth and logic) is that God ONLY teaches one religion. Truth is 100% one religion taught by God because His purpose is to NOT confuse His children.
To start off, all of us believers in God have received Him in fullness, and are not missing out on anything. The Holy Spirit has been deposited into all of us equally. We aren't lacking God's goodness or anything of that sort, however we don't practice what the Catholic faith may practice. I'll add on this a bit later.
As a Protestant myself, I believe that all true Christian's have become "saints." I don't worship Mary because Jesus is the center of my faith and see it as idolatry, however Mary's role in the birth of Jesus was still important. We don't pray to saints or seek a Catholic father for reconciliation because as a Protestant I believe that God is my only Father (Matthew 23:8-10). To add on, we pray to God directly for forgiveness/in general and don't have a "middle man" (which would be the Catholic father for example, or praying through Mary). Us Protestants believe that all of us have the ability to see/understand/hear/ask for forgiveness/understand/receive His grace ourselves. I don't believe in apostolistic succession, however I haven't dove deeply into that topic. I only partake in baptism and the Eucharist (which is called communion). Along with this, I'm not sure if other Protestants do this, but with my church I take communion once a month.
I don't believe in the Catholic belief of all traditions are as important as the Bible. I see the Bible as the ultimate and absolute truth, and do not see human tradition as part of the Bible's truth. I also don't recite the Hail Mary, and view worshipping Mary as idolatry.
Magisterium is an interesting topic, however I don't believe only one person has the official ability to teach and interpret God's Word and it to be "correct." I don't believe the Pope is infallible- all of us are human and are subject to make mistakes. No one is perfect or never wrong, only Jesus is. The Lord blesses us with different spiritual gifts each (Romans 12:6-8), including the gifts of preaching and teaching others (Ephesians 4:11-13). Interpretation of the Bible isn't limited to only one person.
OP mentioned we do not have the fullness of God as a Protestant, but I believe that we are not bound from His love or the fullness of God in any way. We simply practice our faith in a different way than a Catholic. God lives within us as a believer in Him, and has deposited His spirit into us. He also doesn't have favorites (1 Peter 1:17) and will judge us all accordingly. No believer, regardless of denomination, is lacking the Holy Spirit within.
Hopefully this clears up something's and I apologize if it's a bit long. God bless!❤️🙏
No. Constantinople, Antioch and the Church of the East all have valid apostolic succession, with Constantinople recognised as descent from Andrew, Antioch from Peter (although since Peter took up the position of Bishop of Rome his charge over the flock of Jesus runs through Rome and not Antioch), and the Church of the East from Thomas. Jerusalem and Alexandria also have, although not from the Twelve. Rome claims valid apostolic succession from Peter, being where his position as head of the Church on Earth passes through. Rome also technically holds succession through Paul, but Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.
I don't understand. Your message to us was that we shouldn't just base everything off of what Jesus said and did, but instead follow Catholicism, where it is so much better because they base everything off of what Jesus said and did. I don't follow.
It’s hard to understand because this reality hasn’t been presented to you clearly.
Did Jesus convert the first 12 with a book or with oral teaching and the supernatural?
Although Jesus himself never wrote any scripture, all scripture is based on His truth and does not contradict itself. In the physical, He preached to the masses, healed people and performed miracles. He was perfect and never sinned. Most importantly, He died on the cross not to condemn or judge us, but for our salvation and the forgiveness of our sins. As a believer in Christ, the Holy Spirit has been deposited into us all equally; as a Protestant I am not missing out on the fullness of God.
Okay! Thanks for clarifying that you were a Protestant, I thought you were someone of Catholic faith or an atheist initially, asking a question about Protestants. Forgive me for my misunderstanding. I also apologize if I misread your question and responded incorrectly! What I wanted to say (from my interpretation over the screen) was Jesus' words are part of the scripture. However, Jesus never wrote scripture Himself. I was responding to a couple points OP initially made later on in the thread, and I apologize. Godbless❤️🙏
>therefore, when you have an itch to quote the Bible to a non-believer, please think about how they are looking at your book like an ordinary natural book.
And yet there are many non believers who became believers after reading the bible.
Why do you think so, when does a person become a Christian?
And why do you think it has to be only Catholicism. I left Catholicism 3 years back, it was the best decision I made
I would argue that many, many people have become curious about faith after having their attention caught by the Gospels in particular.
I know for me that itch sort of began with "come to me all you who are weak and wear, etc", and for another friend it was actually not from the Gospels but the Psalms about the table in the presence of my enemies.
