I'm going to spend section A speaking of John 6, those who already know that chapter can skip this point.

Section A:

John 6 is a famous chapter of the Bible. The culmination of it is when Jesus tells those following

"53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum."

(Source: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/6)

The response comes from the crowd and then from Jesus:

"60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?

62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.

65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

66 As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him."

Some Protestants say that this is symbolic language. Even if it were, that wouldn't solve all questions, but the writing does not appear symbolic either. It appears quite literal. Especially since, as the footnote says for verses 54 through 58, the Greek verb for eating Christ's flesh is especially visceral:

"Eats: the verb used in these verses is not the classical Greek verb used of human eating, but that of animal eating: “munch,” “gnaw.” This may be part of John’s emphasis on the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus" (https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/6)

Section B:

I don't contest that this language was literal.

I have to ask why the Bible speaks of the Jews leaving as a bad thing. They were following what God taught them. They were not even allowed to:

Consume animal blood (Deuteronomy 12:23)

Eat anything they already found dead or cook a goat in milk (Deuteronomy 14:21)

Or even touching a human corpse, since even touching a dead body makes one unclean for seven days (Numbers 19:11-13)

And yet Jesus tells those following that they *must* eat and drink human flesh and blood. What was a Jew supposed to do after hearing that? Obeying it would have violated the law horribly. That alone violates two laws already listed above without even mentioning cannibalism itself.

This causes a big issue of why God would ordain such a method. This language is common in Christianity, and so it is not uncommon for one to not be able to feel the sort of whiplash it would give. This is an analogy to help translate both the shock *and* divine contradiction of this. This analogy isn't to be vulgar, it is to show not just the emotional reasoning but also the understandable doctrinal revulsion of the Jews.

This would be like if the Second Coming happened, Jesus descended from the clouds, and Jesus ordered all faithful to undress and commit 'sacred orgies' among each other like some ancient near Eastern and Greek sects did. That is the least graphic way one can express the tonal and doctrinal backlash the Jews would have felt. Imagine if that happened and Christians were told to fornicate among each other in such a graphic way. That wouldn't just be emotionally clashing, it would also violate the law as Christians understood it. The same with the Jews in this episode.

This isn't like stuff like gleaming grain on the Sabbath, or paying taxes to Caesar. This is bedrock level importance for the Mosaic Law, the same law supposedly from God, and the same law ordered to be broken in such a way. Why would those listening have been expected to follow? In the Second Coming scenario, would those faithful who would refuse such orgies be seen as horrible too?

Those who think themselves saints, holier-than-thou, they are the closed people, they are the dead people. They have become incapable of living, incapable of celebrating.

God is celebration of life, and sin is natural: natural in the sense that you are unconscious -- what else can you do? In unconsciousness, sin is bound to happen. Sin simply means that you don't know what you are doing, you are unaware, so whatsoever you do goes wrong.

But to recognize that "I am a sinner" is the beginning of a great pilgrimage. To recognize that "I am a sinner" is the beginning of real virtue. To see that "I am ignorant" is the first glimpse of wisdom.

The real problem arises with people who are full of knowledge. All that knowledge is borrowed; hence, rubbish. The people who think they are virtuous because they have created a certain character around themselves are the people lost to God. Your so-called saints are the farthest away, because God is life, and your saints have renounced life. In renouncing life they have renounced God too.

God is the hidden core of THIS life. This life is just the outermost part, the circumference; God is the center of it all. To renounce the circumference, to escape from it, is to renounce the center automatically. You will not find God anywhere. The farther away you go from life, the farther away you will be from God. One has to dive into life, and of course when you are unconscious you will miss the target many times.

The original Hebrew word for sin is very beautiful. By translating it as "sin," Christians have missed the very message of Jesus. The original Hebrew word for sin is so totally different from your idea of sin that it will be a surprise to you.

The root word means forgetfulness; it has nothing to do with what you are doing. The whole thing is whether you are doing it with conscious being or out of unconsciousness. Are you doing it with a self-remembering or have you completely forgotten yourself?

Any action coming out of unconsciousness is sin. The action may look virtuous, but it cannot be. You may create a beautiful facade, a character, a certain virtuousness; you may speak the truth, you may avoid lies; you may try to be moral, and so on and so forth. But if all this is coming from unconsciousness, it is all sin.

