Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting

Blueskye2

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    447

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Blueskye2

  1. Blueskye2
    Having a few cams myself, they don’t work the same as eyes. They may pick up refracted and/or reflected light as lens flare. So if you have a car or other object pass, that is reflecting light towards the camera lens, the lens flare (orbs of light) may appear to be traveling, and the disappearing into something solid is an illusion. Point a camera outside to see what is passing at the same time your orbs are “traveling”.
  2. Blueskye2
    Thanks, but it is generally a forum where LDS post about what is wrong with Christianity. This is an LDS forum, where people of other faiths are welcome as long as the don’t discuss their faith. I can find that kind of interaction with my atheist friends and family. Where we discuss all of the other commonalities we have. I’m kind of dense sometimes, it’s true. It took me longer than it should have to figure this out.
  3. Blueskye2
    I don’t really care about CAF. I tried conversing there but it’s too much, I’m right and you’re wrong, from everyone.People there suggested I go to a Traditional Catholic forum! Gosh, those folks are all about division. I’m not interested. As I said, the people who I love the most in this world are atheist. I enjoy discussions of faith with all people of faith, not just Catholic or Mormons or whatever. I’m sorry to say I find here to be the same as CAF...no one looking for the commonality that is found among people of faith. Which is fine, it’s not my discussion forum. I don’t go on about Catholic stuff in an effort to convert anyone here. Was just hoping for more of a recognition that my faith is as important to me as it is to anyone here, as the commonality we share. People of faith. It’s Advent, and I know people here would just think I was trying to convert someone, by posting anything related to Advent. Which I would do out of sharing faith, a commonality I thought might be here, but is not. I can have discussions about what separates us, anywhere, and everywhere. My frustration with the world in general is not the fault of anyone here, but came out in my last post. Not wanting that to be my last post, I leave you all in peace and wish you all a blessed Advent, as we prepare for the coming of our Lord.
  4. Blueskye2
    Ok then I get it. This is an LDS only board (that borders on a recovery from Catholicism board). Don’t have to tell me twice. I’m out.
  5. Blueskye2
    Well, if we’re going to go all condescending. One is a real school and the other are like children who play school! Or we can go back to accepting that the summit of faith for each have equal importance for each, respectively, and respectfully.
  6. Blueskye2
    I’m smiling here, because as I’ve already said, I do believe the literal words. I said we’re both not sola scriptura, but no one is. EVERYONE interprets the Bible.Mine is not a self interpretation. The Bible itself teaches against self interpretation.
  7. Blueskye2
    Pretty good! Just to clarify, we don’t view Bishops as being a defacto kind of succession because the Apostles didn’t plan, but done with purpose and planning. The idea that the Apostles wouldn’t plan is a “whoa and say what?” kind of thing for us. The East calls Peter “the first among equals”. The Western Church’s view of Peter shouldn’t be exaggerated (and some Catholics exaggerate it). All of our Bishops are equal in authority in regards to their jurisdictions. As an example, I have an obligation to follow the directions of my Bishop, first, before that of the Pope. My Bishop is in communion with all the Bishops, including the Bishop of Rome. They act as one body. The primacy of the seat of Peter is not a unitary function. He acts in communion with all the Bishops, and in this way he does in fact act as first among equals. Where the East differs is that we view disputes will be settled first locally, then regionally, then in the Curia, then by the Pope. The Great Schism occurred when the Patriarch of Alexandria did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as having the final say in a dispute. The only other difference is that the Bishop of Rome appoints other Bishops. Again this shouldn’t be exaggerated. He takes recommendations and council from other Bishops. And then there are the Eastern Churches who are in communion with Rome. They select their own Bishops (they call their Bishops, Patriarchs), and present their decision to the Pope for approval. He has never not approved one of the East’s selections.
  8. Blueskye2
    I see the literal interpretation as indicating Jesus not indicating one way or the other. In the context of the whole NT, there is nothing that indicates John is still to this day, walking around. Where and doing what? In light of Jesus’ commandment and prophecy, any of the Twelve still living should be spending their time teaching the Good News of Jesus Christ. What an amazing thing that would be, indeed. But the idea that the Beloved Disciple of Jesus, just has been hanging out incognito for 2000 years, has no evidence or justification. You can only come to this conclusion by citing extra-Biblical sources, that I don’t accept. The examples cited of Elijah or Mary, were assumed into heaven. They aren’t wandering around the earth somewhere. i don’t want to seem overly critical. I understand why you believe what you believe, and have respect for your beliefs.
  9. Blueskye2
    Yes, same thing.
  10. Blueskye2
    Hi This is a sola scripture argument. Catholics, and LDS, are not sola scriptura.
  11. Blueskye2
