Is Catholicism a true religion

[Desert Snake]

That's what I meant. Facts are independent of my opinions and beliefs unless we are talking about how you define fact. Then I wouldn't say beliefs, I'd say they are subjective facts. If one likes. I think that's an oxymoron.

We do have subjective 'facts'. We have subjective truths. That is what informs our 'beliefs'.

This is subjective by necessity, ; that is why ''subjective', and 'objective', are misused as words, so much.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Absolute truth is not accepted by all, but it's still absolute truth. For example, gravity is not a reality because everyone believes it is, and would not cease to be a reality if everyone disbelieved.

That's why things like gravity/a fact is independent of our beliefs, experiences, and opinions. Gravity is a universal fact. Many religions like Christianity is not. Christianity is abstract truth; and, its dependent on the existence of jesus. Subjective fact or belief/opinions etc have dependency. Facts or absolute truth has not.

If you witnessed an event, then you would know the reality of it. And if everyone you tell about it disbelieves, and you have no way to prove what you saw, you still know it's an absolute truth.

That's a matter of opinion, though. If it were a car accident, sure. God is completely different. You have god of Christianity, god of Islam, god of Paganism, god of Hinduism and so forth. These are beliefs to many people and they believe the they are absolute truth. If someone doesn't believe them, that's okay.

Long as you understand that absolute truth is not universal. If it were, regardless if people believe you are telling the truth (since belief is independent of fact), it would exist all around the globe. Nothing to do with acceptance. That's not a good and appropriate word for it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We do have subjective 'facts'. We have subjective truths. That is what informs our 'beliefs'.

This is subjective by necessity, ; that is why ''subjective', and 'objective', are misused as words, so much.

We have objective/universal facts

We have subjective/personal beliefs

We call our beliefs facts because they exist to us but objectively, they are beliefs. What is wrong with that?

 

[Desert Snake]

We have objective/universal facts

We have subjective/personal beliefs

We call our beliefs facts because they exist to us but objectively, they are beliefs. What is wrong with that?

Because it's literally wrong. We do have 'subjective truths', and that doesn't make them ''not facts''. /necessarily/. You are using definitions for the words, that they don't necessarily have, and actually can't have.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because it's literally wrong. We do have 'subjective truths', and that doesn't make them ''not facts''. /necessarily/. You are using definitions for the words, that they don't necessarily have, and actually can't have.

No.

We have facts and we have beliefs.

To call beliefs facts is a personal preference mainly based on one's experiences we know are real (hence why we call it fact).

Truth is a better word because it can be used subjectively.

Facts has no favorites. If its objective (universal), its not a belief. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Have you ever believed, prayed, or wanted to know God? Have you ever been receptive to him?

No more than I have to Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Giant Spaghetti Monster -- and for precisely the same reason, I'm not interested in imaginary friends.

 

[Desert Snake]

No.

We have facts and we have beliefs.

To call beliefs facts is a personal preference mainly based on one's experiences we know are real (hence why we call it fact).

Truth is a better word because it can be used subjectively.

Facts has no favorites. If its objective (universal), its not a belief. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm not going to argue this again, we already did. Your equation literally cannot be correct, because that would mean that all your' beliefs, aren't facts. That's ridiculous, and also has nothing to do with our subjective or personal truths.

 

[Desert Snake]

To call beliefs facts is a personal preference mainly based on one's experiences we know are real (hence why we call it fact).

You just answered your own question, except, that we don't have to consider them ''facts''. It's arbitrary, it doesn't matter.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not going to argue this again, we already did. Your equation literally cannot be correct, because that would mean that all your' beliefs, aren't facts. That's ridiculous, and also has nothing to do with our subjective or personal truths.

All my beliefs are facts they aren't universal facts. Not everyone experiences what I do, so that's my point. I don't see how anyone can say their facts/beliefs are universal/absolute/truth for all when they are not.

They are subjective facts as you said.

I guess another way to put it is my experiences are real. They make me who I am today. My experiences are not your experiences so I will not claim my experiences are universal. Rather, I will say that the only universal things I can think of at the top of my head is mathematics. Outside of those universal knowledge, it's basically beliefs, opinions, and how we ourselves interpret the world. My interpretation isn't yours, of course. That's why it isn't universal.

It's not a debate. I just took the words fact and belief out and explained my point above. Do you understand where I'm coming from now?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

that we don't have to consider them ''facts''. It's arbitrary, it doesn't matter.

Some do, and it puzzles me. That's why I asked. Some think their preferences apply to all people not to just them. Especially huge religions because there is a sense of community and it becomes "the majority rules."

Basically another part of my point in the other post I wrote.

 

[Desert Snake]

All my beliefs are facts they aren't universal facts. Not everyone experiences what I do, so that's my point. I don't see how anyone can say their facts/beliefs are universal/absolute/truth for all when they are not.

Who did that? It's actually arbitrary, anyway

They are subjective facts as you said.

I guess another way to put it is my experiences are real. They make me who I am today. My experiences are not your experiences so I will not claim my experiences are universal. Rather, I will say that the only universal things I can think of at the top of my head is mathematics. Outside of those universal knowledge, it's basically beliefs, opinions, and how we ourselves interpret the world. My interpretation isn't yours, of course. That's why it isn't universal.