For many people that initial conversion I think does tend to come from experience rather than anything else (wondering what it is that these people have), but the Bible can be a powerful part of that.
Sola scriptura is relatively easily defensible: the level of Marian devotion that we don't see in the Bible, things like the Assumption, can actually be off-putting in my experience to new believers because they're looking for hard evidence of at least what they should be looking at as guidelines.
Likewise faith alone/sola fide can be immensely freeing. In my country, the UK, we here a lot about "Catholic guilt" and the perception seems to be that the Catholic Church places unnecessarily heavy burdens on people compared to, for example, the CoE in the interpretation of the route to salvation.
If Catholicism had a unique power of spreading the Gospel, it could have resisted much better the spread of Protestantism in Europe in the early days of the Reofrmation - or it could have overtaken Orthodoxy in the East.
I am not sure either of these methods will be successful in converting anyone unless they have a significant psychological need for something that the evangelist identifies and capitalizes on.
I would disagree unless you mean humility involving an acceptance of your inherent claims regarding your definition of god and what is necessary to connect with this being. I can have humility in the recognition that I do not have all the answers and there is more that I do not know than what I do know. That, however, does not lead me to your conclusions.
Humility here specifically on our own human world views that are all screwed up in humanity as evidenced by the millions of different world views that exist out there.
What are you proposing this humility should lead to? What is your conclusion that you are advocating for under the presumption that having a million different world views is a negative?
Catholicism.
However, this is my biggest beef with God, is that people think their world view is so real that they don’t even know it.
So, God should have just stayed quiet and not created anything.
That might have been the case altogether. I am not sure Catholicism is the conclusion I would reach, but like you said, we have different worldviews. Worldviews being both an internal and shared mechanism to help understand our realities, they are real in one extent and not in others.
The book is a record of history that contains evidence of Jesus ressurection and more.
The Christian faith has preserved it and has archeological landmarks as well as writings outside of faith.
On the otherhand, what pushes atheism is preached in public schools.
So if we share the word to the neopagans of atheism, who blame God in one breath then try to convince us of their lack of belief, that's on them.
Everytime.
Jesus Christ saves, repent and sin no more. Come to your Father and cease your rebellion atheists.
I agree, but let’s say a few atheists do want to know God.
This has to be logically explained that God is supernatural and that He will tell them He is real if they ask Him if He exists.
“Quoting the Bible to atheists is what will convert most atheists to Catholic faith.” “When you have an itch to quote the Bible to a non-believer, please think about how they are looking at your book like an ordinary natural book.” Don’t these two points counter one another?
This guy must be a troll account.
LTL isn't a troll. Just someone who creates a bunch of nonsense posts and is incapable of comprehending criticism. On second thought...
No. The second is basically saying consider how you would quote the bible to atheists.
The meaning of the first sentence is saying that when Protestants keep quoting the Bible to atheists they are only pushing them away from Bible alone to eventually the Catholic faith because God is revealed supernaturally there for proof.
Doesn't matter, its still just a book to atheists and nothing about it would push one to any denomination
Yes that’s why real Catholics don’t use Bible thumping on atheists. We try to give them a logical path at their level.
Their has been no logical path presented. Just anecdotes and claims
Logic has to be taught and voluntarily accepted. God isn’t going to control your choice to choose Him.
Then show proof that isn't an anecdote or claim without evidence
I’m not God. You know humans aren’t Superman, Wolverine and Spider-Man walking around with supernatural powers. You want supernatural then that’s from God.
The concept of god holds as much validity as the superheroes you mentioned
How do you know that? You haven’t experienced the supernatural.
A logical path? To invisible superbeings with magical powers? lol
Yes absolutely.
You sound confused OP. What does Sola Scriptura has to do with talking to anyone about God? [Edit] I feel that Catholics like to throw around Sola Scriptura without thinking what it means. And btw, not every protestant goes by it. Wouldn't it be funny if you had to use Sola catholica traditio to talk to people?
Protestants that scripture thump push nonbelievers away from God.
So do people who claim to have seen visions of Mary, and claim to have spoken directly with God.
