Evidence for God from Science

A few things:

1. I do not have time to get into a long discussion on the resurrection. I leave that to others here who are as well versed in this as I am to do so if they choose.
2. FYI, I am VERY well versed in this. I'm not going to toot my own horn other than to say that I am formally trained in this material. And given that training, not for ideological reasons, but because of the peer reviewed literature I've read, I don't take seriously anything that gets into buzzwords like "Christian revisionism." You don't strike me as the type of guy who is reading full length book treatments on this subject, so I suspect you are reading popular "news" articles, or worse, conspiracy sites like jesusneverexisted.com or rationalwiki. Please don't get your information from that. Not from Yahoo. Not from CNN. Not from the Telegraph. Not from Salon. I've read all that, too. Ignore the Jesus Seminar. Please don't take fools like Barton seriously. The best way to embarrass yourself when talking to people who are formally trained is to use that sort of language.
3. I'm not going to link you to a website. The subject is too big. I have literally read tens of thousands of pages on this material of scholarly work (I was reading 8,000 pages a semester for just one of my degrees). There are some websites that are good, but they're only worth linking to in the context of a broader conversation.

Given that, I will refer you to three works.

First, take an hour or so and read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte (available online here). It's a good primer on how idiotic skeptics have destroyed historiography as a science. Thankfully, their methods have been abandoned by historians in general in pretty much every field except poplar biblical studies (the garbage you read on CNN and the Telegraph). It was a book written in 1819, and it is still extremely relevant today. Actually, the real book to read here would be The First Historians by Baruch Halpern, but it's too long and dense, and I wouldn't put you through that at this stage. So Whately's work is where I think you should start.

Second, go to your school's library and either check out or put in an ILL request for Pinchas Lapide's The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. The important thing here is that Lapide was a top notch Jewish scholar who was not a Christian, but after surveying the evidence, he became convinced that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead. The evidence is just that insurmountable. Again, I emphasize, this is a NON-CHRISTIAN who after looking at the evidence is forced to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead. I disagree with some of his conclusions because he is highly, highly skeptical on too many things. But even his skepticism isn't enough to deny this necessary conclusions.

Lastly, I would point you to Michael J. Wilkins' and J. P. Moreland's Jesus Under Fire. That book will show why the stuff you are reading is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sorry to be so blunt in my language, but really . . . to talk about Christian revisionism or compare Jesus' resurrection with Muhammad's ascension (what's next, a comparison of Jesus with Mithras, Osiris, and Horus?!?!) is the academic equivalent of asking if evolution is true then why are there still monkeys.

Weblinks . . . yeah, those can be provided in support of specific points. I know you have a lot of work to do, and reading books isn't on your list. But I hope you recognize that the resurrection of Jesus is THE central claim of Christianity. If it is true, Christianity is true, and something that important is going to take more than an hour of reading weblinks to figure out if you want a real understanding of the subject matter.

Again, the good news is that most people here are well versed in this material, and I can drop by in your study and answer questions from time to time, too.

As an aside, the three I mentioned are in no way "heavy hitters." That's really entry level stuff. You want heavy stuff, I'd be referring you to William Lane Craig's doctoral dissertation, one of Gary Habermas' many works, N. T. Wright's seminal series on the Resurrection, Mike Licona's new offering, or one of many, many others. But I know you don't have the time for all that, and I'm just trying to get you started, my friend!

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

HFD wrote:My point? The cultural baggage with theism is immense! Every single culture in the world has it’s own religion...

Kurieuo wrote:This isn't really a good or valid reason for rejecting Theism.

I'm blind, 4200 different people are trying to convince me what color this flower in front of me is. Who do I believe?
This is how I feel in regards to religion.

Ok, but then Theism is wrong because you feel (or even accepting as a given) no religion to date is right?

Yes. It's a large leap from "some being created the laws" and has far reaching cultural implications.

Why are you seeing "Theism" and "religion" as synonymous. I don't.

PS. Look forward to reading about your spiritual journey when you get time.