It's not a debate. I just took the words fact and belief out and explained my point above. Do you understand where I'm coming from now?

Right, but this outside your idea of ''universal facts'', which, since they wouldn't be subjective, is not relevant to how we describe our 'truths'

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Right, but this outside your idea of ''universal facts'', which, since they wouldn't be subjective, is not relevant to how we describe our 'truths'

Universal facts would be mathematics and physics. They exist independent of our environment and people.

Subjective facts would be our experiences since they are not lies (a lot of us aren't delusional). We do experience things but they are not like mathematics. They are not independent of ourselves.​

Some call subjective facts beliefs; some use faith; some just say opinions.

Those who use subjective facts as facts (former definition) is what puzzles me. I haven't figured the logistics in why they say the latter definition is the former.

There is nothing wrong with subjective facts.

Best example is god. God is a subjective fact and it isn't independent of our experiences, beliefs, and opinions (and other people's testimonies and their beliefs, experiences, and opinions). Many RF threads tackle this because many believers (not just Christian) mix the latter definition with the former.
​

What happens is that it oppresses (and causes wars etc) on others because they feel what they know is true (the former) therefore must be implemented as law and so forth.

I disagree and feel that is further from the truth. I know what I experienced is a fact but I would never call it the former because I feel that's oppressing people who disagree or don't share my point of view. It's my personal preference.

It wouldn't be an issue if we didn't see the results of mixing the two in history not just on RF. Interesting to talk about if we can get beyond the semantics and look at the meaning and how it applies to people and affects others as well.

​

 

[Desert Snake]

Universal facts would be mathematics and physics. They exist independent of our environment and people.

​

The problem is that you're making an arbitrary delineation, for no reason. It doesn't change what is being communicated, except in your definition, it means many things would therefore not be ''fact''. That are facts.

I disagree and feel that is further from the truth. I know what I experienced is a fact but I would never call it the former because I feel that's oppressing people who disagree or don't share my point of view. It's my personal preference.

belief doesn't mean not know. This is a common mistake when people try to make inherent separations in words that don't have inherent separations.
belief can be something considered, known, or not. Usually, it indicates either a personal truth, ie known, whatever.

It wouldn't be an issue if we didn't see the results of mixing the two in history not just on RF. Interesting to talk about if we can get beyond the semantics and look at the meaning and how it applies to people and affects others as well.

The problem is that you are getting the 'concepts', mixed up with the 'words'.
People are using the words incorrectly, in the first place. ie they might place a inherent meaning on 'truth', or something, where there isn't one. The same happens with the other descriptive words. A word like ''fact'', is meant to be used contextually, /fact as opposed to non-fact. Without context, it means no more than truth /subjective truth, so forth. This happens because anything can be claimed as a ''fact'', and anything can be said to be not proven. Therefore rendering the word generally useless as a descriptor of a position, in arguments.

 

[pearl]

There is no United Catholic Church after 1054 that includes the Eastern Orthodox Church and for the most part not before with the division of the Roman Empire with the development of the Byzantine Empire. Perhaps we understand the word schism differently.

Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences - Wikipedia

I believe there are some 22 Eastern Churches united with Rome.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe there are some 22 Eastern Churches united with Rome.

Which Eastern Churches?

Approximately what proportion of the overall membership of Eastern Orthodox Christianity would those churches represent?

When did they unite?

I'm struggling to see the Catholic Church representing a united Christianity before 1600. Then there are all the other divisions not to mention its supposed uniformity maintained by suppression, coercion, and brutality.

 

[metis]

Then there are all the other divisions not to mention its supposed uniformity maintained by suppression, coercion, and brutality.

And you don't think that this also happened with the Protestants?

 

[Dawnofhope]

And you don't think that this also happened with the Protestants?

This is not about comparing the Protestant and Catholic branches of Christianity. It is about acknowledging the pivitol role that the Catholic Church has played in promoting one of the great world religions but also being honest about history. Its too easy to dismiss the value of other peoples Faiths but also to exagerate the greatness of one's own Faith.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I will state all that I know about the Catholic Religion and why I think it is a false cult
.

All religions have some truth and some falsity in them, so it's probably better than some and worse than others.

 

[pearl]

Which Eastern Churches?

Approximately what proportion of the overall membership of Eastern Orthodox Christianity would those churches represent?

When did they unite?

I'm struggling to see the Catholic Church representing a united Christianity before 1600. Then there are all the other divisions not to mention its supposed uniformity maintained by suppression, coercion, and brutality.

As I stated, the differences are juridical. What unites them under the umbrella of Catholic Church is the apostolicity, the same priesthood, and sacraments, is greater than what divides.
AskACatholic.com - What ALL Catholics should know about Eastern Catholic Churches

 

[pearl]

But the fact is, no matter how you try to slice it, the God we find in the OT is truly not the God we find in the NT -- therefore the Jewish and Christians Gods are not one and the same.

From the Catholic Mass; 'through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father...'. The God who is worshiped, in the name of Jesus, is no other than the God of Israel.