Is hell enough as punishment?

[_SteelHead]

Did not address the question of why your tradition is more literal, in the instances when it is literal, than non abrahamic faith traditions?

[_madeleine]

Did not address the question of why your tradition is more literal, in the instances when it is literal, than non abrahamic faith traditions?

I don't understand what you are asking!

[_SteelHead]

What evidence is there that the scripture of Christianity is any more real or literal than zoroastrianism?

[_madeleine]

What evidence is there that the scripture of Christianity is any more real or literal than zoroastrianism?

The Cross is the evidence that I have accepted.

Other than that, Catholics don't hold to a "I know this church is true" kind of testimony. It is our belief that God meets people where they are, and truth can be found in all religious beliefs. The fullness of truth is in Jesus Christ, He being Truth itself. That is where my faith is centered.

[_Themis]

At any rate, there is a literal truth in the symbolism. God saved a people, literally. Telling the story does not have the point of statistics and numbers, but conveys God's literal action and the people's literal response. Loyalty to God or infidelity (sin).

How do you determine what is literally true? I still haven't had anyone answer this.

[_Themis]

What evidence is there that the scripture of Christianity is any more real or literal than zoroastrianism?

The Cross is the evidence that I have accepted.

How is the cross evidence of this?

[_madeleine]

Perhaps it would help to explain the Catholic view of scripture. Which is going to be all religous-y, and. Don't want to be construed as preaching or proselytizing, so fair warning. Stop reading now if religious explanations send yo to the moon, so to speak (as they did for me when I was an atheist).

Catholics believe the Bible to be the Word of God. We believe Jesus is the Word of God. I have found it difficult to get the depth of meaning in that point across to Mormons or people with Mormon backgrounds, but, that is what we believe.

As I said, we re not sola scriptura, but believe in the two veins of Revelation, that compliment each other and work together. Scripture and Tradition. Tradition not being something like turkey at Thanksgiving, but the what is revealed by the Word of God, held on trust by His Church. Which gets into what Catholics mean by Church, which is more than a group of like minded believers!

So, Tradition existed before Scripture. For both the Old Testament and New Testament. for the New Testament, Tradiotin was held by the believers, passed on and protected by those who we call Bishops today.

Eventually, there arose from Tradition a body of written works, which were passed around among the Bishops and used to support what they were teaching. We call this Apostolic teaching. Eventually, these writings were canonized as Scripture, but they have not exited from Tradition. At least for Catholics and Orthodox.

I am a Christian because of Christ. As I said, I accept the evidence of th Cross, and as St. Paul said, if Jesus is not resurrect our faith is foolish. So, your point (or what I think your point is) was made already some 2000 years ago.

Anyway, Tradition contains the evidence for the veracity of Scripture. Most certainly, I would not have been able to discern a Christian discipleship were it not for the two together, Scripture and Tradition. Speaking for myself, Bible alone is a diffult path to comprehend.

As for other scriptures, I have read parts of the Vitas, and at one point in my life considered Hinduism or Buddhism, or some kind of American new age derivative. Spent some time studying the occult, new agey, tarot, crystals and the like. What those didn't hold for me was evidence of something real, but felt very self generated. Even the Vitas themselves teach the divine is within. I found the evidence for that to be lacking.

My Christianity experiment I went looking for something outside of myself, and discovered Someone.

Good Lord, sorry for all the bad spelling. I'm on the iPad which "helps" me.

[_madeleine]

The Cross is the evidence that I have accepted.

How is the cross evidence of this?

See my post above. If that doesn't help explain, the Cross is a literal, living, Person. Not an imaginary God of the human mind.

[_Themis]

See my post above. If that doesn't help explain, the Cross is a literal, living, Person. Not an imaginary God of the human mind.

I did, but I don't see how it establishes a way to know literal beliefs are true. You also use the evidence without saying what the evidence is. The evidence of the cross does not really relay any information.

LDS have a methodology they think is the way to learn literal truths, but I think you agree that it doesn't really work.

[_ludwigm]

... something Nightlion ramble-y style ...

Not sure if you're addressing my post or not. Rather Nightlion ramble-y...

Of course, I addressed Your post.
You have the right to misunderstand me...
As Bret Ripley in a certain thread wrote about me (deservedly...):

Does it matter that I don't understand three-fifths of what he writes? No! Does it matter that the images he posts bring color to the cheeks of the very innocent? No! Does it matter that I don't get his jokes? Maybe a little!

OK, step by step... literal vs figurative vs symbolic

Exodus 23:19 - "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk"
What does this mean?

Does it mean the same it says? Is this literal?
Is this a simple command: if you butcher a goat and kid, you shouldn't cook them in a special way - even no alternative presented (how to cook the two body to be kosher?)

Does it mean "don't marry a mother and her daughter"? (expressed in a weird way...)
The Bible doesn't say that in explicit words. Leviticus 18:17 "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness."
Is uncover the nakedness mean marriage?
I've read this explanation - please don't ask, where!

Does it mean it is the base of stupid Jewish culinary system - it is forbidden to eat meat cooked in a vessel that had ever contained milk, or drink milk from a vessel that had ever contained meat, no matter how thoroughly these vessels were cleaned after each use, even these can not clean in the same washing step. It is forbidden to store these vessels on the same shelf.

One of my sister in laws - when she was out of job fitting to her qualification - was a housekeeper of an orthodox jewish family. She cooked, cleaned, prepared the children to go to school and such - and was checked for a week if she follows the law, if she uses the vessels properly during cooking.
After passing the test she could have eaten together with the family.
(by the way a few years later she did the same for a Vietnamese family, and cooked dog's meat - but this is another story...)

--- and this is very well documented around the internet. I am lucky enough to hear a firsthand description.

That is. If we begin re-re-re-interpret the words, the result is unpredictable. In many programming language has the function "randomize"...

God - if exist - has no right to be misty. Or symbolic. This is the task of the human artists.

... but perhaps you can explain the amazing leaps of "logic'....in your post.

Call it free association. You know, copulae of the Martian's brain cells are not the same as for humans.