First of all, I want to thank you for not belittling me. Based on what you think is constructive criticism, belittling might have people outside my door with pikes and torches.
Second of all... well... LOL, where do I start? You say a lot of really smart people are Catholics, and became Catholics? Okay, I agree with you. Of course, a lot of really smart people became Protestants, too, reading the same Bible, including the teachings of the same apostles. So without belittling you or anything, does that render that part of your logical, rational argument a, as you said, "facile analysis?"
I note that in the beginning of your response, you said that I had quoted a scriptural saying love of God and love of neighbor to essentially all what needs and hence this helps undermine the need for the Catholic Church.
Now that's not quite true, is it? Because what I actually did was call attention to the fact that that particular scripture was the one that Jesus Himself called "the greatest," and which Jesus Himself said "upon which, hangs all the law." And I noted that those are extraordinary terms, and that it seems that Jesus was being extremely direct and clear in using them. And so, it seemed to me that Jesus was saying, pointedly, that all of His teachings are not "equal," but that this is the greatest, and must be used to interpret all the others (for what other use is a scripture "from which hangs all the law"?).
So you see, that's quite a bit different from what you are saying I said. But then, when you go on to say that ...in His last days on earth, Christ issued what has come to be known as the “Great Commission” which was left out in your facile analysis. His disciples that included Peter and the rest of the apostles carried this mandate by writing letters to various groups expounding and explaining this teaching... I wonder, are you trying to invoke the word "great" in order to deny the superiority of what Christ called His "greatest" teaching? Are you comparing the "great commission" with the "greatest commandment'? And in doing so, are you being not only facile, but invoking verbal trickery?
The "great commission" is a term composed by students of the Bible, which merely means that the apostles were told by Jesus to go and spread His teachings. The "greatest commandment" is a term used by Jesus himself. So it seems that, if the apostles were to follow the "great commission," their purpose would have been, in literal fact, to spread Jesus' "greatest commandment."
These "little" differences count. And you use them a lot. For example, you say: We can all join hands and do a kumbaya because Jesus is no more than a “manifestation” of the infinite...Buddhism and Hinduism that pre-dated Christ are all paths that open up this “infinite” connection to God... To which I reply, how can you use the phrase "no more than a “manifestation” of the infinite"? Is a manifestiation of the infinite, which is God, so trivial to you that it can be dismissed for existing? Or do you believe that God never manifests, and so the very idea is absurd - in which case, what was Jesus, to you?
You go on to say We can all join hands and do a kumbaya because Jesus is no more than a “manifestation” of the infinite like the cosmos or the adherents of New Age philosophies. Buddhism and Hinduism that pre-dated Christ are all paths that open up this “infinite” connection to God. And again I reply, what part of "manifestation of God" do you think is trivial? On the one hand, you easily accept God's infinitude. On the other hand, if that same infinite God should manifest more than once, and if billions of people testify to that manifestation over thousands of years, you feel free to mock them because their manifestation is not your manifestation? No wonder you constantly want to reassure people you're not "belittling" them - it's easy to see why they might believe you are.
...this helps undermine the need for the Catholic Church... In short, we could all have done well without Christ, His apostles, and His Church. Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter (pun intended). It's not so much that you believe in the teachings of the Church - it's that you believe that the teachings of the Church are invalidated if they are not the only true teachings. But once again, I think you're forgetting infinitude here. Jesus was Christ incarnate, and Christ needs no body, because Christ is the infinite Grace of God. So what is so hard about accepting that that infinitude may have "manifested" more than once? What is so hard about seeing the commonality of the teachings across the world, that do not contradict Christ? What is so hard about accepting that Jesus, in calling is simplest and most straightforward commandment His "greatest," wasn't enabling that commonality?