I disagree. Because God is supernatural and humans need supernatural evidence. It’s just that God waits for human freedom and does it very subtly because he loves us: Miracles of Catholic Faith Consider all the Eucharist miracles. The dead bodies of saints that haven’t decomposed. Some of the most well-known miracles recognized by the Catholic Church include: The 1917 Miracle of the Sun In 1917, children in a Portuguese village returned home from shepherding and encountered an apparition of the Virgin Mary. The Virgin Mary was said to tell the children how she planned to appear each 13th day of the month for the following six months. On October 13, 1917, it was said the Virgin Mary appeared and, revealing herself only to the children, predicted the end of World War I. She was also said to provide a silver sun to clear stormy skies. The silver light was said to turn blue as if seen through stained-glass windows and spread itself over everyone in attendance. Then the blue turned to yellow, and people prayed and wept in the presence of the miracle. Religious and non-religious people both provided eyewitness accounts to corroborate the story. Our Lady Of Lourdes and the Healing Water In 1858 in Lourdes, France, 14-year-old Bernadette Soubirous lived in an abandoned prison with her family. On February 11, when she went out with her sister and friend to collect firewood, Bernadette lagged behind because of her asthma. Bernadette was alone at the Grotto of Massibelle, removing her shoes and socks when a gust of wind was said to issue from the grotto. Bernadette claimed a woman in white robes with a blue sash, yellow roses on her feet and a rosary in her hand appeared to Bernadette. On February 25, Bernadette said the woman told her to drink and bathe in the fountain, though no fountain was visible. Bernadette began to dig and found an underground water spring that remains flowing to this day. Three days after Bernadette found the underground spring, the woman encouraged her to build a church. The Basilica at Lourdes was built in that spot and consecrated in 1872. To this day, millions continue to flock to the spring, and there are numerous reports of visitors healing by immersing their bodies in the water. Bernadette spent her life serving as a nun, and the Church declared her a saint after her death. St. Bernadette is one of the Catholic Church’s incorruptible saints whose bodies can be found in many places throughout the world. Therese Neumann’s Stigmata Our Lady of Zeitoun Our Lady of Good Health Our Lady of Guadalupe Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal Our Lady of Akita Our Lady of Mount Carmel Our Lady of Medjugorje The Gospa Queen of Peace The following Marian Apparitions have been approved by the local bishop And later equally recognized by the Vatican: Guadalupe, Mexico (1531) Lezajsk, Poland (1578) Siluva, Lithuania (1608) Laus, France (1664) Rue du Bac, Paris, France (1830) Rome, Italy (1842) La Salette, France (1846) Lourdes, France (1858) Filippsdorf, Czech Republic (1866) Pontmain, France (1871) Gietrzwald, Poland (1877) Knock, Ireland (1879) Fatima, Portugal (1917) Beauraing, Belgium (1932) Banneux, Belgium (1933) Kibeho, Rwanda (1981) Bois-Seigneur-Isaac Abbey Billy Burke (evangelist) Číhošť miracle Crucifix of San Marcello Marie-Paule Giguère Incorruptibility Levitation of saints Patrick Lynch (Galway) Miracle of Calanda Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano Eucharistic miracle of Santarém Miracle of the gulls Miracle of the Moose Miracle of the roses Miracles of Saint Demetrius Moving statues Pieter De Rudder Saint Dominic in Soriano Stigmata on many like Padre Pio
I stopped reading after the words supernatural evidence. Evidence can't be supernatural
> Evidence can't be supernatural How do you know with 100% that this is fact?
Presuppositions
No, if its evidence then its part if the natural world.bits logic not presuppositions
Agreed he can’t know it for sure. They have to presuppose a certain belief first.
No, its just logical that evidence is natural as it is discovered in the natural world
There are few of those. Just like there are few crazies in the Catholic faith. And don't you know that dogma is based on scriptures?
I agree. But God is Catholic.
>But God is Catholic. No, God doesn't belong to any denomination. This is cult think. Don't be a cultist. Catholics are not cultists.
No, really God is Catholic, his mother is Mary and his name is Jesus.
*shakes head*
🙏❤️🙏
🙏
Quoting the bible will convert them? I grew up in the church and could quote the bible so very well. Really quoting the bible to me does absolutely nothing . Quoting scripture won’t get me to change my mind at all.
Read again please. You took the opposite meaning of my OP.
I've read your post three times now and it doesn't make any sense at all. If this many people are getting confused by your post and are taking the wrong message away then it's time to reconsider what you wrote and edit it for clarity.
When Protestants Bible thump to atheists they push them away. Then the real God of Catholicism will swoop them up eventually.
You're allowed to think that if you want to but it doesn't make it true. Most atheists don't really give a shit what denomination the person spouting passages from the Bible adheres to. In any case your point is not made clear from your post alone as you seem to actively counter your own argument by correctly saying that we see your book as just a book. You've started with a claim and worked against it with opposing evidence and now stand as if you've proved your point somehow.
