Is the Catholic Response Regarding Advocates in Christianity Fallacious?

[edwardsjethro]

In religious discussion there's a common statement in Christianity that claims Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father.

A Catholic might respond with, "Yes, He is our advocate, but that doesnt mean there arent other advocates as well."

Does that response violate logic, or contains a fallacy? I'd like to study that kind of reasoning more deeply, because it seems flawed for a Catholic to say that, but I'm not really sure.

[Age]

In religious discussion there's a common statement in Christianity that claims Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father.

A Catholic might respond with, "Yes, He is our advocate, but that doesnt mean there arent other advocates as well."

Does that response violate logic, or contains a fallacy?

Not to me, no.

I'd like to study that kind of reasoning more deeply, because it seems flawed for a Catholic to say that, but I'm not really sure.

Okay.

[Harbal]

I'd like to study that kind of reasoning more deeply, because it seems flawed for a Catholic to say that, but I'm not really sure.

Okay.

It looks like you've got the all clear, edwardsjethro, so go forth and study.

[Impenitent]

In religious discussion there's a common statement in Christianity that claims Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father.

A Catholic might respond with, "Yes, He is our advocate, but that doesnt mean there arent other advocates as well."

Does that response violate logic, or contains a fallacy? I'd like to study that kind of reasoning more deeply, because it seems flawed for a Catholic to say that, but I'm not really sure.

ask a saint

-Imp

[Alexis Jacobi]

In religious discussion there's a common statement in Christianity that claims Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father.

A Catholic might respond with, "Yes, He is our advocate, but that doesnt mean there arent other advocates as well."

Does that response violate logic, or contains a fallacy? I'd like to study that kind of reasoning more deeply, because it seems flawed for a Catholic to say that, but I'm not really sure.

The term “mediator” is often used. But I have not seen “advocate” used quite in that way.

In Catholicism Mary is definitely presented as an •advocate•. In the sense that her will and influence has power to influence her son. When all help is imagined lost, Mary can (does) advocate for the supplicant. And as well it is recommended that Jesus (and God presumably) is best approached somewhat indirectly, through Mary. She represents in that sense Grace intrinsically. And as you may know, in Catholicism, the Incarnation of the divine being required a special vessel: Mary, the regenerated Eve.

Catholicism sees existence in three levels: a church militant (our world, our struggles); a Church triumphant (heaven, a world beyond, where the saints exist). They are imbued with divine being and power and can certainly be “advocates” for earthly devotees — those in the church militant.

There is another category: those souls in a purgatorial (purificatory) existence. They depend on the advocacy of the church militant, and perhaps on that of the church triumphant (who would know about that though?) They are in a state of purification.

Defy logic? If compared to Protestant and Calvinist conception, certainly! Because they establish different tenets as a conceptual starting point.

The Catholic schema, as you likely realize, is older, more *primitive* you might say. In any case a far older •picture• than a somewhat more modern and rationalized (reduced, boiled down) Protestantism which has had pressed out of it that archaic naïveté which Catholicism still shelters.

[Harbal]

And as well it is recommended that Jesus (and God presumably) is best approached somewhat indirectly, through Mary.

So Mary is sort of God's receptionist?


To make an appointment, phone Mary on ........... ☎

[Sculptor]

In religious discussion there's a common statement in Christianity that claims Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father.

A Catholic might respond with, "Yes, He is our advocate, but that doesnt mean there arent other advocates as well."

Does that response violate logic, or contains a fallacy? I'd like to study that kind of reasoning more deeply, because it seems flawed for a Catholic to say that, but I'm not really sure.

Like everything else in the Christian ideaology it is absurd and contradictory.

[Age]

And as well it is recommended that Jesus (and God presumably) is best approached somewhat indirectly, through Mary.

So Mary is sort of God's receptionist?


To make an appointment, phone Mary on ........... ☎

So, could this mean that 'the way' to God, and/or Heaven, is through 'a virgin'?

Could the "muslims" be onto, or into, something here?

[Age]

In religious discussion there's a common statement in Christianity that claims Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father.

A Catholic might respond with, "Yes, He is our advocate, but that doesnt mean there arent other advocates as well."

Does that response violate logic, or contains a fallacy? I'd like to study that kind of reasoning more deeply, because it seems flawed for a Catholic to say that, but I'm not really sure.

Like everything else in the Christian ideaology it is absurd and contradictory.

If this is 'the way' one 'looks at' and 'sees' something, then 'this' is all they will 'see', and the 'only way' they will 'look'.

For example, could the word 'God' not be what you 'see' It as? Or, could 'heaven' and 'hell' be not what you 'see' them as? Or, could absolutely anything in "christian theology" not be as you were 'taught' to 'look at' and 'see' 'it' as?

In fact, could the interpretation/s that you have been 'taught' to 'see' and 'interpret' the 'same way' have been 'taught' you Incorrectly in 'any way' at all?

[Age]

In religious discussion there's a common statement in Christianity that claims Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father.

A Catholic might respond with, "Yes, He is our advocate, but that doesnt mean there arent other advocates as well."

Does that response violate logic, or contains a fallacy? I'd like to study that kind of reasoning more deeply, because it seems flawed for a Catholic to say that, but I'm not really sure.

The term “mediator” is often used. But I have not seen “advocate” used quite in that way.

In Catholicism Mary is definitely presented as an •advocate•. In the sense that her will and influence has power to influence her son.