Jac3510 wrote:A few things:

1. I do not have time to get into a long discussion on the resurrection. I leave that to others here who are as well versed in this as I am to do so if they choose.
2. FYI, I am VERY well versed in this. I'm not going to toot my own horn other than to say that I am formally trained in this material. And given that training, not for ideological reasons, but because of the peer reviewed literature I've read, I don't take seriously anything that gets into buzzwords like "Christian revisionism." You don't strike me as the type of guy who is reading full length book treatments on this subject, so I suspect you are reading popular "news" articles, or worse, conspiracy sites like jesusneverexisted.com or rationalwiki. Please don't get your information from that. Not from Yahoo. Not from CNN. Not from the Telegraph. Not from Salon. I've read all that, too. Ignore the Jesus Seminar. Please don't take fools like Barton seriously. The best way to embarrass yourself when talking to people who are formally trained is to use that sort of language.
3. I'm not going to link you to a website. The subject is too big. I have literally read tens of thousands of pages on this material of scholarly work (I was reading 8,000 pages a semester for just one of my degrees). There are some websites that are good, but they're only worth linking to in the context of a broader conversation.

Given that, I will refer you to three works.

First, take an hour or so and read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte (available online here). It's a good primer on how idiotic skeptics have destroyed historiography as a science. Thankfully, their methods have been abandoned by historians in general in pretty much every field except poplar biblical studies (the garbage you read on CNN and the Telegraph). It was a book written in 1819, and it is still extremely relevant today. Actually, the real book to read here would be The First Historians by Baruch Halpern, but it's too long and dense, and I wouldn't put you through that at this stage. So Whately's work is where I think you should start.

Second, go to your school's library and either check out or put in an ILL request for Pinchas Lapide's The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. The important thing here is that Lapide was a top notch Jewish scholar who was not a Christian, but after surveying the evidence, he became convinced that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead. The evidence is just that insurmountable. Again, I emphasize, this is a NON-CHRISTIAN who after looking at the evidence is forced to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead. I disagree with some of his conclusions because he is highly, highly skeptical on too many things. But even his skepticism isn't enough to deny this necessary conclusions.

Lastly, I would point you to Michael J. Wilkins' and J. P. Moreland's Jesus Under Fire. That book will show why the stuff you are reading is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sorry to be so blunt in my language, but really . . . to talk about Christian revisionism or compare Jesus' resurrection with Muhammad's ascension (what's next, a comparison of Jesus with Mithras, Osiris, and Horus?!?!) is the academic equivalent of asking if evolution is true then why are there still monkeys.

Weblinks . . . yeah, those can be provided in support of specific points. I know you have a lot of work to do, and reading books isn't on your list. But I hope you recognize that the resurrection of Jesus is THE central claim of Christianity. If it is true, Christianity is true, and something that important is going to take more than an hour of reading weblinks to figure out if you want a real understanding of the subject matter.

Again, the good news is that most people here are well versed in this material, and I can drop by in your study and answer questions from time to time, too.

As an aside, the three I mentioned are in no way "heavy hitters." That's really entry level stuff. You want heavy stuff, I'd be referring you to William Lane Craig's doctoral dissertation, one of Gary Habermas' many works, N. T. Wright's seminal series on the Resurrection, Mike Licona's new offering, or one of many, many others. But I know you don't have the time for all that, and I'm just trying to get you started, my friend!

This is sufficient. Very informative as always jac.

Funny enough Bart Ehrman is one of my sources, but I'm so very disappointed you think I read "salon" for my information of jesus ( or read salon period for that matter). I'm actually very offended, you need to atone for your sins. The only people who read salon are braindead hipster liberals.

p.s
And why not toot your own horn, your qualifications are listed on your website linked to your profile anyway.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:This is sufficient. Very informative as always jac.

Funny enough Bart Ehrman is one of my sources, but I'm so very disappointed you think I read "salon" for my information of jesus ( or read salon period for that matter). I'm actually very offended, you need to atone for your sins. The only people who read salon are braindead hipster liberals.

Salon probably was a low blow . . . "I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”

Ehrman is not a terrible source, but he's overblown by his supporters. It's understandable why. To use an analogy you might appreciate, AiG makes a HUGE deal about Snelling, because he has a PhD in geology and is published in peer reviewed journals--a true scientist. They don't have many like him that they can rely on, so they make a big deal of him. Same with Ehrman. People like him because he is one of the few people who are properly educated that deny Jesus' resurrection.

With that said, give him credit for knowing Greek better than most scholars and, despite his own arguments in Misquoting Jesus, he makes a good case for the objective reliability of the discoveries made by textual critics. He also does a good job showing that the mythicist view of Jesus is, plainly, stupid.