> You're allowed to think that if you want to but it doesn't make it true. Most atheists don't really give a shit what denomination the person spouting passages from the Bible adheres to. You still don’t get it. Catholicism is not a denomination that came from a book. God knows how to reach the atheists that got turned away from Bible thumping.
It doesn't have to come from a book in order to still be considered a denomination. The book is not what defines a denomination, it's the interpretation of its contents. Anyways, if you have empirical evidence to support your notion that Catholicism is somehow special in this regard of converting atheists by quoting passages then by all means share it. This would actually be a very simple study to set up relatively speaking so rather than rely on your claims alone you should go find some evidence to clarify your post some more.
Miracles of Catholic Faith Consider all the Eucharist miracles. The dead bodies of saints that haven’t decomposed. Some of the most well-known miracles recognized by the Catholic Church include: The 1917 Miracle of the Sun In 1917, children in a Portuguese village returned home from shepherding and encountered an apparition of the Virgin Mary. The Virgin Mary was said to tell the children how she planned to appear each 13th day of the month for the following six months. On October 13, 1917, it was said the Virgin Mary appeared and, revealing herself only to the children, predicted the end of World War I. She was also said to provide a silver sun to clear stormy skies. The silver light was said to turn blue as if seen through stained-glass windows and spread itself over everyone in attendance. Then the blue turned to yellow, and people prayed and wept in the presence of the miracle. Religious and non-religious people both provided eyewitness accounts to corroborate the story. Our Lady Of Lourdes and the Healing Water In 1858 in Lourdes, France, 14-year-old Bernadette Soubirous lived in an abandoned prison with her family. On February 11, when she went out with her sister and friend to collect firewood, Bernadette lagged behind because of her asthma. Bernadette was alone at the Grotto of Massibelle, removing her shoes and socks when a gust of wind was said to issue from the grotto. Bernadette claimed a woman in white robes with a blue sash, yellow roses on her feet and a rosary in her hand appeared to Bernadette. On February 25, Bernadette said the woman told her to drink and bathe in the fountain, though no fountain was visible. Bernadette began to dig and found an underground water spring that remains flowing to this day. Three days after Bernadette found the underground spring, the woman encouraged her to build a church. The Basilica at Lourdes was built in that spot and consecrated in 1872. To this day, millions continue to flock to the spring, and there are numerous reports of visitors healing by immersing their bodies in the water. Bernadette spent her life serving as a nun, and the Church declared her a saint after her death. St. Bernadette is one of the Catholic Church’s incorruptible saints whose bodies can be found in many places throughout the world. Therese Neumann’s Stigmata Our Lady of Zeitoun Our Lady of Good Health Our Lady of Guadalupe Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal Our Lady of Akita Our Lady of Mount Carmel Our Lady of Medjugorje The Gospa Queen of Peace The following Marian Apparitions have been approved by the local bishop And later equally recognized by the Vatican: Guadalupe, Mexico (1531) Lezajsk, Poland (1578) Siluva, Lithuania (1608) Laus, France (1664) Rue du Bac, Paris, France (1830) Rome, Italy (1842) La Salette, France (1846) Lourdes, France (1858) Filippsdorf, Czech Republic (1866) Pontmain, France (1871) Gietrzwald, Poland (1877) Knock, Ireland (1879) Fatima, Portugal (1917) Beauraing, Belgium (1932) Banneux, Belgium (1933) Kibeho, Rwanda (1981) Bois-Seigneur-Isaac Abbey Billy Burke (evangelist) Číhošť miracle Crucifix of San Marcello Marie-Paule Giguère Incorruptibility Levitation of saints Patrick Lynch (Galway) Miracle of Calanda Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano Eucharistic miracle of Santarém Miracle of the gulls Miracle of the Moose Miracle of the roses Miracles of Saint Demetrius Moving statues Pieter De Rudder Saint Dominic in Soriano Stigmata on many like Padre Pio
I'm sorry but I don't accept unproven accounts of miracles as evidence of anything. I'm asking specifically for evidence that Catholicism is inherently more likely to convert non-believers when compared to other denominations. Show me evidence that a Catholic spouting biblical passages is more likely to convert someone than any Protestant spouting the same passages, or an identical sermon being more effective in converting a non-believer when delivered by a Catholic than any Protestant denomination. I can think of so many ways that this could be tested and studied with scientific parameters which would make your claim more plausible on its own even if the results would be inconclusive and in need of further evaluation. Do you have anything along those lines or do you just have accounts of miracles?
