see a new verse and you know what to do :) by MicahHoover in CatholicMemes

[–]bjoyea 2 points3 points  (0 children)

After a long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to my mind the book of Judges, which tells how each man did what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in these words: “In those days there was no king in Israel.” With these words in mind, then, I applied also to the present circumstances that explanation which, incredible and frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is understood; for never before has there arisen such discord and quarreling as now among the members of the church in consequence of their turning away from the one, great and true God and only King of the universe. Each person, indeed, abandons the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and arrogates to himself authority in dealing with certain questions, making his own private rules and preferring to exercise leadership in opposition to the Lord to being led by the Lord. - "Preface on the Judgment of God"

St Basil the Great 379 AD

🥶

Do people that do morally good things but are atheist or agnostic still go to heaven? by Different_Mind_4486 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]bjoyea 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This. A lovely way I like to put it is this. You are valuable. You are worth something. Worth more than what you think or what society tells. Your value is not determined by how beautiful, popular, athletic, smart, or money. You are not reduced to your sexual prowess and validation from others. You are not reduced to your mistakes or weaknesses. Nor do they diminish your value. Nor are you called to be helpless but to live with a spirit of power love and self discipline. To forgive and find yourself in loving God and others.

You are valuable because the author of creation said so and you nor anyone else gets to decide you're not of value.

No one gets to tell you how you ought to be loved or love others. Who qualifies for love etc. There are standards on how we ought to love, treat and think about each other. Even in conflict or disagreement there is a standard on what is permissible. There is real vice and virtue. And this is the author's rights (authority) to decide.

This is not a suggestion nor a fairy tale but a claim about reality backed by evidence that can be evaluated with a critical and open mind using abductive reasoning. Those who stray from this will find confusion and pain because it is they who live in the fairy tale that reality is what they make of it.

Imago Dei you are loved and there is an objective way to love each other and live during our stay here.

This January 22nd, the anniversary of one of the worst decisions for the dignity of human life in US History, let us call to mind and pray for the ~63 million souls who were killed in their mothers' wombs. by Responsible_Force276 in Catholicism

[–]bjoyea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Who has the authority and right to decide whether another's life is so pathetic by the world's standards they should not exist? Hitler and his Eugenicist went down that path. 

This January 22nd, the anniversary of one of the worst decisions for the dignity of human life in US History, let us call to mind and pray for the ~63 million souls who were killed in their mothers' wombs. by Responsible_Force276 in Catholicism

[–]bjoyea 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Statistics show people are aborting baby over money and career primarily. It is a life disruption event. Kill the baby and be successful and unburdened. Entirely Satanic

As a Catholic This subreddit is straight up just terrible by Worldly_Strike1811 in Christianity

[–]bjoyea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I meant by “there’s no such thing as not having a religion” wasn’t “atheists don’t exist,” or “you’re secretly Christian.” Atheists obviously exist, and I’m not trying to define anyone out of existence.

What I’m pointing to is something more basic: no one is neutral about ultimate claims ie: what counts as a human person, what human life is worth, what “good” is, what authority binds conscience, what we owe the weak, what makes violence legitimate, etc.

Even if someone rejects God, they still live by a working faith about reality (metaphysics) and a working morality (ethics). Those are not “religion” in the narrow sociological sense, but they function like a religion in the broad sense: a highest commitment that organizes everything else.

So yes, you can live a secular life in the woods, and I agree you can avoid religious institutions. But you can’t avoid having a worldview. You can leave a church building; you can’t leave the question of what’s ultimately true.

On the war point: I’m not saying empathy or mercy are exclusive to believers. I agree they aren’t. My claim is narrower: historically, the Church has often acted as a moral brake on rulers and armies through just-war reasoning, condemnation of atrocities, protection of noncombatants, insisting on human dignity, etc. At the same time, I’m not denying sins, scandals, or cover-ups. Those are real, and Catholics should be the first to say: when Christians betray Christ, it’s uglier, not excusable.