I'd recommend you listen to this debate between he and Danial Wallace, who is probably one of, if not the, foremost Greek scholars today, so Wallace is uniquely qualified to take on Ehrman on his own terms:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk0bMzaIGas

Another good debate video, this one between Ehrman and Craig Evans, an outstanding scholar. This one is helpful because it goes into the historical reliability of the picture of Jesus painted by the NT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOnJSKBVrys

p.s
And why not toot your own horn, your qualifications are listed on your website linked to your profile anyway.

1. It's an old site. I haven't updated it in forever. Take that to mean what you will.
2. I get worried when people toot their credentials, because they amount to little more than arguments from authority, which are rarely relevant. I think it's relevant here only because the amount of actual scholarship I've read on the subject.
3. I openly admit that I have a very personal, emotional issue that goes back to my childhood with respect to playing up my strengths. I've done some work to begin to address that, and I'm going to be doing some work with a counselor probably starting in the second half of this year. The point is that I'm much more comfortable (emotionally speaking) to take the focus off of me and point you to the arguments, which is one of the reason I like DBs. Such an approach is actually encouraged, so I'm very much at home.

I suppose I should get out of the way now that I'm not writing this "testimony" to be completely compatible with everything I wrote above; I'll probably contradict many things I've written above, but this is just simply an honest testament of my journey, not something I'm writing (* attempting) to withstand Jac's philosophical wrecking ball.

Why did I leave my christian faith? This is the question I'm addressing and I'll address it with way to much personal information.

Let's start at the beginning....
Freshman year of highschool I was new in town and really looking for a crowd to fit in with at my newfound school ( shocking I know ) . First day of school I was sitting all by my lonesome when this very attractive blonde upperclassman invited me to sit at her table with her friends; obviously, being 14, I did. They went through everything you'd expect "where're you from" "where do you live" "what sports" et cetera et cetera..... After all the aforementioned questions she then asked a question I'd never been asked to that point in my life "do you know jesus christ" --loaded question I should've known-- I answered "of course I know who he is" -but again it's loaded! ahh- she then responded "but do you know him?" You can probably assume how the conversation went from there. Later in that conversation she asked for my number and if I wanted to come to church with here, again, you can probably assume how that went as well. So within 2 weeks I was a regular church goer, I'd accepted Christ as my savior, I was in the confirmation classes to become Catholic. I'd taken it all very deeply; she'd drive me to go to adoration, to pray, daily masses, everything a "good" catholic should do. I loved it, I absolutely loved it. I got myself a bible, read through the gospels:loved it, read romans:loved it, read judges-2 kings: interesting stories, loved it. I eventually went on to read a good portion of the new testament, and Genesis through 2 kings --skipping leviticus, numbers and deuteronomy. ( what's with the new craze of everybody saying they read the entire bible/koran?)
I loved Christianity, I loved the bible, I genuinely loved Christ.So from then on I was constantly involved with outreach, bible studies, daily masses, daily adoration.

My conformation was a life-changing event for me ( I assume this means nothing talking to evangelicals ), I felt anew. From the moment of my first communion I wanted nothing of than to focus my life on Christ, It was such a tremendous feeling, It really was. I had purpose, I had assurance after death, I had such a strong sense of overall meaning in life.

The years went by, the girl who'd brought me these great gifts graduated, most of my older "bible buddies" with her. I found new "bible pals" and went on with the same cycle; Eventually I came to lead some of the youth outreach programs in my church/school. I sought to bring the same love, joy, acceptance, and happiness Christ had brought me to others. So of course I did the same that girl did for me, I invited those who knew nobody, those who were in need, those who genuinely in need of support. This was my purpose in life. This brought me peace, this gave me meaning through struggle. I saw the same changes in those I "helped" that she probably saw with me. It's such a delightful feeling, feeling as though you've "saved somebody", and not just that, but that you'd genuinely changed somebody's outlook on life and even changed their life for the better.

So we'll fast forward to my senior year of high school; Much less (school) stress now, most of the heavy school work was out of the way, ready for college. I now had a lot more free time to research my faith ( with the intention of being able to defend it). I found mostly what I wanted to find and came to the rational conclusion of Christianity being the 1 true religion.
My chart looked something like this back then (opposed to the one in my previous post).
Anything exists ----> God-------> historical evidence for christ ------> Christianity ( basically anyway).