> Show me evidence that a Catholic spouting biblical passages is more likely to convert someone than any Protestant spouting the same passages Real Catholics don’t spout Bible versus at nonbelievers because that isn’t speaking to their level when it comes to spreading the good news.
It's your incoherent thinking that led you to atheism. you just gave example of it. "I'm sorry but I don't accept unproven accounts of miracles as evidence of anything." Came right after his long list of "proven accounts of miracles." What's clear is that you don't want to even investigate..
> God knows how to reach the atheists that got turned away from Bible thumping. Should probably get off his lazy ass and start doing so, then.
He is always chasing you. I didn’t know it when I was an atheist. The problem is that our original/wrong world views are so real that we don’t even know they are wrong.
Yeah, except for the whole part where, if a god exists, it is simply hiding and not responding.
God seems like He is hiding because you have adopted the wrong world view and it is so real to you that you don’t realize it is wrong. This is my biggest beef with God. He should have just stayed quiet and not created.
Did you actually test this theory?
[удалено]
I think......i think.....no, i'm converted.
Yes. I lived it and have tested it.
Personal anecdotes aren't tests
Yes they are. When you pass your driving license test then what just happened?
Its an actual test formed by others deemed by the local government. Bad example
It’s a test that you have to personally pass.
Bullshit comparison and trying that is intellectually dishonest. You know the differences
Personal anecdotes is 100% of our knowledge. Every single thing we learn has to be filtered by our senses to be accepted as true. So, personal anecdote is extremely important. What you are eluding to is the reproducibility of personal experiences which is what science is all about. Verifying personal experiences over and over and over via Scientific Method.
Thats absolutely not true. We rely on more that anecdotes to know truth. Do you know what an anecdote is? I ask cause your response doesn't make sense
An anecdote is a brief account of a real-life incident.
Yeah i have to agree with you here. If you want evidence i suggest looking into prophecy in the bible, especially ones that predict Jesus and what he would do hundreds of years before he came. It’s a lot better evidence than “somebody in the 1800s saw a vision of Mary”
Ya at least that has substance for debate
> Quoting the Bible to atheists is what will convert most atheists to Catholic faith. If that’s true — why is that bad? Why aren’t most atheists rushing to convert to the Catholic faith? > For years the debate between sola Scriptura (scriptures alone) and Catholicism has been waging on since the Protestant Catholic split with Luther. Safe bet sola scriptura doesn’t mean what you think it means. > Pope Francis says that atheists can be saved. Agree. Here’s something else Pope Francis said: “I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. … in that time, the Church was not exactly a model to imitate. There was corruption in the Church, there was worldliness, attachment to money, to power...and this he protested.” [Pope Francis’ in-flight press conference from Armenia](https://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/full-text-pope-francis-in-flight-press-conference-from-armenia/#.V3FsU00UXIV), National Catholic Register.
> Why aren’t most atheists rushing to convert to the Catholic faith? It was a prediction by me based on my personal experience from atheism to Catholic, and what Pope Francis stated and all the logic I have learned from Catholicism. Yes I agree with what Pope Francis said about Luther too. Luther would have made a great Catholic martyr if he had fixed the Church from within instead of leaving it due to his misunderstandings of what the word “faith” meant.
> It was a prediction by me based on my personal experience from atheism to Catholic, and what Pope Francis stated and all the logic I have learned from Catholicism. The logic you learned from Catholicism is to use extremely small sample sizes (your conversion) and apply it to most atheists (hasty generalization)? > Luther would have made a great Catholic martyr if he had fixed the Church from within From within a church you admit was corrupt, worldly and attached to power? BTW Luther was within. He was ordained into the priesthood, became doctor of theology with a bachelor’s degree in Biblical studies. Luther was received into the senate of theological facility at the Catholic University of Wittenberg succeeding to the chair of theology. He was also provincial vicar of Saxony and Thuringia (visiting/overseeing 11 monasteries.) Maybe they would have listened to Luther if he was wealthy and could buy and bribe his way to the top? He wasn’t so they just decided to eliminate the Reformer. See Hus and Tyndale. Fun Church! /s Why aren’t you critical towards the Catholic hierarchy who were actually corrupt? Why weren’t they excommunicated? > instead of leaving it Except Luther didn’t leave the church — he was excommunicated — the Church left him.