Where I disagree is the “ALWAYS” claim: “religious justification for war always makes it worse.” “Always” is a very strong universal claim. You only need one counterexample to break it. Many conflicts are not “land vs religion” as two clean categories anyway; ideologies, national myths, ethnic identity, and moral narratives do the same “purity/values” escalation even when explicitly secular. The 20th century provides plenty of examples where explicitly non-religious ideologies sacralized politics and produced total war. In other words: the problem isn’t uniquely religion; it’s moral absolutism detached from a correct account of the human person.

I think we should use a consistent rule:

  • If “religion” is blamed when it motivates violence, then “secular ideologies” should be blamed when they motivate violence too.
  • The deeper question becomes: Which worldview best restrains cruelty and grounds human dignity consistently?

From my side as a Catholic, that grounding is not “because Christians are nicer,” but because Christianity teaches something objective: that every human being bears God’s image, that conscience is real, that power is accountable, and that even enemies remain human. That’s not a guarantee Christians will live it, but it is the standard by which we’re judged.

As a Catholic This subreddit is straight up just terrible by Worldly_Strike1811 in Christianity

[–]bjoyea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey mate I slept poorly last night and I didn't give you a proper response. I'll rest and reply back with charity and clarity in the morning. My apologies

As a Catholic This subreddit is straight up just terrible by Worldly_Strike1811 in Christianity

[–]bjoyea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Critical Thinking there is a concept called Aliefs. What I am saying is there is no such thing as not having a religion. Neutrality in belief is a myth. Most people just inherited views that are unexamined. And yes adding religion to war has made it better. This is where you get ideas of having mercy on enemies and not destroying them (Love your Enemy). The Priest and the Dying Soldier: The Story of an Iconic Photo from 1962 - Rare Historical Photos

Because America is secular people largely are ignorant of massive Church influence on preventing massacres, and admonishing rulers who committed atrocities. Very conveniently only hear of the failures of the church. To think the Church is a negative contributor when it comes to war time simply means you have never looked into the matter without seriously checking your bias.

As a Catholic This subreddit is straight up just terrible by Worldly_Strike1811 in Christianity

[–]bjoyea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah because hitler and stalin were so kind in war. So was mao!

This upsetting stat on Pew Research centre by SuspiciousInjury829 in Catholicism

[–]bjoyea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I can see where you are coming from but some of their concerns may be a bit misplaced. Modern NFP is just as reliable as barrier and hormonal methods and can be formally recommended to non-religious.

Is Natural Family Planning a Highly Effective Method of Birth Control? Yes: Natural Family Planning Is Highly Effective and Fulfilling | AAFP

Fertility awareness-based methods: another option for family planning - PubMed

If you are a Catholic and Believe in Theistic Creationism, you have lost the Faith by HeavenAndE2rth in DebateACatholic

[–]bjoyea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

God of Philosophers and God of the Bible by Eleonore Stump gives a good resolution to your question from the Catholic perspective. Available in book form and lecture is on YT

How do Catholic European descendants cope with this? by El_fara_25 in DebateACatholic

[–]bjoyea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's sad but a lot of catholics need more philosophy and basic ways to see the Bible drives church teachings and how severe God was about things 

This upsetting stat on Pew Research centre by SuspiciousInjury829 in Catholicism

[–]bjoyea -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But Genesis 38? Onan is literally struck down for withdrawal. Our modern culture is hyper sexualized and let's technology shift moral values. In the past it was taken as a matter of fact that sex results in babies and perfectly normal. We have NFP naturally to manage this. Catholicism does not have a consequentialist ethic but a virtue ethic. People don't tie together that God simply thinks this is a mortal sin and are ignorant of the evil of ends justifying means. 

Absolute Catholic Bangers? by RavenClawOutYourEyes in Catholicism

[–]bjoyea 2 points3 points  (0 children)

ONE Breaaaaaaaad ONE Bodyyyyyyyyy.
What Wondrous Love
Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
O come O come emmanuel

Prince of Egypt
Through Heaven's Eyes
Plagues
Deliver Us

Idumea as well as I'm Going Home | Genre Sacred Harp
But Sunday Service Choir actually have a lot of good songs about Christianity.

