Should More Religions (Or at least most of Christianity) Accept "Nostra Aetate"?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Mr.logic:
Firstly! It doesn't matter if they practice similar doctrine. Only faith in Jesus christ give you salvation of your sins

...If your a Protestant, in Catholicism we believe that Good works can grant a person entrance into heaven, along with simple faith.

Now, to all the people quoting Bible versus and saying something along the lines of "But the bible says you can't accept any other religions." In at least Catholic doctrine, the Pope is the successor of Peter, his job is to preach the Word of God and so technically this isn't acting against the Bible, ESPECIALLY if another Pope claims Papal Infallibility when proclaiming this document. Plus, it's not like most other Christian Sects follow Jesus' word to the letter, just look at Westboro where they think God that troops in Iraq are being murdered while fostering hate for social outcasts like Homosexuals, they DEFINITELY aren't following Christ's path, would it really be so hard to accept a document that moves the Church towards being more open?

Vivi22:

Blablahb:
So basically that documents says "It's okay to have an opinion, as long as you agree with us". It sounds mostly cosmetic and inconsequential.

I'm not sure about that. Seemed more to me like "it's okay to have an opinion, but don't expect to go to heaven unless you agree with us".

Which honestly would be an improvement over what organized religions typically advocate.

I thought the document made it clear enough, but allow me to elaborate. It's not "You don't go to heaven if you don't agree with us." It expects disagreement, it's more or less saying that, as long as the religion itself fosters kindness, generosity, and peace, then the people who follow that faith can enter heaven.

Ciryher:

When you're looking at the 2nd point about Islam, is there a significant issue between Catholics and Muslims?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought most of the problems were/are with extremist elements on both sides, as well as cultural conflicts; e.g. the integration of Muslim immigrants into Catholic, European countries for example (banning of the Hijab etc) rather than a direct religious problem?

Well we did declare Holy Wars against them on nine different occasions. Over the years we've developed a bit of respect for each other, but there still are those who think of a "Furious Crusader" when they think of Catholicism... It also doesn't help that Most Muslim nations only usually interacted with their closer, Eastern Orthodox neighbors, who weren't exactly fans of Catholicism either...

All sounds perfectly reasonable to me! Of course the problem is that the Nostra Aetate also applies directly to getting into heaven, with other religions have a very different ideas of life after death, with having a very different view on Heaven (shino-Buddism, the kind that caught on in China Japan, and Korea, has many heavens) if they have a heaven at all (the form of Buddism that remained in India doesn't have a heaven, just a state of complete understanding of everything).

Nickolai77:
Well, there's that famous Bible line were Jesus says something along the lines of "only through me" will you get eternal life in heaven. I think it's fairly natural to interpret this as meaning that only be following the teachings of Christ (i.e- being a Christian) will one get to heaven.

Even if that's natural, that just makes it a logically sounds misconception. Especially since anyone saying Jesus' mission was to create the Catholic Church is full of it.

Because "only through me," meaning you have to follow him and his teachings is the best conclusion if he was just a wise man or something, but when the man in question is also God and God is in everything it certainly expands the criteria for "through me."

Mr.logic:

Seanchaidh:

Mr.logic:
Firstly! It doesn't matter if they practice similar doctrine. Only faith in Jesus christ give you salvation of your sins( the 1:8, 14:6, 2:8-9, 4:12 verses address statement 1.)

You appear to have a number of scriptural citations. Why do you think those Bible verses are true?

Because I have faith in Christ. since that isn't going to be enough for you(probably)

It shouldn't be enough for anyone. It isn't a reason-- it could be considered an explanation for your behavior, but it raises more questions than it provides answers.

how did 66 books with 40 writers over 1600 years come to be?

By people writing them? Being written doesn't make something true. Being written many times doesn't make something true either; otherwise the earth and everything upon it would be composed of four elements. And we'd be forced by consistency to admit that "well where did the Pyramids come from" is a good argument for the truth of everything ancient Egyptians wrote about Horus, Osiris, Isis, and Set.