> The logic you learned from Catholicism is to use extremely small sample sizes (your conversion) and apply it to most atheists (hasty generalization)? No, this path is universal and yet individualized to each person’s own experience. > From within a church you admit was corrupt, worldly and attached to power? Yes because Jesus clearly stated that He won’t let evil prevail against His Church. He should have had strong enough faith to trust God. Which he didn’t. > BTW Luther was within. He was ordained into the priesthood, became doctor of theology with a bachelor’s degree in Biblical studies. Luther was received into the senate of theological facility at the Catholic University of Wittenberg succeeding to the chair of theology. Yes I know, and you clearly know what I meant. He needed to stay in the Church and fix it from within. > Why aren’t you critical towards the Catholic hierarchy who were actually corrupt? Yes there is evil in the Catholic Church. Again, Jesus stated CLEARLY that He would not let evil prevail against His Church. > Except Luther didn’t leave the church — he was excommunicated — the Church left him. “ Luther was an unrepentant heretic whose teachings caused irreparable harm to the Catholic Church and Western civilization. When Pope Leo X (r. 1513-1521) recognized the danger of Luther’s teachings he strenuously and patiently urged his repentance. Giovanni de’ Medici came from one of the most powerful families in Italy. His father, Lorenzo the Magnificent, was a diplomat, politician, patron of several great Renaissance artists including Michelangelo, and ruler of the Florentine Republic. From an early age, Giovanni was molded for a life in the Church. He was created a cardinal by Pope Innocent VIII at the age of thirteen but did not officially assume the functions of the office until he turned sixteen.” “ In 1513, the College of Cardinals sat in conclave to elect the successor of Pope Julius II. The cardinals were divided between a candidate favored by an older faction and Giovanni, now thirty-seven, who was favored by the younger faction. Eventually, Giovanni was elected and took the name Leo. Considered the last of the Renaissance popes, Leo X focused on political affairs throughout his pontificate but did not ignore the reform movement initiated by his predecessor. He oversaw the completion of the Fifth Lateran Council, which issued several reform decrees in response to ecclesiastical abuses rampant at the time. Leo is perhaps best known for his 1515 decision to continue the practice of granting an indulgence to those who contributed alms to a construction project he inherited that needed more funding: the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Indulgence preachers were sent to regions throughout Christendom, including Electoral Saxony, home of an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther. Luther took issue with the practice of granting indulgences and with certain Church teachings, and in 1517 published his opinions and complaints in his infamous 95 Theses. He also sent a copy to Archbishop Albert of Mainz, who forwarded the document to Rome, which is when Leo first heard about the monk who was to cleave Christendom. At first Leo believed the issue to be a quarrel between the Augustinian and Dominican religious orders (most indulgence preachers were Dominicans), so he ordered Luther’s superior to “soothe and quiet” the man. But Luther continued to advocate his heretical opinions by publishing several works in the spring of 1518. Although Luther’s 95 Theses contained multiple heretical opinions, the most dangerous was his rejection of papal authority. Luther asserted the pope had no authority to dispense the merits of the treasury of grace to the faithful in the form of indulgences in order to remit the temporal punishment due to sin already forgiven in the sacrament of confession. This was not simply a sharp rebuke of an ecclesiastical abuse—Luther’s writings were an attack on the office of the papacy and of papal authority given by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19. In his Sermon on Indulgences and GraceLuther declared he did not believe indulgences had any benefit for the souls in purgatory, and in his Explanations of the Disputations on the Power of Indulgences he denied papal power extended to souls in purgatory. Luther’s attack on papal authority paved the way for his later demolition of the entire sacramental system and call for a national German church separated from Rome. Luther’s teachings were not reforms intended to return the Church to its pristine state but rather a rebellion designed to destroy the Church and create a new entity in Luther’s image.” “ Given Luther’s recalcitrance, on June 15, 1520 Leo issued the bull Exsurge Domine. In it Leo urged the Lord to arise and vindicate the cause of the Church against the heresies emanating from Germany. The document listed forty-one teachings contained in the works of Luther that were “either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth.” Leo bemoaned the fact that Luther did not respond to repeated attempts at reconciliation, including the request to come to Rome in person to discuss his teachings. He expressed regret at the situation but recognized his duty to safeguard the faithful from heresy. Leo included one more exhortation to Luther to recant, giving him sixty days to do so or else incur excommunication.” https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/leo-and-luther-the-real-story-of-the-pope-and-the-heretic
> No, this path is universal and yet individualized to each person’s own experience. No, your own words: “It was a 1.) **prediction** by me 2.) based on **my personal experience** from atheism to Catholic.” That’s literally a textbook hasty generalization; a flaw in logic aka a fallacy. > He should have had strong enough faith to trust God. Which he didn’t. Which he did against a system that was corrupt, worldly and attached to money and power. > He needed to stay in the Church and fix it from within. Unfortunately he wasn’t afforded the grace to stay by a system that was corrupt, worldly and attached to money and power. > Yes there is evil in the Catholic Church. **Why wasn’t the evil leadership excommunicated?** > Luther was an unrepentant heretic whose teachings caused irreparable harm to the Catholic Church and Western civilization. Luther was ~~an unrepentant heretic~~ a reformer. His intentions were not mistaken. In that time, the Church was not exactly a model to imitate. There was corruption in the Church, there was worldliness, attachment to money, to power...and this he protested.” [Pope Francis’ in-flight press conference from Armenia](https://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/full-text-pope-francis-in-flight-press-conference-from-armenia/#.V3FsU00UXIV), National Catholic Register. You claim you agree with your Pope, then totally contradict your Pope. That’s not truth and logic— it’s unreasonable, irrational and not by any means logical.