It is because of this that Jesus has a tremendously significant saying. He says, "If your right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away. It is much better for you to lose a part of your body than to have your whole body thrown into hell."

Now, if you don't understand the real meaning of sin, you are bound to misinterpret the whole statement and Jesus will look too harsh, too hard, too violent. Saying, "If your right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away," does not look like a statement of Jesus. A man of profound love and compassion -- he cannot say it, he cannot be so violent. But this is how Christians have interpreted him.

What he means is: whatsoever causes you to forget yourself, even if it is your right eye.... That is just to emphasize the fact. It is simply a way of talking, an emphasis: "If your right eye causes you to forget yourself, then take it out and throw it away."

He is not saying anything which has to be taken literally; it is a metaphor. He is saying that it is better to be blind than to be forgetful of yourself, because the blind man who remembers himself is not blind, he has the real eye. And the man who has eyes, if he has forgotten himself, what is the use of having eyes? He cannot see himself -- what ELSE can he see?“

I've been reading discussions here for about six months and I've noticed that Roman Catholics often misunderstand the Orthodox position on the Papacy. I feel that Roman Catholics try to use the same arguments they use against Protestants against us. This is poor apologetics. For example saying the pre-schism Popes had primacy (which Orthodox Christians have no problem accepting) does not make a Vatican 1 style Papacy.

First, what do we agree on:

1. Peter was the leader of the Apostles
2. Peter got the keys
3. Peter taught at Antioch (amongst other places)
4. Peter taught in Rome
5. Peter was martyred at Rome
6. The Popes are successors of Peter
7. The Popes had the first rank in the hierarchy of bishops
8. The Popes often look leading roles in combating heresy
9. The Popes were (mostly) consistent in upholding the Orthodox Faith.
10. The Popes complied with the Emperors when they called Ecumenical Councils. No Pope in the pre-schism period ever called an Ecumenical Council.

We think that the Papacy became corrupt and lapsed into heresy by the 11th century. We also think this was based on growing Papal claims that existed prior to the schism.

These are the things we reject:

1.The Popes of Rome are unique successors of Peter

1. The Popes have ex cathedra infallibility

2. The Popes are above judgement

3. The Popes are monarchs who are more powerful than all other kings and emperors

4. The keys and the power to loose and bind are different

5. The Popes have immediate jurisdiction that enables them to act unilaterally outside their jurisdiction

6. Popes can define dogma unilaterally

7. All bishops being ordained must be confirmed by the Pope

So, Orthodox Christians think there is a difference between the Pre-schism Popes and the Post-schism Popes. The "office" has the same name but the office has changed.

Back to the title and my point

The Archbishops of Canterbury are successors of St. Augustine of Canterbury. There has been a succession of bishops since 597AD. The cathedral is in the same place. The modern Archbishops of Canterbury have the same title, they wear the same vestments, they wear the same mitres and conduct (mostly) the same liturgy. Yet, the modern Archbishops of Canterbury believe very different things from their founder and the nature of their authority is very different. In fact the Roman Catholic Church goes so far as to reject the notion that the Archbishops of Canterbury are even bishops at all.

With this comparison I wish to enlighten Roman Catholics about how Orthodoxy understands the modern Papacy. The post-schism Popes are clearly behaving differently from their pre-schism predecessors. This is not due to some "development" but a lapse into corruption, worldliness and the exercise of power.

Catholic religion is the only true Religion. Since Religion is about to Give the proper honor to the Reason or Cause of our existence and everything else that exists and may exist, there shouldn't being two different Religions, simply because there can't be to different trusts regarding the same thing and from the same point of view. So as simply as that, whichever religion doesn't looks for unity it is already wrong. Today there is no Reason for two Religions, there is only One God, so is science requiring it ( from nothing nothing can come out, therefore an Eternal Being (Cause of everything) and therefore "Infinite" and therefore "only One" , there can't be 2 infinities, they would limit each other). So now that you know, look for the Only truth, if no you are declaring your self guilty. You are Peter, and on that stone I will found my Church, AND THE FORCES OF HELL WOULDN'T PREVAIL AGAINST HER.

A cordial greeting.

