Posted on 05/29/2019 12:37:41 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
May 27, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Speaking with one of the best-known conservative Jews, Dennis Prager, at the PragerU summit last week, world-famous psychologist Jordan Peterson spoke of God and his views of faith. After speaking about his dislike for the question ‘Do you believe in God?’ Peterson said, “I think that Catholicism — that's as sane as people can get.”
Peterson has often been asked about his faith, if he believes in God, and he said the question has always troubled him. He promised a podcast on the matter since he has given his dislike for the question much thought.
He explained, “Who would have the audacity to claim that they believed in God if they examined the way they lived? Who would dare say that?”
“To believe, in a Christian sense,” he added, “means that you live it out fully and that's an that's an unbearable task in some sense.”
Then in one long drawn-out, rapid-fire thought, the type that has enthralled his millions of fans, he laid out extemporaneously the vision of a believer in God:
“To be able to accept the structure of existence, the suffering that goes along with it and the disappointment and the betrayal, and to nonetheless act properly; to aim at the good with all your heart; to dispense with the malevolence and your desire for destruction and revenge and all of that; and to face things courageously and to tell the truth to speak the truth and to act it out, that's what it means to believe -- that's what it means -- it doesn't mean to state it, it means to act it out. And, unless you act it out you should be very careful about claiming it. And so, I've never been comfortable saying anything other than I try to act as if God exists because God only knows what you'd be if you truly believed.”
See the full exchange of Peterson and Prager here.
I believe you’ve got it! Jesu was separating sheep and goats that day. seems we still have lots of goats.
.
We have the following from Hebrews which directly contradicts what Roman Catholicism teaches about this.
24For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
25nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
********
Compare v25 to what is happening in Roman Catholicism where He is sacrificed daily...depending on the situation it is many times a day.
********
26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
********
In Roman Catholicism He suffers daily which contradicts v26.
********
27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
*******
Roman Catholicism, in contradiction of v28, teaches He is offered again and again and again and again.
Hebrews 9:24-28
*******************************************************
This theme continues in Hebrews 10 where we have the following:
9then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.
10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.
14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
15And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,
16“THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,” He then says,
17“AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE.”
18Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Hebrews 10:9-18
The Roman Catholic "Mass" is a false dogma as it is in direct contradiction of Scripture. There are no two ways about it. Rome teaches Jesus is sacrificed over and over and over and over again. The offering was made ONE TIME on Calvary. IT. IS. NOT. REPEATED. OVER. AND. OVER. AGAIN.
It is a complete contradiction of Scripture.
Continuing a pattern I've observed over these years regarding Roman Catholicism's constant need to re-define words to fit their theology.
The context of the book I posted clearly point to one thing....the "victim" is killed as the sacrifice.
It's no wonder Roman Catholicism continually has Jesus represented on the cross.
The New Testament teaches He is no longer on the cross, but is at the right hand of the Father.
Catholicism is a story, not a biblical theology.
You can’t fit syncretic paganism into the Scriptures. You must add “tradition” to justify it.
As such, arguing Scripture seems to have the same result as preaching to traffic... especially to the apologists.
They revert to the story, which justifies their religion.
Oh, they will quote some scriptures that have a similar word.
In the end, they’ve been inoculated against truth.
So; you are saved.
Right??
Sadly, you are correct.
When man-made dogmas are considered equal to or superior to Scripture then all bets are off.
We'll keep preaching to the traffic though.
I know you know a lot of people read these threads without commenting.
I post for them so they can have a clear understanding of what Scripture teaches on these issues. It is my hope though, that some of our RC friends will see the Light and come to a saving faith in Christ, and only Christ.
Depends on the score!
That was said with sorrow.
I feel sad for you.
For all your Bible quotes, you utterly miss the point.
(2) Every group of serious thinkers develops its own lexicon. Will Merriam-Webster tell you everything you can get from Strongs? No, because M/W or OED does not specialize in what James Strong specialized in.
3) Your pattern of discourse is what discerning FReepers describe as the Claude Paradigm:
The Claude ParadigmIn other words, you resist what we say we actually hold to be true according to our own doctrines, and incited insist on inserting your own meanings and criticizing that. It's an automatic reflex to create a straw man which you insist on labeling "the RC Church", bearing only a LOL-worthy caricature resemblance to Catholicism.“You Catholics are wrong because you believe X.”
“We don’t believe X.”
“Wrong again. Yes you do.”
(4) The "your crucifix still has Christ on it, therefore you think He's still on the cross" argument is a case in point. You could disprove that from any of THOUSANDS of Catholic sources, beginning with the Nicene Creed:
"He ascended into heaven
at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and of His kingdom there will be no end."
This has been Catholic doctrine since he writing of the Gospels, and explicit dogma reaffirmed and defined since Nicaea (ca 325 AD) AND is recited by the whole congregaiton at every Sunday Mass for 1,694 years, but you wouldn't know that because you rely on some chick-worthy anti-Catholic crap you read on the Internet, or the hard-cover overpriced equivalent.
And you'll do it again,the next time you get an opportunity. You're quite a busy fellow.
Perhaps because Rome's doctrines and words continually have changed over the years.
