I understood that the people interviewed expressed negative attitudes towards Jews, not "non-Poles."
How do you "know" that [Christianity] is the "true faith
The fact that J-s (who seem to know a thing or two about God) are apparently fearful of spelling the word right would suffice, no? But seriously, I believe that the Resurrection of Christ is a true historical event. Why? Because the account of it in the gospels is believable. I believe the gospel the same how I believe any witness of a distant event: because I examine the account the witnesses present and find the witnesses reasonable and of good character, and I don't find a reasonable competing explanation. From that the divinity of Christ follows and therefore the divinely inspired nature of the Catholic Church. Of course there are secondary corroborations: the reasonability of the Christian worldview, the examples of holiness of our saints, the impact the teaching of the Church has in my life, etc. but the core is simply believing the witness of the Church to the Resurrection.
You're missing something very important. Chrstianity claims to be the "fulfillment" of Judaism and the Revelation at Sinai, but the simple fact is that the religion founded at Sinai does not provide or allow for any such "development." The Torah is clear that its commandments are binding in perpetuity. In fact, in both Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 the Jews are warned that if they ever turn aside from The Torah that their Temple will be destroyed and they will be scattered throughout the world. Note: it explicity warns that these punishments are the consequences, not of "rejecting the messiah" (and there isn't even a commandment to "accept the messiah" since there will be no question of his authenticity when he does come). Yet chrstians for two thousand years have insisted that the Torah was "obviously" temporary and preparatory and that these punishments are for "rejecting the messiah."
Now let's use a little elementary logic here, shall we? Chrstianity claims to be authorized by the Torah. The Torah authorizes no such thing. Therefore, chrstianity's claim to be authorized by the Torah is false. Logically it should jettison its Jewish claims and go it alone as a totally independent religion (as an early heretic wanted it to do). Whether or not J*sus rose from the dead, the religion based on this alleged fact is not authorized by a Torah that plainly considers itself perpetual. THEREFORE, if it bases its claim on the Torah then all these alleged supernatural events would mean absolutely nothing, even if they did happen. They would be nothing more than another miracle tale by another false religion--and all religions have miracle tales, and it isn't even necessary to deny the historicity of these miracles. If chrstianity wants to base itself on nothing but the miracles of J*sus then it should never have claimed to be a "fulfillment" of the Torah. But since it has (and it is not), then it cannot be the true religion even if every single miracle attributed to J*sus actually happened. If you became convinced that Joseph Smith Jr. really did experience those revelations, would you pay any attention to them? Of course not. This is the same as that.
Nor is my faith unquestioning. I entertain the possibility that the scripture or the reason contradict the Church virtually every day on FR. I explain why it does not by fact and reason, not by "I am not going to discuss it". Likewise with atheists, of whom I know quite a few; I in fact wrote an article on reasonability of my faith, -- when I finish my website I'll post it here. I mostly direct my polemics to the Protestants because I consider Protestantism very damaging to Christendom, in a way a heresy is more damaging than simply a falsehood.
What about Protestantism do you object to the most? The belief of Fundamentalist Protestants that the Bible contains no errors of any kind on any subject (including those embarrassing first eleven chapters of Genesis)? Why does your "one true church" so fear the historical reality of events that logically don't seem to threaten it? Do they threaten it?
Which version of [Christianity] is true?
Why, none is completely false. They are all Catholicism Lite and so are partly right.
What is "Catholicism?" Roman and Eastern Catholicism? Eastern Orthodoxy? Oriental Orthodoxy (Non-Chalcaedonianism)? Non-Ephesianism (Nestorianism)? All these churches broke off of the ancient historical chrstian church, but who broke off from who? Each claims to be the authentic original and that the others broke off. Roman (and Eastern) Catholicism is not self-evidently the original, since each and every one of these bodies refer to themselves as "the holy Catholic Church." Roman/Eastern Catholicism is certainly the one with the greatest numbers, but Athanasius pointed out that you can't decide what is truth based merely on the size of the membership.
In fact, the Jews and the Muslims got a few things right themselves. Catholicism is fully true because in us there is the fullness of Divine Revelation to Christ's Church.
Don't tell me . . . this claim is "self-evidently true."
The endless arguments are the domain of diverse denominations who need to argue in order to retain their market differentiation. We don't have a similar problem.
Which means what precisely? The Catholic Church doesn't have to clarify its positions and teachings to those who are thinking of entering it? It just says "you know this is right, so just buy the total package?" Again, how does one know this?
How in the name of all that is reasonable can you ask mormons to question the Book of Mormon
Easy: no historical plausibility of any of their distinctive beliefs.
First, some beliefs of all religions are considered implausible by someone. And second, what does plausibility have to do with it? If mormon beliefs were plausible, would you actually be a mormon? There is no other issue (such as whether it is authorized by the Torah as all forms of chrstianity claim to be)?
From your article:
"We wanted to probe their attitudes towards Jews, since we're planning to prepare an educational program or social campaign in the future," spokeswoman Joanna Korzeniewska told AFP.
When asked about the J-s, the kids answered about the J-s. Similarly, when asked if they wanted Polish sausage for breakfast 70% of the J-s respond No. Not because they are Antipolonic but because they don't eat pork. Fersteen?
You're missing something very important. [Christianity] claims to be the "fulfillment" of Judaism and the Revelation at Sinai, but the simple fact is that the religion founded at Sinai does not provide or allow for any such "development."
What about Protestantism do you object to the most?
What is "Catholicism?"
Hah. Very good. THAT is what I object about Protestantism the most: the notion that the Bible should be read as a single legalistic space, Genesis to Revelation, as a set of prohibitions and authorizations. You discovered a new Protestant sect: Judaism. Rent some space, start a "church". soon, half the town will be at your door, waving hands in the air.
No, authentic Christianity, which is Catholicism, is like I described in my previous post: the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus as told in the Holy Gospels and explained by His Holy Church. Everything else: the interest in the Bible in general, the Old Testament in particular, and the delivery of the Law on Mount Sinai is attendant to that central belief. You cannot explain the Torah to me: I am in charge of explaining the Torah to you. I am Catholic, you are not.
Then, if you want to get legalistic I can: the Law of Moses was given the J-s just like when I deliver the law to my children: do not play outside the fence, do not eat worms, do not talk to strangers. The J-s still can follow these laws of they want to be J-s, even though, for two thousand years, they do not really have a reason to. Or they can violate them and follow Jesus Who made these laws done and gone, to the last jot and tittle, fulfilled and finished, alleluia, free at last. Then they will be Christians, and they should hurry.