My husband is a “reformed” Protestant and was convincing my Catholic friends that all Protestant religions are in union together no matter what because you can receive the Eucharist everywhere I kept my mouth shut because I’m honestly over it, he’s purposely looking for Catholicism to be wrong. But what would you have said as a Catholic?

I stand corrected—I’ve never heard it put this way. I’m terribly sorry. God bless you

I wrote an article that addresses the holiness of the Holy Roman Empire and explains what particular form of holiness the Empire was, and also what type of Holiness it was not.

Would mean alot if y'all read it and gave it a like or any comments

Peace to all,

The Angel Gabriel brought the Mind of God from the Powers in the Holy Spirit Family One God in being becoming to Mary through the flesh, from Mary blood and water born becoming the Immaculate Conception for the Virgin birth of Jesus in the New Adam uniting with Mary through the New Eve becoming in the Christ for all mankind from Immaculate Immortality through Holy Spirit Incorruption becoming in One United Christ Body becoming transfigured through the combined family powers becoming again in One Family.

Finally, Catholicism can see the Trinity Family Properly, logically and from the Logical Formulas through the Wondrous Mysteries in the Faith from the God through the Faith of Abraham becoming again for all Creation in One Holy Spirit Family in One God in being, OMNiLogically, I believe.

We will all become Sons and Daughters of God literally in two natures fulfilled the Faith from Abraham through the New Ark, fulfilled from the Old Ark carried to Egypt by Moses becoming the New Promise Land through the New Living Temple in the Host for all becoming in The Catholic Faith through Mary in the New Eve becoming again for all Creation in One God in being a Family, from the Faith of Abraham, all from dust, all flashes from Preexistence through Logical Intelligence undefiled becoming through two natures becoming again One Family, I believe.

Some ask themselves, "Can we as Catholic become rational?" Can we logically see God with New OMNiLogical Eyes as The Holy Family and always is preexisting in One Family In One God in being becoming again? For all In One Family? We can just rewrite the Books at The Vatican and bind the Holy Spirit One God in being The Family and bind Mary as God preexisting all from the Moses seat, I believe.

Until we see Mary as God always together with The Father and the Son in One Holy Family we can not see God with New "OMNiLogical Eyes," the God from the Faith of Abraham becoming again for all Creation in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.

Key Theological Connections

• The New Adam: In theology, Jesus is frequently called the "New Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45). While the first Adam brought mortality, Christ brings eternal life and a new creation.
• The Immaculate Conception: This doctrine highlights Mary's unique, grace-filled state from her own conception, preparing her to be the pure vessel for the birth of Jesus.
• Incorruption and Immortality: Early Church theologians often wrote about theosis or divinization—the idea that God became human so that humans might overcome corruption and be united with the divine nature.
• The Transfiguration: This event revealed the future, glorified state of humanity, showing the physical body transformed by divine light.

Rationally the Catholics missed Trinity Logic leaving Mary out of the Trinity because logically preexistence consists of Co-Redemption. Co-Creation is creating The Incorruptible Nature of Mary through the Immaculate Conception in the Flesh Nature and uniting with the Incorruptible Spirit Nature from Jesus through Mary and joining Genders becoming hypo-statically united in One Christ Body.

OMNiLogicalGod fulfills Catholicism faithfully through the logical formulas in The Wondrous Mysteries from the Catholic Faith and relies on strict re-definitions of nature and person-hood to maintain monotheism becoming again for all In One Family of God, OMNiLogically.

• One Divine Nature: The Trinity consists of three distinct Persons (Father, Son, and The Mother) who share exactly one divine Holy Spirit essence in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being and separately each God is equal in the Powers of One God in being and each God is separately Personal Gods in being from the Father through the Mother for the Son through the Daughter becoming through the Christ for all mankind becoming again for all Creation in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
• The Problem of Inclusion: Adding Mary to the Trinity introduces and unites immaculately immortal human nature life into the uncreated divine essence becoming united through the Christ for all mankind from incorruption through Immortality in One Christ Body. For Catholics, this verifies all as Gods Preexisting in One God in being a Family and is rationally and faithfully the core logic of monotheism becoming again united in two Natures in One God in being.
• Preexistence: In Catholic logic, God is the United Holy Spirit Family preexistent. Jesus, is God and Eternal Priestly Authority and becomes through Mary from the Immaculate Conception united in Word through the Christ (Logos), existing before time becoming to Earth in ) A. D> and the Beginning of Church Time on earth. Mary, predestined and preexisting in the Soul of The Mother of God gives proof of God in an uncreated Soul preexisting and God logically from Preexistence even before the Annunciation, even before creation was ever created was even created and rational and logical Proof Mary is God faithfully from the God from the Faith of Abraham.