That summer is when this doubt of mine really started setting in. Somewhat isolated from the rest of my once "bible pals" after graduation, I felt able to think more clearly and rationally. Instead of trying to prove Christianity / bring it to others, I was again trying to prove it, once again, to myself. I don't really know what instigated this, I was very comfortable and secure in my faith; human curiosity I suppose. So doubts, lot's of doubts coming out of summer. This carried over to my first semester at W&M. If you know anything about W&M it's not exactly a crazy party school; this story doesn't go "I started snorting coke and so lost my faith." It goes more like: Id lost my sense of Christian community being so absorbed in school, I'd been exposed to new idea's, and I'd start to see/ explain my past faith experiences away. It made sense. The only reason I was a christian was 1) I was born in the united states 2) I was alone and seeking community 3) was unaware the amount of psychology that goes into these "religious experience's" I'd once had. These, coupled with my doubts about the historical accuracy of Christ's resurrection ( the topic we're touching on above), really destroyed most of my faith. I'd still go to church & confession, I'd still pray vigorously for guidance, I'd try to relive my past years, but alas to no avail. I still remember my last confession when I nigh broke down to that Friar about my disbelief and him taking my hand and telling me "there is a god, and he loves you." Meaningless words to me really at this point, but what else could he tell me.

It's been 2 years since that confession and obviously I've had some transformations in my theology (thus the deism) that we've been discussing for the last couple of weeks. But that's really the whole story; Maybe it will help you 'do-gooders' to know my background for future discussions .

- I made darn sure to copy this before trying to submit it.

(on the copy remark)

You know, I was going to say this sounded very Catholic:

As theist state, we cannot understand the mind of God or his reasons. Trying to understand Fred through our logic is impossible, he's above our way of reasoning; Otherwise our reason would lead us to "if he created something to admire him, why wouldn't he care about us." I've tried to come up with a analogy but I can't ( I was going to use "do you care about a scribble on paper you created", but a scribble cannot appreciate you or it's own creation).

But avoided doing so as didn't want to assume.

There is nothing wrong with doubt.
If Christians never had it, then I say they've never thought rationally about their beliefs.
It's kind of like pain. It makes you stop and know you need to fix something.
It is when such become gaping wounds and bleed everywhere one gets into trouble.
A band-aid fix like "God is mysterious" or "God loves you" isn't going to help there.

My mother-in-law is Catholic and I see here enjoying of the same things you mention.
Some of it sickens me, but I know her heart is good and she does seem to understand Christ.
So I kind of see you through that lens. I guess it's the closest example I have.

What you experienced, I've seen happen just as much in Evangelical churches and (this isn't an attack Jac) with YEC beliefs.
A old work friend of mine came over from Singapore. I suppose had similar experiences to you. Was heavily brought into a ministry a part of his church to defend YEC and the like.
Helped teach others... and then I suppose once all the "warm feelings" waned, began critically looking at it all and found it lacking. YEC created a big fall I think.
Now, he relies on no one's opinion except his own. He gave me all his apologetic books and I must say I wasn't impressed by some of them.

You know, just because some people in your life didn't have answers, doesn't mean there are none.
You probably don't care as much for answers anymore, but I hope you'll be open to responses still. You seem generally quite open.
I'm sure as you continue here that you'll bring up many of the same things that left you with more and more doubts.

I think, I understand your Deism a bit more.
If it were not for your interactions with Catholicism you'd probably just be Atheist/Agnostic.
But, no doubt there's something personal that you can't let go which seems to influence you a step closer to belief in God.
Perhaps it isn't really the "big bang" of laws of universe after all? But just something other within.
Maybe I'm just over-analyzing. I'm good at doing that.

You wound me back, HFD. I'm not one to take philosophy to a man's experiences. They are yours and they have helped shape you into who you are. Never let me or anyone else pretend that our philosophy determines what we believe. More often, it is used to justify (sometimes wrongly, but I mean that in the best sense of the word) what we believe. A frank admission, I know, and one I would defend philosophically. One that I think ultimately is a good thing. I do believe that we ought to subject our beliefs to scrutiny of all kinds, philosophy included. But no, I wouldn't take a wrecking ball of any kind to your life. Not intentionally, anyway.