That is one constant I've observed in my study of Roman Catholicism.
It's an automatic reflex to create a straw man which you insist on labeling "the RC Church", bearing only a LOL-worthy caricature resemblance to Catholicism.
Is it not the Roman Catholic church you're a member of?
It's not the Eastern Orthodox is it?
(4) The "your crucifix still has Christ on it, therefore you think He's still on the cross" argument is a case in point. You could disprove that from any of THOUSANDS of Catholic sources, beginning with the Nicene Creed:
As I have observed, it's not what the Roman Catholic writes, it's what the Roman Catholic does.
You can't deny Roman Catholic crosses have Christ still on the cross.
If, as you claim, you believe He's not on it....take Him off the cross in your churches.
Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.
This has been Catholic doctrine since he writing of the Gospels, and explicit dogma reaffirmed and defined since Nicaea (ca 325 AD) AND is recited by the whole congregaiton at every Sunday Mass for 1,694 years, but you wouldn't know that because you rely on some chick-worthy anti-Catholic crap you read on the Internet, or the hard-cover overpriced equivalent.
I post from Roman Catholic approved sources. Those are "chick-worthy anti-Catholic crap"????
It's been my experience when the argument is lost the poster will resort to this kind of a reply.
I compare Rome's writings with Scripture and find significant contradictions as previously noted.
You're not able to refute what I post so you launch into this kind of a reply.
Yes it would.
The Book of James, like all NT books, is first and foremost about one having faith in Christ.
If we can be saved by our works or our behavior, we would not need Jesus and the propitiation we have in His blood.
"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." - James 2:17
James is telling us that faith in Christ should result in different behavior. He's not telling us to place our faith in works.
Jesus saith unto him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
We are changed by putting out faith in Christ - not by behavior modification.
Not content to walk the broad road, you are working hard to gather a crowd to go along to the detination of the borad/wide road. Look! Up ahead! the wide gate is opening ...
Your carnal mind is unable to see the duplicity in your claims and the reality of your actions. And you want your version to stand so you can in some where/when thump your chest and smile at your works which you believe merit eternal life. Did you know there is a thing called ‘eternal death’ in which consciousness remains but is eternally separated from God and constantly in the presence of evil?
Don't take the mark when it is commanded to you ...
This doesn't mean anybody's throwing fakes and deceptions at you. It means you have to be careful to put language in its historic and linguistic context, both literal and analogical.
This is true in a big way with the Biblical words we use. You've got "flesh" portrayed as something degrading ("shun the flesh") and something loved and chosen by God, who comes to us in the Flesh. ("And the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt amongst us.")
You've got the "world" meaning a realm utterly antagonistic to God, and also the "world" as being something very good (after He created it, "He saw that it was very good") and something He loves ("for God so loved the world...")
You've got "yeast" signifying corruption (the insidious "yeast of the Pharisees") and something signifying the Kingdom of God (the woman who kneads yeast into three batches of dough, and the goodness of it "leaveneth the whole lump.")
One of the reasons the Catholic Church heretofore has liked to write its official statements in Latin, is because Latin, not now being a vernacular language as it once was, undergoes minimal semantic shift: so one can hope for a greater stability of meaning.
My advice to you is: wisely refrain from making pronouncements on Catholic doctrine, about which you fall into misinterpretation via a kind of "hermeneutic of suspicion" and whose contexts you so have heretofore regularly ignored.
Instead --- a word to the wise --- ASK. Ask what is the definition of "this word," what is the definition of "that doctrine."
++Or go on giving your best guess, or referencing non-Catholic sources, and you will continue to require correction. Sometimes I have time to do that, and sometimes I don't.
As for Christ on the Catholic Crucifix: it is Christ who makes the crucifix significant. There is always a crucifix on a Catholic altar for Mass, to remind us that this is the sacrifice of Christ, our High Priest, done once and for all on the hill of Calvary, almost 2,000 years ago.
There do exist empty crosses in Catholic church art. The big cross done mosaic-style in stonework behind the altar in my own parish shows Christ resurrected, with His arms upraised, standing (or seemingly floating) in front of a big cross.
There's nothing bizarre about that. It's a different image, but we haven't correspondingly changed our doctrine. It's simply the artist's conception, neither more nor less.
Your generalizations are, in the main, baseless and tendentious. I'm telling you this as a friend. Do not embarrass yourself by making unfounded generalizations about Catholic crosses. You might want to keep actual examples of Catholic crosses firmly in mind:
 |
 |
 |
|
`
|
||
 |
 Glad to send lots more, if you like. I'm a dab hand at liturgical art, but I can't seem to get this to display more than 4 at the same time. I'm not so good with electronic devices. |
“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” - James 2:17
..............................................
You folks always manage (intentionally) to ignore the main point which is, and always has been, that it’s NOT an “either/or” proposition, it’s a “both” proposition. But have it your way: If it makes you feel saved, more power to you!
It’s all over the place...But you have to read the bible to find it...
............................................
Yeah, well since it’s all over the place, give us a few verses where you’ve managed to find it.
We are changed by putting out faith in Christ - not by behavior modification.
...........................................
So there’s a distinct difference between “changed” and “behavior modification”? Who knew?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.