Co-Redemption vs. Co-Creation

The Catholic Church names Mary's titles logically uniting mediation for Jesus through Mary becoming Lord from the Spirit Lord through the Flesh in One Christ Body.

• Co-Redemptrix: This title means Mary is equal to Jesus and God and The Father as God becoming united for Jesus Virgin Born through Mary becoming Lord in One Christ Body, through the Christ for all mankind. Mary is Co-Redemptrix God of Mercy for all becoming through the New Eve into the Catholic Church. Mary is cooperation in redemption by giving birthing immortality to the Savior and suffering at the cross. OMNiLogically, Co-Resurrection is from Mary through Death becoming Baptized Resurrection Life through the New Eve from God of Mercy for all through the Flesh.
• The Immaculate Conception: This OMNiLogics state that Mary was saved from original sin from the moment of The Annunciation becoming by Her Will to become the Will of the Father becoming the Immaculate Conception for all through the New Eve. Mary accepts becoming God from a Singular Grace from the Powers through the Holy Spirit Family One God being becoming from incorruption through immortality in Mary' s preexisting Soul Mother of God becoming God of the Flesh in the New Eve through the Flesh from the Spirit.

The Hypostatic Union and Gender

Stephen Andrew's model proposes a joining of genders to create the Christ Body. Standard Christology views this differently:

• The True Hypostatic Union: This is strictly the union of two natures—fully divine and fully human—in the single person of Jesus Christ.
• The Flesh Nature: Jesus received His entire human biology from Mary, meaning Jesus’ human flesh is derived from Mary’s.
• Spiritual Union: The Church describes Mary as the "Spouse of the Holy Spirit" due to the Incarnation, but this is a spiritual and mystical union, not a hypostatic one that merges them into a Holy Spirit Family One God in being.

Peace always,

Stephen Andrew

mystic Catholic

Deliverer of OMNiLogicalGod

Thesis: John 6 establishes Christ’s identity, while the institution of the Lord’s Supper proclaims that identity. These are distinct moments in redemptive history I will address, and should not be conflated as teaching the same doctrine. Once the framework of John 6 is properly understood, it provides the interpretive lens for Jesus’ words, “This is my body.”

Other gospel accounts reveal that Jesus taught the crowd in John 6 before feeding them—It wasn’t just a miracle in a vacuum—that is something Jesus never does. So the sign of feeding the multitude was to confirm a previous teaching—but the sign was misunderstood by the crowd. They mistook Jesus by carrying a malformed expectation that He was a politically-correct King that provided free food. He wouldn’t tolerate being heralded for the wrong reason, nor did He want the apostles witnessing that.

The next day follows and they were seeking Jesus. “Seeking” Jesus and “disciples” both sound nice—It was real pursuit, but for the wrong reason. John uses disciple in a broad sense here to describe those who followed Jesus as students, not necessarily as true believers. We have to drop this assumption.

Jesus immediately holds them accountable—for instead of putting a previous teaching into action, they prioritized the bread over the bread maker. We can likely deduce what that previous teaching was by examining what he held them accountable towards:

Hearing and learning …. Heard but not learned
Looking and Believing …. Seen but not believing
Drawn by the father …. They did not come to him

All 3 of these are the criteria for being “raised on the last day” according to the text. Jesus is holding them accountable for lacking what should have been a prior conviction, so the passage is organically corrective in nature, and the issue is the crowd’s predetermined unbelief, even before the flesh and blood portion of the discourse.

At the end, Peter and the apostles’ conviction “we have already come to know and believe” is based on a prior conviction—not from a new teaching/revelation. We cannot assume the apostles misunderstood Jesus’ words, especially if belief was the heart of the issue. The apostle’s stumbling block was not Jesus’ saying, but rather witnessing the entire fruit of their labor collapse as thousands leave. Nor can we assume clarity would have caused the crowd to stay—their questions were all directed towards themselves in a feedback loop, rather than simply asking Jesus. Ultimately, Jesus wasn’t going to provide what they came for. The crowd still left vindicated even with empty hands, by making Jesus appear as the bad teacher.