Like K, I think I might understand you a bit more, though. I appreciate the openness. And I know your comment in my direction was a joke, by the way! Still, you gave me a chance to wax (in)eloquently for a brief moment on the right and wrong place to use the tool, so I couldn't help myself . . .

-------------------------

For K on the other hand HOW DARE YOU EVEN SUGGEST THAT YEC MIGHT POSSIBLY MAYBE EVEN A LITTLE BIT HAVE TO DO WITH SOMEONE'S LOSS OF FAITH YOU COMPROMISER YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO POISON THE WELL AND . . .

Wait . . .

I always forget the next part. Hmm. I'll have to call Ham up and ask him to give me the script again. I know it has something to do with not undermining God's Word. I'll get back to you when the boss gets back to me.

Jac3510 wrote:For K on the other hand HOW DARE YOU EVEN SUGGEST THAT YEC MIGHT POSSIBLY MAYBE EVEN A LITTLE BIT HAVE TO DO WITH SOMEONE'S LOSS OF FAITH YOU COMPROMISER YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO POISON THE WELL AND . . .

Wait . . .

I always forget the next part. Hmm. I'll have to call Ham up and ask him to give me the script again. I know it has something to do with not undermining God's Word. I'll get back to you when the boss gets back to me.

Just telling what my friend told me. His Christianity has seemed largely attached to that belief.

I'm sure there were other issues though, as there are other positions one can take rather than throwing baby Jesus out with the water.
My understand was that when he arrived in Australia, he didn't know anyone really. Got invited into some Christian group. Felt accepted and the like.
And then as he learnt better English and found his footing better, started questioning the teachings.
Ended up with doubts, and more doubts which weren't being addressed and away he fell.

But then, compare this to my own life.
I'd been brought up with strong Christian beliefs of an evangelical and pentecostal persuasion.
Left home, started questioning and doubting -- not necessary my experiences but they needed to be backed up right?
Remember asking God to show me something undeniable... and then I began reading Lloyd-Jones commentary on Romans.
That opened my eyes up to what Christianity was all about. The fact none of us are righteous, and the gospel of grace.
Can you picture for 18 years I'd known the religious language and all, but had no understanding of what it really meant? Pitiful.

Then I read a good commentary on Leviticus and saw all the sense to the sacrificial system, foreshadowing of Jesus and the like.
Then a good book on Martin Luther...
JWs were sent my way. They questioned the Trinity and like, and then I realised how much I just took for granted. So I purchased a few books on the topic by Lloyd-Jones who I'd respected at that time.
Then Dad gave me some creo tapes... Ken Ham. Don't really know why. Until then I always took the days in Genesis to be symbolic (I wouldn't have called my interpretation "literal" in any context including the Hist-Gram). He said the only reason you wouldn't accept the days as literal 24 hours was if you had no faith in blah blah (you've heard it before so don't want to poison the well further ). I thought Ham would know, and didn't really care either way, so I went YEC for a bit.
Then came across G&S site which largely confirmed my original interpretation, and all the science was like a big bonus and plus.
Then William Lane Craig came along and read Reasonable Faith, Norman Geisler and his own apologetic books and lots of debating online.
Before I knew it I had no way of denying God even if I wanted to. I didn't get the evidence I wanted, but I got it via other ways.

Why did I seek and pursue, where others just threw it all away? I don't know.
You're right elsewhere that YEC can't be used as an excuse, but then it is still a stumbling block to many it seems.
But then, there are other interpretations equally valid imo . So why do they cling to YEC? Seems to be more a justification for turning away perhaps.

So now I've given a bit of early history to Kurieuo there.
Don't know why but it's there now.

K wrote:

My mother-in-law is Catholic and I see here enjoying of the same things you mention.
Some of it sickens me, but I know her heart is good and she does seem to understand Christ.

I'm curious here K, what does this mean ? What are you saying ? Especially in light of the topic Questioning Deism ?

EssentialSacrifice wrote:K wrote:

My mother-in-law is Catholic and I see here enjoying of the same things you mention.
Some of it sickens me, but I know her heart is good and she does seem to understand Christ.

I'm curious here K, what does this mean ? What are you saying ? Especially in light of the topic Questioning Deism ?

That was admittedly off the cuff.
But, I had in mind the Catholic elements that I find offensive to the gospel.
Legal, judging, guilting, the RCC taking place of Christ, the state of one in relation to the Church being the state of one's soul in relation to God...
Mind you, I've got to qualify, I don't see much of these things in Byblos.

