The DISTURBING Trend in Our Approach to Christianity w/ Joe Heschmeyer 

As a convert to Catholicism, I see this very starkly, both in my Protestant brethren, but also in my own continuing journey. I basically read my way into the church and discovered that the Catholic Church best resembles what I believed authentic Christianity to be. Once inside, I discovered many beliefs and issues that I am simply having to trust in the churches authority. It’s a conscious decision at times, but I have to say that there is much less anxiety if we can trust in our church than if we are constantly trying to reinvent the wheel on our own. But as a parent, I am trying my best to ensure that the dogmas and doctrines are truly understood by my children, rather than encouraging mere obedience. Blind obedience, when challenged, often falls short.

There's a big difference between saying "If you want to look and understand and question, that's fine. And it is also true that it isn't necessary for salvation" and "The church is the final authority. How dare you even question?" It seems it's been only recently (in grand timeline) that it has swung to the former rather than the latter.

Trusting that "the church got it right" is how I ended up being stuck as a Seventh-day Adventist for 20 years.

I disagree massively. Just no. One could use the same excuse for supporting abortion... because it's legal and the culture affirms it. Moreover the Bible, 1 Peter 3 specifically states one should have reasons for the hope within. Delegating the thinking to others and blindly accepting isn't ok. Trust must be grounded in good reasons. Otherwise what argument do we have for asking others to critique their own religious truth claims and consider those of Christianity. One cannot say just believe to the Christian but require a Muslim to question Islam. It's not an argument for utter scepticism but one needs to do enough due diligence to build reasonable warrant to believe the Bible and trust the church's teachings and interpretations. Even the Gospel of Luke states he wrote an orderly account that you might believe. Careful, ordered consideration of the eyewitness testimony about Jesus...that we may believe. I think it evident then, on key points one must question and agree, or otherwise, in order to trust. If one finds the teachings of the church faithful in some things then we can put trust in church for others.

T.A.R.T. "Father, I don't want to be crucified,abandoned, rejected, and confused. But if it is your will for me to be crucified,abandoned, rejected, and confused, not my will your will be done. But give me the power because I can't do it by myself. I trust that this is a gift from you Lord and that everything you do for me is good. And if this is indeed your will, I thank you for this crucifixion, I thank you for this abandonment, I thank you for this rejection and I thank you for this confusion." I use T.A.R.T. intentionally everyday not to not suffer but when I’m suffering/have a challenge/discomfort I need to connect to God/trust him/receive His power/receive His love . The goal is encounter. T.A.R.T. like pop tart T.A.R.T. Tell ask rely thank

I was in this mindset for years since becoming Catholic and it led me right out of the Church into sedevacantism. Coming back, I've now put assent of faith to heart and have been better for it.

We live in the age of doubting Thomas. God is bringing many Protestants (and Catholics) back to him by showing them his wounds. But blessed are those who trust in Jesus and his church without needing a three year long study of the scriptures and church history to make up their mind.

Nah - that's predicated on someone starting in the right place by good fortune. This is the sort of reason atheists accuse "faith" of being the opposite of reason. Faith does mean trust, but first reason has to show that something is trustworthy

Make disciples of all nations 🙏

I'm not sure it's good to switch off reasoning and follow anyone who claims to be right. It's hard to embrace and remain with things or persons that/whom we cannot relate with. We have got to know the person or the things that ought to be done, and not walk blindly. All people do not have our best interests at heart. This said, there needs to a healthy element of trust from each party so things ultimately move in the right direction.

It seems “the findings are accurate, but they’ve been misinterpreted-“ The very study example Joe uses proves the need and the benefit of having MORE critical eyes on something, not fewer. Sure, there may be a temptation to intellectual pride, of not assenting to pieces of the truth beyond our understanding, but my hope is that we can mitigate that rather than encourage (at least inadvertently) lack of understanding and critical thought. The church can take it-truth will hold up just fine against any critique.

Actually people do have a God given right to ask questions and demand reasonable answers and that is what the Catechism is for. Remember when the Pope set up residence in Avignon. It was thru the merits of St Catherine of Sienna that he was finally convinced to return to Rome. So there. You can't say can't everyone just has to accept everything. There is a central core that is efficacious for salvation but peripheral to that there's a lot of freedom to see things different from the status quo

I find that Protestant apologists are famous for this type of argumentation. Gavin Orland for example will quote Augustine to bolster his position but it tends to be the one quote out of an entire text and is seldom, if not replicated at all, in any other text he wrote. It often appears to be that the exception IS the rule when it comes to protestant argumentation.

St. John Henry Newman's "Grammar of Assent" is helpful here.

On things that matter little, little time is spent to confirm the validity of a report. For things that matter greatly, spending time to make an informed and accurate decision is wise. Seeing as religion is the most important decision one might make in life, it stands to reason that scrutiny is warranted, especially because it’s simply the case that the choice is not obvious. There is not overwhelming data in support of Christian validity to the point where it can be accepted without a second thought. The church has been wrong about a lot of things over the years. Not thinking critically and accepting its position for no reason does not work all the time. You can’t research everything and thoroughly validate all of your opinions, but that process is invaluable. The only reason you wouldn’t want to do so is for practical purposes of lacking time. If there is something that is worth spending time digging in to, at least to some degree, it’s surely the thing that will determine how you view every other thing in life.

It's interesting that Jesus is sort of empirical about faith. "if you have faith as a mustard seed, you can say unto this mountain, be removed and cast into the sea, and it would obey you." He often points to physical evidence to prove the veracity or his teachings (i.e. the evidence of his miracles). There is a pragmatic aspect to Jesus' descriptions of faith. If its faith in the right thing (right one), it will work.

With Francis and his minions in charge completely blind faith is no virtue. Save it for the Council of Trent.

"Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord." - Casti Connubii

Who’s the woman Matt is talking about?

Paul commends the Bereans for checking scriptures and testing what they heard.

Cameron, he’s on to you.

to drjanitor3474 - question where are protestant’s”baptised”what in? And what are protestant’s”baptised”into?

Commenting for the algorithm

one of the most disturbing things know, or think as a protestant is that the vatican is right about everything, or in rare moments of truth, or prayer could make sense of all of it dot dot, what have I done who could deny truth, or love could perhaps go to Hell as a protestant, or despite what worldly, atheists, or corrupt teachings, or propaganda say, and that know to myself, or my conscience that the vatican can't be that wrong, or perhaps at all

LOL, the disturbing trend of people studying for themselves and thinking for themselves, which is why the RC always tried to prevent the peasants from reading the bible

Just trust the authorities. Believe the church authority figure. What if my authority disagees with your authority? If only there were some sort of objective test we could do to check whose authority, if any, is right. The difference between religion and science.

Can someone send a link for the transgender surgery study mentioned in the video?