We must recognize that the discourse would have unfolded very differently had the crowd believed, for its progression was conditioned by their unbelief rather than delivered as a prepackaged sermon. The flesh-and-blood controversy did not create the crisis; it unveiled it. At the end, Christ said there are some of you who do not believe, not “do not understand.”

Next, notice the distinction between “the bread my Father gives” and “the bread I will give”. Two different persons. One is present-ongoing, while the latter is future-finite.

The “Bread of Life” functions as a comprehensive redemptive category, gathering together every prior expression of God’s life-giving provision into Christ himself. We see examples of this in the exodus, where Paul says in 1 Cor. 10 they all ate the same “spiritual food”.. and drank the same “spiritual Rock”.. and the rock “was Christ”.

Spiritually feasting on Christ was 100% accessible during the old covenant. It was veiled participation through shadows casted by the divine instructor. If the mode relied on physically consuming, that would make the entire old covenant thousands of years too late. The Bread of life isn’t something possessive, it’s abiding and relational, and has always applied to all of Israeli throughout history in different forms:

Exodus Manna
Passover
Showbread
Grain Offering
Elijah’s miraculous feeding
Feeding the 5,000 & 4,000
The Upper Room

This is a clear pattern.

In the upper room, Jesus didn’t create the pattern. He unveils it.

The covenantal ordinance of the Supper unmasks the reality which common bread has always pointed to—the Logos of Christ himself. The ordinance interprets the reality, instead of creating it.

Participation in the life of Christ didn’t begin with the Supper. It comes into spotlight at the supper.

This “is” my body is Christ speaking with a revelatory copula, instead of a metaphysical change. In essence:

Bread - sustenance
Body - incarnate self-offering
Wine - celebration
Blood - ratification
Cup - covenantal signature/identifier

“Take, eat—for the reality behind all of God’s covenantal provision now stands unveiled in my self-offering. And drink, all of you—for this is the celebration of new covenant identity, ratified in my blood.”

He revealed what was always and already there. Not in the bread itself, but in the act of participation. That is how the life of Christ was mediated throughout history. He was not redefining bread and wine but revealing their covenantal identity and bringing their redemptive/celebratory significance to its fulfillment in himself.

The bible makes it clear that god wants you to bring your sin to him, not somone else. The bible also shows us that Mary was no different than any other Jewish woman, other than being blessed to have Jesus. I’m pretty sure the bible says Jewish scholars taught and raised jesus, meaning Mary wasn’t the one to make him who he was and is. and lastly, why would anyone’s prayers, other than the Holy Spirit, mean more than our own? As a christian, you are one of these things to god. in the trinity, an angel, a son or daughter, someone who rejected the truth, or the devil and his angel. he knows you personall, but unless you’re an angel or in the trinity, he love each one of us the same.

I’ll start by a bunch of things regarding the Catholic faith. I believe and leaned toward Catholicism in many ways, most of it is my heart at the moment and some arguments that make Catholicism more biblical than us Protestants think like Matthew 16:18-19, Isaiah 22:22. Anyway: first the ecumenical counsels, too many anathemas for normal people, one of them is those who do not venerate the icons let them be anathema. Second issue is some of these councils sound like they contradict one another but they’re called infallible. Third issue is more personal: I’m a Kurd born in Sulaymaniyah Iraq, we have one Catholic Church, and it’s Chaldean, it’s mostly in Aramaic/Syriac, and Arabic, this I can easily adapt even tho I don’t speak Arabic too well. The thing is, I tried attending church, I just didn’t know how, it’s not easy to access it, once you know their rules it’s pretty easy, but at the first if you’re unfamiliar it’s not easy. They’re also kinda isolated as a community not too much but kinda, becoming a Catholic is not easy, and the sole reason I got to know Christ was due to getting to know amazing and wise minds who know apologetics and theology, almost all are Protestant, because Americans came as missionary and evangelized, so I always felt attracted to Christianity and its traditions, but it would not be easy to learn about Christ the right way without falling into heresy alone. Even if I reach a conclusion that Catholicism is the true church set up by Jesus himself, and id love to reach that conclusion but I won’t decide based on emotions and what my heart desires, I still wouldn’t know what to do, I could become Catholic but I feel like I could evangelize and bring more ppl to Christ through the Protestant church, but with experience I’ve seen how a real earthly authority is important cause we’ve had some churches that fell apart due to corruption, and the Protestant churches aren’t too close together tbh, greatest thing about it is everything is in Kurdish. If only we could establish an official Kurdish Catholic Church…