    Catholic doctrine is that Mary was assumed into heaven. Whether or not she died first is debatable. Apostolic succession isn’t limited to Peter. It is emphasized by the Latin Church because of Peter’s primacy. However, the Twelve appointed successors throughout the world. These ancient Sees are recognized by the Latin Church as having a valid Apostolic succession. An example is the Patriarch of Alexandria, who is the successor to Mark.
  12. Blueskye2
    The dating of NT writings matter. During the Apostolic period of the Early Church, there was a widespread belief that Jesus would return in their lifetimes. As time went on and some of the Apostles died, the belief changed, and thus the writings change, to anticipating Jesus in some future, unknow, time. So we can have verses like you cite from the Gospel according to John, where the two beliefs intercept. It’s clear to me that verse clarifies that Jesus is saying, more or less, “I do what I want and who are you to question me?”. Peter, well, I love the stories with Peter in them, he is a man with a personality, and here we have him comfortable enough with our Lord to question Him. They knew Jesus has power over death, and John is mentioned more than once as being favored by Jesus, so Peter, thinking like a man, and not like God, asks if a special favor is going to be shown to John, who is sort of like the golden child of a family. Jesus plainly says, what’s it to you? Beyond that, the Christian life and world went on after the NT writings and historical writings have John dying at a very old age, at Patmos, Greece, while under what we might call house arrest. The only Apostle who was not martyred, and so we see a special treatment by God, in the manner of his death. Old and peaceful, rather than young and violent. The last verse you cite from Luke, is understood by Catholics as establishing the Kingdom of God on earth, which Jesus did. Some, if not many, did live to see that day, and we are living in that day now. To make th Catholic understanding more clear, in comparison to LDS teaching, what the LDS call the millennium we call “now”. A thousand years is not a literal amount of time, but used figuratively through the Bible to represent a long period of time. We are in that time now. Hope that helps.
  13. Blueskye2
    LDS use the Book of Mormon, which cites this passage and “clarifies” for them that St. John the Evangelist, did not die.
  14. Blueskye2
    Yes that is the passage I alluded to. The opposite is obvious to me.
  15. Blueskye2
    I don’t know of any other religion that teaches the Apostle John is still alive. What Bible are you reading? Tongue in cheek there. I know the passage, just Mormons interpret it differently than everyone else.
  16. Blueskye2
    Convert to Catholicism here. I self studied Catholicism for about nine months on my own and continued self study along with RCIA for another nine months. I started RCIA, with no intention of converting. Just trying to figure out a few things that were well explained and I totally got it, by going to RCIA. I thoroughly understood Catholic/Christian doctrine by the time I was baptized, and would not have been baptized if I did not. .Self study of Catholicism, for someone with an LDS background is extremely difficult. Mainly because religious words and phrases have completely different meanings, when comparing the two religion’s explanations, side by side. I found, every single religious related word, I had to look up the Catholic/Christian meaning, understanding and teaching. Likewise for a Catholic or any person with a Christian background, studying Mormonism, learning the definition changes are going to be huge. This thread is a prime example, where the word “God” does not have the same meaning for the two religions.
  17. Blueskye2
    “They’ve brought a flag, isn’t that dash cunning of them.”
  18. Blueskye2
    St. Patrick is said to have used a three leaf clover as an analogy. The problem with all analogies about the Trinity, is that they all fail in some way. A three leaf clover is a pretty good one though.
  19. Blueskye2
    I never said that this comparison was illogical.
  20. Blueskye2
    Not illogical, at all.
  21. Blueskye2
    That is not what Fatima compared, which is where this whole comparison tangent started. Fatima said: Anatess said: And I said: Our churches are temples, a place where God dwells, body, blood, soul and divinity. Each church has a tabernacle, where any consecrated Eucharist is found. The Book of Revelations is full of Eucharist/temple/heaven symbolism, that we recognize. Temple theology abounds in Catholicism, with an understanding that is much different than LDS, but neverless, no less in comparison.
  22. Blueskye2
    Right, that is the part where I just said my fingers aren’t typing what is in my head...I have edited my post.
  23. Blueskye2
    “The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another” ...is the support for my point. The Trinity is sometimes better explained in the negative, as in, what God is not. Ie, God is not three Gods, but one, etc. Anyway, I should stop typing because my fingers didn’t type what my head was thinking. To clarify, Trinitarians believe God is three distinct persons who share one divine substance. One being, not three beings. This has been a great thread really, as so often LDS threads on the Trinity devolve into Trinity bashing. This one is truly refreshing. But since this is the LDS discussion forum and I get scolded for discussing non-LDS subjects in this forum, I’ll see y’all on some other thread.
  24. Blueskye2
    But it’s a “clarification” that makes a Trinitarian cringe. ?? Because it implies God is divided into three parts that are united. Trinitarian doctrine is that God is not divided into three parts that are united by a substance. God is one substance, or nature, not united by substance or nature.
  25. Blueskye2