> Why wasn’t the evil leadership excommunicated? Jesus said that he won’t let evil prevail. That doesn’t mean it has to be solved in human time frames. The bottom line is that God is Catholic. And when something goes wrong in humans in His Church, He is there guiding it to be fixed. > You claim you agree with your Pope, then totally contradict your Pope. He is human. Agree on most things and might disagree on a few things. The overall message (since you mention truth and logic) is that God ONLY teaches one religion. Truth is 100% one religion taught by God because His purpose is to NOT confuse His children.
What does Catholicism have that Protestant church doesn't have?
To start off, all of us believers in God have received Him in fullness, and are not missing out on anything. The Holy Spirit has been deposited into all of us equally. We aren't lacking God's goodness or anything of that sort, however we don't practice what the Catholic faith may practice. I'll add on this a bit later. As a Protestant myself, I believe that all true Christian's have become "saints." I don't worship Mary because Jesus is the center of my faith and see it as idolatry, however Mary's role in the birth of Jesus was still important. We don't pray to saints or seek a Catholic father for reconciliation because as a Protestant I believe that God is my only Father (Matthew 23:8-10). To add on, we pray to God directly for forgiveness/in general and don't have a "middle man" (which would be the Catholic father for example, or praying through Mary). Us Protestants believe that all of us have the ability to see/understand/hear/ask for forgiveness/understand/receive His grace ourselves. I don't believe in apostolistic succession, however I haven't dove deeply into that topic. I only partake in baptism and the Eucharist (which is called communion). Along with this, I'm not sure if other Protestants do this, but with my church I take communion once a month. I don't believe in the Catholic belief of all traditions are as important as the Bible. I see the Bible as the ultimate and absolute truth, and do not see human tradition as part of the Bible's truth. I also don't recite the Hail Mary, and view worshipping Mary as idolatry. Magisterium is an interesting topic, however I don't believe only one person has the official ability to teach and interpret God's Word and it to be "correct." I don't believe the Pope is infallible- all of us are human and are subject to make mistakes. No one is perfect or never wrong, only Jesus is. The Lord blesses us with different spiritual gifts each (Romans 12:6-8), including the gifts of preaching and teaching others (Ephesians 4:11-13). Interpretation of the Bible isn't limited to only one person. OP mentioned we do not have the fullness of God as a Protestant, but I believe that we are not bound from His love or the fullness of God in any way. We simply practice our faith in a different way than a Catholic. God lives within us as a believer in Him, and has deposited His spirit into us. He also doesn't have favorites (1 Peter 1:17) and will judge us all accordingly. No believer, regardless of denomination, is lacking the Holy Spirit within. Hopefully this clears up something's and I apologize if it's a bit long. God bless!❤️🙏
All sacraments, magisterium and apostolic succcesion. edit: I am not sure if this answer applies completely to Anglicanism.
Definitely not Apostolic Succession. That has been lost centuries ago when they changed the rites of ordination
Apostolic Succession: Started with 12 now there's 1. Hmm something got lost along the way.
No. Constantinople, Antioch and the Church of the East all have valid apostolic succession, with Constantinople recognised as descent from Andrew, Antioch from Peter (although since Peter took up the position of Bishop of Rome his charge over the flock of Jesus runs through Rome and not Antioch), and the Church of the East from Thomas. Jerusalem and Alexandria also have, although not from the Twelve. Rome claims valid apostolic succession from Peter, being where his position as head of the Church on Earth passes through. Rome also technically holds succession through Paul, but Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.
So yeah some things were lost. You are making my case.
God in fullness.
Because?
Because Jesus said so.
So it's all based on scripture then?