Have a question yet don't want to debate? Just looking for clarity? This is your opportunity to get clarity. Whether you're a Catholic who's curious, someone joining looking for a safe space to ask anything, or even a non-Catholic who's just wondering why Catholics do a particular thing

1 Samuel 15 is the chapter in which King Saul loses his remaining favor with God. I recommend reading the entire chapter if you wish, but this post will focus on the highlights. The chapter begins with God's order to kill men, women, and little boys and girls:

"1 Samuel said to Saul: “It was I the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel. Now, therefore, listen to the message of the LORD.

2 Thus says the LORD of hosts: I will punish what Amalek did to the Israelites when he barred their way as they came up from Egypt.

3 Go, now, attack Amalek, and put under the ban everything he has. Do not spare him; kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

4 Saul alerted the army, and at Telaim reviewed two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah."

Saul follows most of the command, but does not kill all the livestock and the King right away, for which God rejects Saul as King:

"

13 When Samuel came to him, Saul greeted him: “The LORD bless you! I have kept the command of the LORD.”

14 But Samuel asked, “What, then, is this bleating of sheep that comes to my ears, the lowing of oxen that I hear?”

15 Saul replied: “They were brought from Amalek. The people spared the best sheep and oxen to sacrifice to the LORD, your God; but the rest we destroyed, putting them under the ban.”

16 Samuel said to Saul: “Stop! Let me tell you what the LORDsaid to me last night.” “Speak!” he replied.

17 Samuel then said: “Though little in your own eyes, are you not chief of the tribes of Israel? The LORDanointed you king of Israel

18 and sent you on a mission, saying: Go and put the sinful Amalekites under a ban of destruction. Fight against them until you have exterminated them.

19 Why then have you disobeyed the LORD? You have pounced on the spoil, thus doing what was evil in the LORD’s sight.”

20 Saul explained to Samuel: “I did indeed obey the LORD and fulfill the mission on which the LORD sent me. I have brought back Agag, the king of Amalek, and, carrying out the ban, I have destroyed the Amalekites.

21 But from the spoil the army took sheep and oxen, the best of what had been banned, to sacrifice to the LORDyour God in Gilgal.”

22 But Samuel said:

“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices

as much as in obedience to the LORD’s command?

Obedience is better than sacrifice,

to listen, better than the fat of rams.

23For a sin of divination is rebellion,

and arrogance, the crime of idolatry.

Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,

the LORDin turn has rejected you as king.”"

2.

It is interesting how the main - maybe not the only, but the *main* reason God gives for this massacre is what the *ancestors* of these men, women, and children did after the Exodus hundreds of years earlier. Mass killing for the sake of blood guilt.

3.

Lastly, how is a God that commands the murder of children either just or loving? And if the answer is "God had no choice", how is that God perfect or all powerful?

EDIT:

Forgot to cite the source: (https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1samuel/15)

日本、島嶼三千余、山川峻険、故言語民族多様、三百余国家乱立、統一困難也。

Japan consists of more than three thousand islands, separated by rugged mountains and rivers. As a result, it once contained a great diversity of languages and ethnic groups, with more than three hundred states existing independently, making political unification extremely difficult.

今日之羅馬教国家、恰如昔日之日本也。其民族言語多様而、為海川山脈所隔之数十箇国存在。

Present-day Roman Catholic countries resemble Japan in its earlier age. They are home to diverse peoples and languages and are divided into dozens of countries separated by seas, rivers, and mountain ranges.

如日本帝国以天皇為君主、以帝国議会之創設統一日本人、若以教皇為君主、以教徒為有権者、則羅馬教徒合同国家成立亦可能。

Just as the Empire of Japan unified the Japanese people by recognizing the Emperor as its sovereign and establishing the Imperial Diet, it may likewise be possible to establish a united Roman Catholic state if the Pope were recognized as its sovereign and Roman Catholics were granted the status of its electorate.