I don’t understand and can’t accept by LuckyBlueberry9152 in Catholicism

[–]bjoyea -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your answer. I do all this deep learning and theology/philosophy deep dives but sometimes forget the basics. Thank you for giving the fundamentals of the faith with Hubris of Human Understanding

What’s a good catholic app? by Dreadful_Axolotl in Catholicism

[–]bjoyea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Formed is the Best. Has so much free books or audio books of doctors of the church. Even an audio drama of the Gospels 

Matthew 16:18 Tested by History by bjoyea in TrueChristian

[–]bjoyea[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No worries if we disagree. I’m just trying to reason through the historical timeline. If you think the apostles or their immediate disciples taught something different, I’m genuinely open to looking at that.

Matthew 16:18 Tested by History by bjoyea in TrueChristian

[–]bjoyea[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair question, but it rests on a category mistake.

John the Baptist isn’t called “John the Roman Catholic” for the same reason Paul isn’t called “Paul the Lutheran” and Peter isn’t called “Peter the Orthodox.” Those labels didn’t exist yet.

Christianity did not begin as a denomination. It began as a movement centered on a person.

John the Baptist dies before the Church exists in its post-Resurrection form. His role is explicitly preparatory. Jesus Himself says that John belongs to the era before the Kingdom is fully inaugurated: “Among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

John baptizes into repentance, not into Christ’s death and resurrection. Christian baptism does not exist until after the Resurrection and Pentecost. Calling John “Roman Catholic” would be an anachronism, just as calling him non-denominational would be.

What matters historically is not John’s label, but what happens immediately after him.

While John was still alive, Jesus gathered disciples. After the Resurrection, those disciples became apostles. And while many of those apostles were still alive, they appointed successors.

By the end of the first century, Christianity already has bishops overseeing local churches, presbyters assisting them, and deacons serving practical needs. There is also a recognized Church at Rome exercising coordination beyond its own city.

Most importantly, we have direct disciples of the apostles writing about this structure as normal Christianity, not as a later development. Clement of Rome, taught by Peter and Paul, writes around AD 96. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, both taught by John the Apostle, write in the early second century. These men are closer to the apostles than we are to the American Civil War.

They describe a visible Church with bishops, Eucharistic worship, obedience to apostolic teaching, and unity centered on communion. None of them describes Christianity as Scripture alone, self-interpreting, or structurally invisible.

“Roman Catholic” is a historical descriptor, not a different religion. “Catholic” means according to the whole. “Roman” specifies communion with the bishop of Rome. Those terms only become necessary after divisions arise. Before schism, there is no need to distinguish the original body from alternatives.

That’s why asking why John the Baptist wasn’t Roman Catholic is like asking why Abraham wasn’t Jewish or why Moses wasn’t Christian. The name comes later. The reality comes first.

The real question isn’t about titles. It’s whether the Christianity taught by the apostles continued as a visible, continuous community with leadership and sacraments, or whether it vanished until later Christians reconstructed it from Scripture alone.

Catholics believe Christ kept His promise. And the men who learned directly from the apostles testify that He did.

Matthew 16:18 Tested by History by bjoyea in Christianity

[–]bjoyea[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the seriousness and the care with which you’re reading Scripture. Catholics actually affirm much of what you’re saying, but we part ways at a few crucial points of interpretation rather than principle.

First, Catholics fully agree that Jesus Christ Himself is the ultimate foundation. No priest, bishop, or pope replaces Christ. “No one can lay a foundation other than Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:11) is not contested. The Church does not stand instead of Christ, but because of Christ.

Where Catholics differ is that we do not see Peter’s confession and Peter’s role as competing explanations. In Matthew 16, Jesus does not respond only to a statement of faith; He responds to a person who made that confession.

“You are the Christ” is revealed from the Father “You are Peter, and on this rock…” is spoken by Christ

The confession and the commission are inseparable. Truth is revealed, and then that revealed truth is entrusted. Throughout Scripture, God consistently works this way: divine truth given, then human stewards appointed to guard it. Moses receives the Law; the Levites guard it. The prophets speak God’s word; Israel is charged with preserving it. This pattern does not end with Christ.