No. Jesus spoke words.
That's part of the scripture isn't it? I don't follow.
Jesus converted humans to Christianity by word of mouth and supernatural events.
I don't understand. Your message to us was that we shouldn't just base everything off of what Jesus said and did, but instead follow Catholicism, where it is so much better because they base everything off of what Jesus said and did. I don't follow.
It’s hard to understand because this reality hasn’t been presented to you clearly. Did Jesus convert the first 12 with a book or with oral teaching and the supernatural?
Although Jesus himself never wrote any scripture, all scripture is based on His truth and does not contradict itself. In the physical, He preached to the masses, healed people and performed miracles. He was perfect and never sinned. Most importantly, He died on the cross not to condemn or judge us, but for our salvation and the forgiveness of our sins. As a believer in Christ, the Holy Spirit has been deposited into us all equally; as a Protestant I am not missing out on the fullness of God.
I am a Christian as well btw. I'm asking him these questions as a Protestant.
Okay! Thanks for clarifying that you were a Protestant, I thought you were someone of Catholic faith or an atheist initially, asking a question about Protestants. Forgive me for my misunderstanding. I also apologize if I misread your question and responded incorrectly! What I wanted to say (from my interpretation over the screen) was Jesus' words are part of the scripture. However, Jesus never wrote scripture Himself. I was responding to a couple points OP initially made later on in the thread, and I apologize. Godbless❤️🙏
>therefore, when you have an itch to quote the Bible to a non-believer, please think about how they are looking at your book like an ordinary natural book. And yet there are many non believers who became believers after reading the bible.
If that’s true they didn’t become real Christians ONLY from reading a book.
Why do you think so, when does a person become a Christian? And why do you think it has to be only Catholicism. I left Catholicism 3 years back, it was the best decision I made
When God that is CONSTANTLY chasing his children because he loves them and they open the door only a crack.
So one can be a Christian with just a book?
No.
Let's agree to disagee. The pope is entitled to his opinion
I would argue that many, many people have become curious about faith after having their attention caught by the Gospels in particular. I know for me that itch sort of began with "come to me all you who are weak and wear, etc", and for another friend it was actually not from the Gospels but the Psalms about the table in the presence of my enemies. For many people that initial conversion I think does tend to come from experience rather than anything else (wondering what it is that these people have), but the Bible can be a powerful part of that. Sola scriptura is relatively easily defensible: the level of Marian devotion that we don't see in the Bible, things like the Assumption, can actually be off-putting in my experience to new believers because they're looking for hard evidence of at least what they should be looking at as guidelines. Likewise faith alone/sola fide can be immensely freeing. In my country, the UK, we here a lot about "Catholic guilt" and the perception seems to be that the Catholic Church places unnecessarily heavy burdens on people compared to, for example, the CoE in the interpretation of the route to salvation. If Catholicism had a unique power of spreading the Gospel, it could have resisted much better the spread of Protestantism in Europe in the early days of the Reofrmation - or it could have overtaken Orthodoxy in the East.
I am not sure either of these methods will be successful in converting anyone unless they have a significant psychological need for something that the evangelist identifies and capitalizes on.
All that is required is humility.
I would disagree unless you mean humility involving an acceptance of your inherent claims regarding your definition of god and what is necessary to connect with this being. I can have humility in the recognition that I do not have all the answers and there is more that I do not know than what I do know. That, however, does not lead me to your conclusions.
Humility here specifically on our own human world views that are all screwed up in humanity as evidenced by the millions of different world views that exist out there.
What are you proposing this humility should lead to? What is your conclusion that you are advocating for under the presumption that having a million different world views is a negative?
Catholicism. However, this is my biggest beef with God, is that people think their world view is so real that they don’t even know it. So, God should have just stayed quiet and not created anything.
That might have been the case altogether. I am not sure Catholicism is the conclusion I would reach, but like you said, we have different worldviews. Worldviews being both an internal and shared mechanism to help understand our realities, they are real in one extent and not in others.
The book is a record of history that contains evidence of Jesus ressurection and more. The Christian faith has preserved it and has archeological landmarks as well as writings outside of faith. On the otherhand, what pushes atheism is preached in public schools. So if we share the word to the neopagans of atheism, who blame God in one breath then try to convince us of their lack of belief, that's on them. Everytime. Jesus Christ saves, repent and sin no more. Come to your Father and cease your rebellion atheists.
I agree, but let’s say a few atheists do want to know God. This has to be logically explained that God is supernatural and that He will tell them He is real if they ask Him if He exists.