Hello!

I consider myself neither protestant or Catholic. And I just want to gain some clarity on the Catholic position of soteriology.

I'm just curious how Catholics interpret the classic "sola fide" verses and passages that protestants use.

I was told that Catholics often times suggest that Eph. 2:8-9 and Rom 4 are really just saying that there is nothing you can do to be saved prior to Christs initial work in your heart but then afterwards you must more or less work with Him to "maintain" (not the best word, I know) your salvation.

So, I'm curious what you guys think. I suppose I don't quite understand how the above interpretation of Rom. 4, Eph.2, etc. etc. would fit with say Galatians 3:3 - "having been inaugurated by the Spirit are you now being perfected by the flesh?"

Thanks for any help you all can share. God bless.

Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as (Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.)

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for. Faith should give present certainty regarding future realities God has promised.

This is why people like Abraham and Noah had faith, as described in the same chapter. God, told Noah He would never flood the world again, and Noah had faith in that (the assurance that God's promise was true.)

And Abraham was promised many descendants, and He had the assurance that what God said would happen.

(These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar) Hebrews 11:13

In the same manner, God has promised that all those who believe on His Son shall not perish, but have eternal life.

(And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life.) 1 John 2:25

To believe in Jesus, you must believe that He will save you. "Thou shalt (future tense) be saved."

(And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.) Acts 16:31

This is what is means to have faith in Jesus, to believe on Him. That is to have "the assurance of things hoped for", since Jesus is Himself our hope.

I talk to many different protestants and catholics. Some protestants have this assurance of things hoped for. They usually point to

(I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.) 1 John 5:13

And they have faith in Jesus enough to know that they have eternal life through Him, trusting in Him and His sacrifice.

With catholics, I find no such assurance.

But faith is (the assurance of things hoped for) so this assurance in Jesus for salvation is required to receive heaven. We should be able to (have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus) and know that (we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.)

This is the assurance of things hoped for through Jesus. To trust that He will save you. For He said,

(And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”) John 6:39-40

My question is, since catholics hold to different interpretations of Scripture that require that they don't have the assurance of things hoped for (that would be to presume as they say) will they ever have such assurance?

On your deathbed, will you be able to finally have the assurance of Jesus? Will you be able to finally say "Jesus will save me, He is sufficient" and rest in that? Would you be saying such things looking to and relying on Jesus or your works? Will you ever rest in Him?

This Argument is a response to those who use the "free will" theodicy to "The Problem of Hell". The syllogism is as follows:

1. God is the supreme good and the ultimate source of every finite good.

2. Eternal hell is the permanent separation of a person from God and therefore from the supreme good.

3. A person who adequately understands that God is the supreme good, and who adequately understands what eternal separation from God entails, would recognize union with God as incomparably preferable to eternal separation from God.

4. If a person nevertheless chooses eternal separation from God, then either:

   a. the person does not adequately understand God’s nature or the consequences of separation from God, or

   b. the person’s rational or volitional capacities are seriously defective.

5. A choice resulting from inadequate knowledge or seriously defective rational or volitional capacities is not sufficiently free to ground complete moral responsibility for an eternal and irreversible consequence.

6. Therefore, no person can choose eternal separation from God with the kind of informed and unimpaired freedom required to justify eternal hell.

7. Consequently, eternal hell cannot be justified merely by claiming that its inhabitants freely choose separation from God.

From this, it is difficult to see how the free will defense succeeds. Any choice that results in eternal separation from God would seem to fall short of being fully free, because genuine freedom requires an adequate understanding of both what is being chosen and what is being rejected. If God is the supreme good and the source of all other goods, then choosing anything over God means preferring an objectively inferior good. Such a choice would therefore appear to arise from ignorance, confusion, or some defect in practical reasoning rather than from fully informed and rational freedom.

The SSPX crowd feels they are the supporters of the true tradition.

The non-SSPX crowd feels the SSPX crowd are fake Catholics.

How does this bode for attracting new converts if Catholics can't even agree amongst themselves?

Have a question yet don't want to debate? Just looking for clarity? This is your opportunity to get clarity. Whether you're a Catholic who's curious, someone joining looking for a safe space to ask anything, or even a non-Catholic who's just wondering why Catholics do a particular thing