Given she stays with us a couple of days each week, some judgments will occasionally spill over in a rather passive way.
I love her and all but sometimes drives me batty, but got to separate motherly-in-law judgements from religious.

In light of Questioning Deism, topics often stray.

K wrote

Mind you, I've got to qualify, : Legal
judging
RCC taking place of Christ
the state of one in relation to the Church being the state of one's soul in relation to God...

It would be good to hear your qualifications to the above ... I would absolutely reserve the right to challenge once I hear the objections ...

I had a next door neighbor in Chicago who's mom-in-law drove him batty. I love the guy but it was too much fun seeing his reaction to her looniness, (sp?) and K, she truly was a loon. Unfortunately, bud, his solution was to build a 1 bedroom cottage for her ( she showed up many times a month ! ) but still had to listen during dinners, etc ....

Although I can really feel your pain, even if it is only from afar . Sorry but the memory of my neighbor More than 1 Bourbon went down

ps: I know we don't have a lot of time together here, but I don't witch hunt topics and have, here-to-fore, found all your previous posts to be exemplary. Honest discussion only with absolutely no derision.

In light of Questioning Deism, topics often stray. 10-4.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:K wrote

Mind you, I've got to qualify, : Legal
judging
RCC taking place of Christ
the state of one in relation to the Church being the state of one's soul in relation to God...

It would be good to hear your qualifications to the above ... I would absolutely reserve the right to challenge once I hear the objections ...

I had a next door neighbor in Chicago who's mom-in-law drove him batty. I love the guy but it was too much fun seeing his reaction to her looniness, (sp?) and K, she truly was a loon. Unfortunately, bud, his solution was to build a 1 bedroom cottage for her ( she showed up many times a month ! ) but still had to listen during dinners, etc ....

Although I can really feel your pain, even if it is only from afar . Sorry but the memory of my neighbor More than 1 Bourbon went down

ps: I know we don't have a lot of time together here, but I don't witch hunt topics and have, here-to-fore, found all your previous posts to be exemplary. Honest discussion only with absolutely no derision.

In light of Questioning Deism, topics often stray. 10-4.

To be honest, I wish I really never made those statements.
What do they call it? Digging your grave. First with statements about YEC, then sharing a bit of my own journey in response and digging it further with Catholic comments.
Think I was just more loose with words because you get that way when sharing a bit of your life I suppose.
"Sickens" is too strong of a word, but I'd be lying if I said such didn't fluster me at times.

Anyway, let me see if I can climb out of the hole...

K wrote

Mind you, I've got to qualify, : Legal
judging
RCC taking place of Christ
the state of one in relation to the Church being the state of one's soul in relation to God...

It would be good to hear your qualifications to the above ... I would absolutely reserve the right to challenge once I hear the objections ...

So "Legal", circumcision was an issue, infant baptism was also, church also and because we are not regular that is somehow seen as a slant on Protestants in general. She even wanted to take Evie (first born) with her once into the city with her where she attends mass for some baptism. My wife told me. And I said over my dead body! Let's just say we're not good Catholics.

"Judging" -- some is religious and other religious mixed with normal stuff like way we raise our kids.
But, there is "judging" of which I speak in relation to the Catholicism I see in her unmixed from the general mother-in-lawism .
So for example, she's in some prayer group, Bible group which is great! But there seems to be a rather legal tone to it.
Such that she felt entirely guilty attending her grandson's birthday when they had meeting on. Very strong guilt -- although noone in the group was really guilting her -- where does all the guilt come from?
She's also made comments, not in relation to me and my wife, but others -- about not going to church and how they can be Christian (something I strongly disagree with).
Or talking to the husband of one of the wives in the group and asking why he doesn't join, his response was that he's not good enough. She said he has a gambling issue I think. But to her, it seems a person must be without sin before participating is some ministry however small. It is just so not the gospel of Christ that I know.

"RCC taking the place of Christ" well this is a protestant accusation isn't it of the RCC in general?
Comes down to theological differences and what I consider to be weasel words on behalf of Catholic apologists when defending the RCC.
Jesus was the final and forever priest, so why have priests? (Hebrews 7:23-25) Pastorial care and spiritual teachers make much more sense.
Many Catholics and even the RCC believes people can be saved on account of the church. That is most doctrinally offensive to me and diminishes Christ.
(oh, I just feel the grave is getting deeper -- but I'm being honest with my feelings here, just as I'm sure RCCs have issues with non-Catholic Christians)

State of one's soul... purely mother-in-law's comment corresponding "going to church" with where one is at with God.
Her view seems to be God is met in the church. On the other hand, God for me is everywhere. He meets us in our lives.

So... whatever one might say about the above (if Catholic or otherwise), this all has to be read in the context of my experiences with my mother-in-law's Catholicism.

I hope you don't regret the YEC comments on my account . . . if anybody can get away with saying pretty much anything in my book, other than FL, it'd be you. I took them as well intended jab, anyway. If I'm angry at somebody its fuhrer ham for having abandoned me. I haven't gotten marching orders or talking points in days now. I might be losing faith. I'm thinking TE looks more interesting.

To be honest, I wish I really never made those statements. Not to worry K, after reading all your post here, I am justified in my original K's exemplary posting.
What do they call it? Digging your grave. First with statements about YEC, then sharing a bit of my own journey in response and digging it further with Catholic comments.
Think I was just more loose with words because you get that way when sharing a bit of your life I suppose. You bet, emotions aside, writing becomes boredom. Not here ! Not yours.
"Sickens" is too strong of a word, but I'd be lying if I said such didn't fluster me at times. Really ...

So "Legal", circumcision was an issue, infant baptism was also, ( I beg you to have the baptism/christening done. It is IMO really important, but not on her time schedule.) church also and because we are not regular that is somehow seen as a slant on Protestants in general. She even wanted to take Evie (first born) with her once into the city with her where she attends mass for some baptism. My friend, this is insane ... that is your child, not grandma's and even for the best of thoughts, she has no right. This is not a Catholic/Protestant thing this is a "nebby" thing ... yes ? My wife told me. And I said over my dead body! Let's just say we're not good Catholics. Well,... I mean, since you aren't Catholic ...

On the judging paragraph ... sheesh K your mom-in-law will have a lot of "splaining to do Lucy" to The Higher Power. Don't get me wrong, we all will, but honestly I want as few detractors as possible from this reality before I go to the next ... I mean, I know He doesn't need help from anybody but the less ammo out there the better.

She said he has a gambling issue I think. See the splinter, remove the plank ... too bad, this is very easily seen from just out discussion, can't be easy on the family.

Jesus was the final and forever priest, so why have priests? (Hebrews 7:23-25) Pastorial care and spiritual teachers make much more sense. I can say here Christ is the First and always greatest Priest, but His words called for the furtherance of His priesthood through the apostles and then eventually down to today's priests. This is not to say this would or should work in another's denomination, but it does in Catholicism. The Priest's Church duties, including marriage, confession, masses, funeral rites (many liturgical more), but your second part...pastoral care and spiritual leaders are the priests and are enveloped in their overall duties. Sorta you say tomaaato, I say tomawwwto. in regards to any performed duty other than liturgical.

Many Catholics and even the RCC believes people can be saved on account of the church. Heretical. Church can bring you to God, closer to God, in God's back pocket in regards to sacramental efficiency (baptism, communion, marriage, reconciliation, confirmation, holy orders and anointing of the sick ) but in know way can do any salvatory works ... only God ... God alone. Those people you know of are in deep if they believe the church can "save" you.

On the other hand, God for me is everywhere. He meets us in our lives. Daily, moment by moment. Certainly the Lord is in His church, be it C or P. It cannot be that that is the only place to find Him. Circa 2500 bc Judiasim Temple stuff !

Thanks for the talk. I feel truly relieved ... I see we're in the same boat, just different locations. I think this is as God wants it. So many ways to get to Him, but the same narrow road to open the door.

Jac3510 wrote:I hope you don't regret the YEC comments on my account . . . if anybody can get away with saying pretty much anything in my book, other than FL, it'd be you. I took them as well intended jab, anyway. If I'm angry at somebody its fuhrer ham for having abandoned me. I haven't gotten marching orders or talking points in days now. I might be losing faith. I'm thinking TE looks more interesting.

Don't worry not going all politically correct now after that one big thread on hermeneutics I did.
Just thought to add in a bit more explanation about my friend so it didn't look like I was poisoning the well...