If this is true, then this will help me tremendously in what I have to explain and show, and will add further light and more proof onto things here.

When all help is imagined lost, Mary can (does) advocate for the supplicant. And as well it is recommended that Jesus (and God presumably) is best approached somewhat indirectly, through Mary. She represents in that sense Grace intrinsically. And as you may know, in Catholicism, the Incarnation of the divine being required a special vessel: Mary, the regenerated Eve.

Catholicism sees existence in three levels: a church militant (our world, our struggles); a Church triumphant (heaven, a world beyond, where the saints exist). They are imbued with divine being and power and can certainly be “advocates” for earthly devotees — those in the church militant.

There is another category: those souls in a purgatorial (purificatory) existence. They depend on the advocacy of the church militant, and perhaps on that of the church triumphant (who would know about that though?) They are in a state of purification.

Defy logic? If compared to Protestant and Calvinist conception, certainly!

But absolutely none of that defies logic at all. In fact that only adds further proof to what is already irrefutably True.

Because they establish different tenets as a conceptual starting point.

The Catholic schema, as you likely realize, is older, more *primitive* you might say. In any case a far older •picture• than a somewhat more modern and rationalized (reduced, boiled down) Protestantism which has had pressed out of it that archaic naïveté which Catholicism still shelters.

But, once one also comes-to-see the actual Truth and thus the 'big and full Picture', crystal clearly, then the 'old stories' are 'seen' for what was Truly been presented, and shown, without all of the 'confused and confusing misinterpretations', which have been added on, along the way.

[Sculptor]

In religious discussion there's a common statement in Christianity that claims Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father.

A Catholic might respond with, "Yes, He is our advocate, but that doesnt mean there arent other advocates as well."

Does that response violate logic, or contains a fallacy? I'd like to study that kind of reasoning more deeply, because it seems flawed for a Catholic to say that, but I'm not really sure.

Like everything else in the Christian ideaology it is absurd and contradictory.

If this is 'the way' one 'looks at' and 'sees' something, then 'this' is all they will 'see', and the 'only way' they will 'look'.

For example, could the word 'God' not be what you 'see' It as? Or, could 'heaven' and 'hell' be not what you 'see' them as? Or, could absolutely anything in "christian theology" not be as you were 'taught' to 'look at' and 'see' 'it' as?

In fact, could the interpretation/s that you have been 'taught' to 'see' and 'interpret' the 'same way' have been 'taught' you Incorrectly in 'any way' at all?

[Age]

Like everything else in the Christian ideaology it is absurd and contradictory.

If this is 'the way' one 'looks at' and 'sees' something, then 'this' is all they will 'see', and the 'only way' they will 'look'.

For example, could the word 'God' not be what you 'see' It as? Or, could 'heaven' and 'hell' be not what you 'see' them as? Or, could absolutely anything in "christian theology" not be as you were 'taught' to 'look at' and 'see' 'it' as?

In fact, could the interpretation/s that you have been 'taught' to 'see' and 'interpret' the 'same way' have been 'taught' you Incorrectly in 'any way' at all?

Notice and see how these posters here will not just answer very simply asked clarifying questions, at all, because even if they attempted to with lies or deceit, then they would still end up contradicting "themselves" and/or being hypocritical. So, imagine if they, let alone, actually answered the clarifying questions I pose, and ask them, Honestly and OPENLY, and what would be the actual outcome would be of doing so?

[Sculptor]

If this is 'the way' one 'looks at' and 'sees' something, then 'this' is all they will 'see', and the 'only way' they will 'look'.

For example, could the word 'God' not be what you 'see' It as? Or, could 'heaven' and 'hell' be not what you 'see' them as? Or, could absolutely anything in "christian theology" not be as you were 'taught' to 'look at' and 'see' 'it' as?

In fact, could the interpretation/s that you have been 'taught' to 'see' and 'interpret' the 'same way' have been 'taught' you Incorrectly in 'any way' at all?

Notice and see how these posters here will not just answer very simply asked clarifying questions, at all, because even if they attempted to with lies or deceit, then they would still end up contradicting "themselves" and/or being hypocritical. So, imagine if they, let alone, actually answered the clarifying questions I pose, and ask them, Honestly and OPENLY, and what would be the actual outcome would be of doing so?

Yes that is in fact exactly what you did. and that is why you got the Laughs.

[Sculptor]

USA possibly one of the most "chrisrian" following countries in the West.
Whereas Finland one of the most godless with about 30% declared atheists.

Yet

Evil Atheism

home.jpg (31.18 KiB) Viewed 1361 times

[Age]

Notice and see how these posters here will not just answer very simply asked clarifying questions, at all, because even if they attempted to with lies or deceit, then they would still end up contradicting "themselves" and/or being hypocritical. So, imagine if they, let alone, actually answered the clarifying questions I pose, and ask them, Honestly and OPENLY, and what would be the actual outcome would be of doing so?

Yes that is in fact exactly what you did. and that is why you got the Laughs.

Once again, I will now have to ask this one another clarifying question. What is 'it' 'in fact exactly' that I, supposedly, did here "sculptor"?

Was 'it';

Not just answer very simply asked clarifying questions, at all? If yes, then where and when?

If I did attempt to answer those questions, then would I, supposedly, end up contradicting, or being hypocritical? If yes, then how and why?

Or, something else?

Also, are you OPEN and Honest enough to just say what 'it' is, exactly, that you are laughing at here?