You think 66 books with 40 writers in 1600 years is tough, try twenty three books with one writer in a single year!

The old testament was completed in 400 bc would you argue this?

I neither know nor particularly care when Torah was considered complete, nor do I think the timing has any particular relevance to the veracity of your scriptural citations.

Witty Name Here:

Ciryher:

When you're looking at the 2nd point about Islam, is there a significant issue between Catholics and Muslims?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought most of the problems were/are with extremist elements on both sides, as well as cultural conflicts; e.g. the integration of Muslim immigrants into Catholic, European countries for example (banning of the Hijab etc) rather than a direct religious problem?

Well we did declare Holy Wars against them on nine different occasions. Over the years we've developed a bit of respect for each other, but there still are those who think of a "Furious Crusader" when they think of Catholicism... It also doesn't help that Most Muslim nations only usually interacted with their closer, Eastern Orthodox neighbors, who weren't exactly fans of Catholicism either...

Looking at it in a totally historical context like that, sure there's plenty of reason for aggravation - but if you're looking at a contemporary context then there is much less to deal with that isn't related in some way to other politics, so for the average person you're not going to be a purely religious thing. Also I was trying to convey that there wasn't a problem with the Catholics viewing the Muslims rather than the other way around, so in that sense they're more detached.

Witty Name Here:

Mr.logic:
Firstly! It doesn't matter if they practice similar doctrine. Only faith in Jesus christ give you salvation of your sins

...If your a Protestant, in Catholicism we believe that Good works can grant a person entrance into heaven, along with simple faith.

What is true doesn't depend on whether you are Protestant or Catholic. Either "only faith in Jesus christ give you salvation of your sins" (sic) is true or it is false. It doesn't change based on whether someone is Protestant or Catholic or Hindu.

Im Baptist but I spent six years in Catholic School. My understanding of Catholic theology is that faith, not works, is what gets you into heaven (outside of being Baptized, Confirmed, going to Confession, etc which they believe are also ultimately necessary) however the Catholics are very big on works including charity and I respect them for that because really whether you believe works effects you getting into heaven or not, as Christians we are called to help our fellow men (meaning men and women).

Seekster:
Im Baptist but I spent six years in Catholic School. My understanding of Catholic theology is that faith, not works, is what gets you into heaven (outside of being Baptized, Confirmed, going to Confession, etc which they believe are also ultimately necessary) however the Catholics are very big on works including charity and I respect them for that because really whether you believe works effects you getting into heaven or not, as Christians we are called to help our fellow men (meaning men and women).

It's a combination of both, but in Catholic theology, good works plays a major role in whether someone goes to heaven, according to some liberal Catholics, possibly even more then faith.

Seanchaidh:

Witty Name Here:

Mr.logic:
Firstly! It doesn't matter if they practice similar doctrine. Only faith in Jesus christ give you salvation of your sins

...If your a Protestant, in Catholicism we believe that Good works can grant a person entrance into heaven, along with simple faith.

What is true doesn't depend on whether you are Protestant or Catholic. Either "only faith in Jesus christ give you salvation of your sins" (sic) is true or it is false. It doesn't change based on whether someone is Protestant or Catholic or Hindu.

The fact is you're claiming that "Only faith in Jesus lets you enter heaven", which is a protestant belief. We're discussing a Catholic document and whether it can or should be adopted by other religions of the world.

Ciryher:

Looking at it in a totally historical context like that, sure there's plenty of reason for aggravation - but if you're looking at a contemporary context then there is much less to deal with that isn't related in some way to other politics, so for the average person you're not going to be a purely religious thing. Also I was trying to convey that there wasn't a problem with the Catholics viewing the Muslims rather than the other way around, so in that sense they're more detached.

Well, even today there's still some stresses between the two religions, but now it's mostly Christianity as a whole and Islam. I mean, when you have Americans (even some politicians) using the word "Muslim" as an insult, something is seriously wrong. I mean, when people are deriding Barack Obama, there's almost always one person who says something like "HE'S AN ARAB!" (even though that's a culture and not a religion) or "WE HAVE A MUSLIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!" (even though the founding father's had absolutely no issue with Islam.