And yet, how does that threaten the Church? What is wrong with seeing the Catholic Church as a specific and special teaching, a path for those chosen to receive it, created by Christ to provide the structure and depth and focus of teachings only for certain people, but not everyone? Did not Jesus tell His disciples that for others, He speaks in parables, but for them He speaks plainly? Didn't Jesus, by this, show that He has different levels of teaching for different groups of people? Did the disciples then go out and teach that anyone who relied on Jesus' parables was wrong? That Jesus' parables threatened the legitimacy of the direct teachings that He gave the apostles? Of course not. So how can you invoke the same faulty logic against the Church?
You also write Do not take this personally, but for you or anyone else to assert that: “The only value of His teachings - any and all of them - are to enable a person to reach God, who is also infinite” exposes the nonsense. Or to quote Chesterton, “he who believes in everything, believes in nothing.” Again, how can I take personally something that makes no sense? How is the personal experience of God, which comes only at the time and in the way God chooses, equivalent to "believing everything, and thus believing nothing." Is God's infinitude the same as "everything," and so per Chesterton (and apparently you), equivalent to "nothing"? I've heard of jesuitical logic, but reducing God's infinity to nothing precisely because it is infinite surely takes the cake.
Also, how does this compare to Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, who, while saying Mass, and after almost completing his massive Summa Theologica, had an experience of God's infinitude which was so overwhelming, he refused to finish his masterwork and called it as "nothing" compared to his experience of God. Is that story a fraud because no one can experience God? Does it mean that the infinitude of God is nothing? Did Aquinas render the Catholic Church invalid and void because of his experience? Of course not.
Nor does God have to give such overwhelming experiences to everyone. War is a perfect example, though life itself serves just fine. Many people have experienced God in war, through intense prayer that stress brings, that has changed their lives. many people have experienced God outside of war, because life itself can be ferocious. Do those experiences invalidate the Catholic Church? Of course not. But to hold the experience of God apart from human experience as an anomaly, let alone to mock the concept, is literally the opposite of the very reason people seek spiritual practices - including those practiced by the Catholic Church.
Finally you say, Now if this expostulation reduces your views to absurdity it is not to “belittle” you but to show why your “reasoning” on Christ makes no sense.
The difference between us is that I don't need to "reduce your views to absurdity." To me, your limitations on the ability and desire of God to reach out and personally receive every human being into Divine Love is what is absurd. And your belief that God's infinite variations and creativity somehow threaten the core teachings and value and divine dispensation of the Catholic Church is absurd. But you can rest assured, I do not feel that you have "reduced my views to absurdity." I don't mean to belittle you, but you don't have the ability to do that.
There is so much in your post that I will not attempt to write a treatise in rebuttal.
But a reply is warranted for what you have to say here when you take issue with my statement:
For example, in my rebuttal to you, you quote me saying: We can all join hands and do a kumbaya because Jesus is no more than a “manifestation” of the infinite...Buddhism and Hinduism that pre-dated Christ are all paths that open up this “infinite” connection to God...
To which YOU reply, how can you use the phrase “no more than a “manifestation” of the infinite”? Is a manifestiation of the infinite, which is God, so trivial to you that it can be dismissed for existing? Or do you believe that God never manifests, and so the very idea is absurd - in which case, what was Jesus, to you?
No Sir. You are trying to make out that Christ is one more manifestation of the infinite and I reject that line of thinking. This is New Age philosophy differently dressed up. if that were the case there would be little point in His dwelling among us as the incarnate word of God. He could have remained in Heavens and make all His creations, the sun, moon, and the starts be His “manifestation” of the infinite as you call it. That would be at trivialization of His passion, death, and resurrection.
Christ is not “another” manifestation of the infinite. Christ IS the infinite God himself. This is based on faith and reason. Several thousands of intellectuals, theologians, scientists, mathematicians, and astronomers who accept Him and His Church did not blindly accept His teachings. It was based on faith and reason. This was the center piece of Benedict’s famous address at the University of Regensburg, Germany that led to Muslim riots.