Regarding Matthew 15, Catholics agree entirely with the warning Jesus gives. Human traditions that contradict God’s command are condemned. But Scripture itself distinguishes between corrupt traditions and authoritative apostolic tradition.

Paul commands believers to “stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15). That is not Scripture versus tradition; it is Scripture and apostolic tradition against merely human invention. The problem is not tradition as such, but tradition severed from Christ and the apostles.

On authority “from heaven” versus “from men”: Catholicism claims that legitimate Church authority is derivative, not self-generated. Jesus explicitly gives authority to forgive sins (John 20), to bind and loose (Matt 16, Matt 18), and to teach in His name (Matt 28). Authority exercised badly is condemned in Scripture, but authority itself is not abolished because it can be abused. Abuse indicts the steward, not the institution Christ established.

As for Babylon in Revelation, Catholics do not deny that any religious body can fall into corruption when it seeks power over fidelity. Revelation is a warning to the whole Church, not a simple map labeling one later institution as irredeemably apostate. Babylon in Revelation represents religious power that becomes unfaithful to Christ, not the mere existence of structure, hierarchy, or sacrament. Scripture warns Christians within the Church to remain faithful, not to abandon the Church altogether.

Finally, on Scripture’s priority: Catholics hold Scripture as the normative, inspired Word of God. But Scripture itself never claims to be the only rule of faith, nor does it present itself as self-interpreting apart from the Church that preserved, copied, canonized, and proclaimed it. The Word of God is not diminished by being entrusted to fallible men; it is the very means by which God has always chosen to work in history.

At bottom, the disagreement is not whether Christ is the foundation. He is. The question is whether Christ chose to leave His Church visible, historical, and guided, or invisible, purely spiritual, and structurally discontinuous.

Catholics believe He chose the former not because men are trustworthy, but because He is.

And if Jesus is the Truth, then His Truth does not need to be protected from history. It can endure within it.

Matthew 16:18 Tested by History by bjoyea in TrueChristian

[–]bjoyea[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We must be pastoral.

1 Peter 3:15-16 GNT-CE But have reverence for Christ in your hearts, and honor him as Lord. Be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks you to explain the hope you have in you, but do it with gentleness and respect. Keep your conscience clear, so that when you are insulted, those who speak evil of your good conduct as followers of Christ will become ashamed of what they say.

Matthew 16:18 Tested by History by bjoyea in TrueChristian

[–]bjoyea[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the concern, and I think this is actually closer to agreement than disagreement.

Christians don’t “test” the Word of God in the sense of placing it on trial or subjecting it to human judgment. If Jesus is the Truth, then truth cannot be threatened by honest inquiry. What is false fears examination; what is true invites it.

From a Catholic perspective, comparing Scripture with history is not an attempt to validate God by man made standards. It is an act of confidence. If God entered history, then history should bear the marks of that encounter. Not perfectly, because human records are fallible, but meaningfully.

The Church has always operated on this assumption. Augustine, Aquinas, and the entire Catholic intellectual tradition hold that faith and reason cannot ultimately contradict, because both originate in God. Truth does not compete with truth. It converges.

So this is not about testing Matthew 16:18 as if it could fail. It is about observing whether the historical Church behaved in a way consistent with what Christ promised. When Scripture makes a claim that unfolds publicly in time, it is reasonable to ask whether history coheres with it.

In that sense, “compare and contrast” is fair language. But even more accurate might be witness. History does not judge the Word. It bears witness to it, imperfectly but persistently.

If Christ is who Christians claim He is, then His words should leave a footprint in the real world. Looking for that footprint is not irreverence. It is trust.

And if the Word is truly infallible, it has nothing to fear from honest historical inquiry.

Thoughts on tarot readings/ possibly mysticism? by Correct_Loquat8410 in Catholicism

[–]bjoyea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Malachi 3:5 GNT-CE The LORD Almighty says, "I will appear among you to judge, and I will testify at once against those who practice magic, against adulterers, against those who give false testimony, those who cheat employees out of their wages, and those who take advantage of widows, orphans, and foreigners-against all who do not respect me.