Witty Name Here:
The fact is you're claiming that "Only faith in Jesus lets you enter heaven", which is a protestant belief. We're discussing a Catholic document and whether it can or should be adopted by other religions of the world.

1)I'm not claiming that. The right honorable gentleman Mr.logic was doing so.
2)If there are sound arguments that the conclusions of this document are true (which does not mean "consistent with the Bible" or "consistent with a pope speaking ex cathedra") then it should be. If there aren't, then it should not be. The very same goes for any Catholic document. If you can justify the theological conclusions arguing from what is known or observable, then go for it. If not, hang it up.

Seanchaidh:

Witty Name Here:
The fact is you're claiming that "Only faith in Jesus lets you enter heaven", which is a protestant belief. We're discussing a Catholic document and whether it can or should be adopted by other religions of the world.

1)I'm not claiming that. The right honorable gentleman Mr.logic was doing so.
2)If there are sound arguments that the conclusions of this document are true (which does not mean "consistent with the Bible" or "consistent with a pope speaking ex cathedra") then it should be. If there aren't, then it should not be. The very same goes for any Catholic document. If you can justify the theological conclusions arguing from what is known or observable, then go for it. If not, hang it up.

1.) Terribly sorry about that, didn't notice your username.

2.) The thing is, most catholics don't follow some doctrine of "Only do it if it's in the bible" or "We can only do what the bible says." The church has changed a great deal over the years. To debate whether the Bible would say it's "okay" is nigh impossible considering there are some fourty different people who compiled the book, each with different opinions and personal prejudices. The fact of the matter is, while I'm a Christian, I'm not Naive, I believe that, regardless of scripture, this document can do a great deal of good for the church and other religions.

Should Christianity be less exclusionary to other religious viewpoints? That's a bit of a no-brainer.
Of course. The less dogmatic, the more moderate religions become, the more compatible they are with modern secular societies where loads and loads of different viewpoints must peacefully coexist. This "Nostra Aetate" sounds like a step in the right direction in that regard.

Witty Name Here:
The thing is, most catholics don't follow some doctrine of "Only do it if it's in the bible" or "We can only do what the bible says." The church has changed a great deal over the years. To debate whether the Bible would say it's "okay" is nigh impossible considering there are some fourty different people who compiled the book, each with different opinions and personal prejudices. The fact of the matter is, while I'm a Christian, I'm not Naive, I believe that, regardless of scripture, this document can do a great deal of good for the church and other religions.

But is it true? Why should anyone be convinced that Hindus can go to heaven just on the say-so of the Catholic Church or various Christian denominations? It seems to me that if you assert something only because it is more palatable to people of other faiths than telling them they'll end up in hell, the basis for the belief is incredibly weak.

Personally, I don't think the Catholic Church should say that anyone goes to Heaven, because it really has no idea. But if there are sound arguments for the position, then sure.

Volf:
Pope John Paul II would disagree with that.

You are aware that the child abuse went on under his reign to. And it was never exposed, addressed or stopped. It just got exposed after his death. He is off the hook, but that nevertheless makes him a bad person. And if he knew nothing, then he was a lousy leader and not worth any praise.

But I am sure he knew and acted like everyone else before and after him. Pretend the problem didn't exist. He is no man to admire in any case.

Rastelin:

Volf:
Pope John Paul II would disagree with that.

You are aware that the child abuse went on under his reign to. And it was never exposed, addressed or stopped. It just got exposed after his death. He is off the hook, but that nevertheless makes him a bad person. And if he knew nothing, then he was a lousy leader and not worth any praise.

But I am sure he knew and acted like everyone else before and after him. Pretend the problem didn't exist. He is no man to admire in any case.

What exactly does molestation have to do with the catholic church having a leader that who is open to multi-religious dialogue/considering other religions as possible alternatives? I didn't say that the guy was the second coming, but that he helped improve relations with other religions and forms of Christianity.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked