I agree. If you've been told something long enough and someone presents evidence to the contrary it puts people on the offensive. Rightly so, who wants to be shown they are wrong and have proof? I'm not saying all of the data supports God, but the alternative theories starts looking much less like unbiased science and more like an attempt to prove anything but God. All the data is out there, one must only read with an open mind. If you can read everything out there without bias and still say that yep everything's an accident than so be it. At least you read the data and interpreted it for yourself. Come back with some reasonable conversation. Show us how all this evidence against us is right and all the evidence backing us is wrong.
"What is next, evidence of the "missing link" supports creationism also? (well it was created at some point, and god does create stuff)"
I thought evolutionists gave up on the missing link to. They can't find one so the incomplete fossil records must be the problem. Man has never seen something from nothing. So it becomes a theory where accident can't be the cause. After that God sneaks in to the equation. Can't have that now can we?
Funny thing about that comment is that the big bang actually helps support creationism. Something caused the bang and God's pretty tough so it fits perfectly into Genesis. I thought most evolutionists were moving away from the big bang because of this.
I can kind of see that except that it's required of the church. I found this; which was interesting.
Dates of Catholic Doctrine: Year Statement
437 Proclamation that infant baptism regenerates the soul
500 The Mass instituted as a re-sacrifice of Jesus for the remission of sins
593 Declaration that sins need to be purged, established by Pope Gregory I
600 Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints, and angels
786 Worship of cross, images, and relics authorized
995 Canonization of dead people as saints initiated by Pope John XV
1000 Attendance at Mass made mandatory under the penalty of mortal sin
1079 Celibacy of priesthood, decreed by Pope Gregory VII
1090 Rosary, repetitious praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit
1184 The Inquisition, instituted by the Council of Verona
1190 The sale of Indulgences established to reduce time in Purgatory
1215 Transubstantiation, proclaimed by Pope Innocent III
1215 Confession of sins to priests, instituted by Pope Innocent III
1229 Bible placed on Index of Forbidden Books in Toulouse
1438 Purgatory elevated from doctrine to dogma by Council of Florence
1545 Tradition claimed equal in authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent
1546 Apocryphal Books declared cannon by Council of Trent
1854 Immaculate Conception of Mary, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX
1870 Infallibility of the Pope, proclaimed by Vatican Council
1922 Virgin Mary proclaimed co-redeemer with Jesus by Pope Benedict XV
Until 1215 confession wasn't even practiced by any of the churches. Granted it is a tradition of the Catholic Church but some of the dogma above is scary. Even as late in the church as 1922 was it declared that Mary is a co-redeemer. This is not just nowhere in the Bible but goes against the Bible. The church continues with making dogma that is unbiblical.
Some Catholics say Peter was the first Pope. They come to this conclusion because Christ said he would build his church upon this rock. The statement refers to Peter's statement that Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus was God in flesh. This is the one statement that makes Christianity what it is. We are followers of the Messiah who has saved us. There wasn't really anything of the Catholic Church you see today until Constantine. This is why some people believe Constantine to be the first Pope; it's where the Catholic Church splintered into what it is today. I'll end up reading on the histories of the Catholic Church and see how it was all formed.
Okay, I set my prefs to be plain old text so hopefully this post isn't all jacked. Thanks for the help on that; it was starting to annoy me, as I'm sure it was annoying you.
I was in the wrong for inferring that. I just question some of their practices as being unbiblical. I am learning from Catholics, like you, about some of practices and stuff that go on there.
Yes, but you've heard the Word of God and aren't subject to universal revelation. Those people know there is a Creator and do what everyone knows is morally right. They are doing God's will at that point and have a faith in the Creator.
This site gives Biblical references that all Christians are saints. http://www.gotquestions.org/saints-Christian.html But praying to them to pray to God seems like an unnecessary step. Jesus taught us how to pray for ourselves. I agree in asking Christians to pray for problems we might have but never to ask God to forgive us or as the only way that I can communicate with God. I still pray for my needs but also the needs of others.
Ah, I guess some of my Catholic knowledge comes from tv. I thought priests in confession would have the person say the rosary a certain number of times depending on the severity of the sin. Which if they do is odd since the Bible says all sin is equal in the eyes of God. So lying is the same as murder, wrong is wrong.
One thing though I would suggest is to read the Bible often and not be afraid to question things in your church. Most of the Catholics I know that are in a non-denominational church now started that way. After reading the Bible the Catholic church seemed to miss a lot of the stuff the Word of God has to offer. I'm not trying to convert you at all. If you have accepted Christ and your faith is valid then the church you're at shouldn't matter. I just know the ex-Catholics at our church realized that they had never been saved and that is a problem.
I'm using firefox so I'm not sure why the newlines are getting in.
Okay, so you are non Bible believing Catholic. It sounds like all your beliefs come from the Pope. Another religion that does this is Jehovah's Witnesses where the Watchtower gives them what they need to believe. I've heard this a lot from Catholics where the church discourages reading the Bible.
On Philippians 2:12 check out the next verse. The works that are talked about are the works that God does in you.
If you read the whole chapter you can see the context. James is explaining 2 kinds of faith, fruitless and fruitful. If you are truly saved you will have fruits, works, like Abrahama nd Rahab. If you don't have true faith than it's a usless faith. Demons have faith in God, but it isn't going to save them. He compares the false faith of someone without works to the faith the demons have. Works in way get you to Heaven though.
Yes faith saved Noah and his house.
When the Messiah was not here there were people that found favor with God. You'll need a time machine if you want to get out of accepting Christ as your Savior.
Than the Catholics have it right. Faith in Jesus saves, but if you don't really believe in Jesus than your life will be fruitless.
Either is equally bad, there's no gray here. Your either in or out. Both a and b are not going to Heaven so it matter little which is worse.
Yes the first part takes what Gabriel said and paraphrases it. I read that article and never realized how the scriptures were stretched for this. I suppose she was the mother of God but she wasn't ever given a status likened to God. Jesus asked the diciples to look after her when he died. I don't this being a command to follow Mary in anyway, she was more a helper in the ministry than a leader or special person in it. The whole thing of praying to the saints because they missed the second death is interesting. Nowhere did jesus pray to Abraham or any other person than God. Just because someone isn't in hell doesn't mean they can be prayed to.
Thank you though for the article I've never actually seen the Catholic reason for praying to saints. But a quick question, all Christians are saints, can we pray to anyone who was a Christian? It seems odd that the church singles out some of the children of God. Oh another question, why would one need to say the prayer more than once? Jesus even says in Matthew 6:7 "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
Yeah, no spell checking now. Forgive any errors. Yes it is but the lengths that have been gone through for what we have today I think we are doing just fine.
In 2:1 it clearly states that all of heavens and earth are finished being created and God had entered into his rest from creation. Chapter 1 is the outline and chapter 2 is the focus on man. This sight goes into the Hebrew and indications from other scripture about it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/ge nesis.asp
Oh, I'm sorry. I never meant you to think that I thought Catholics were pagans. Just that a lot of the rituals incorporated paganism to make it more acceptable to pagan cultures.
Oh and I do know a lot of Catholics. The ones in my church call themselves recovering Catholics. They are usually the most critical of that church. They never realized what was going on there until they came to a non-denominational church.
Wow, please give me the scripture where saying Hail Mary full of grace..... is mentioned in the Bible as having been a ritual for anything. Well it is inferred since it's not a requirement for Heaven. Only acception Jesus and the one and only way into heaven. All baptisms in the Bible happened after the person believed in Christ.
Your right, there are going to Catholics as well as Baptists etc. in heaven. My only point was that Catholics have some beliefs that could lead someone to believe they are saved when they are not. The real point is accepting Jesus is the only way the Bible makes that clear. So as long as that is what the Catholics believe than it's better thant he rumors I heard that Baptism is required and that we are saved by works and not grace.
No Christian believes that baptism forgives sins. Only praying to God and asking forgiveness can do that. Also I noticed that it says that the Catholic Church is the only true church. I don't believe that since there are plenty of churches that meet the "salvation through the completed works of Christ" criteria for Christianity. Their wording the trinity seems odd, but if they are saying that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all in the God Head then they have the Biblical interpretation of God revealing Himself to us correct.
For the Bible that is accepted today you can read here
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=689
Out of curiosity what Bible are you reading that says man was made before Cattle? I just looked up both passages and cattle aren't even mentioned until 2:20 and that's when Adam was naming the animals. No I was just saying the Hebrew to English. Day in Hebrew can mean 12h, 24h or a time and morning and evening can refer to dawn or dusk or the beginning or end of a time. There's lots of literature on this and I suggest reading it, it's very interesting. I believe in Genesis 100%. I think a lot of people started to not believe it because science was reporting to have proved the Bible wrong. It actually proved it right as long as you interpret the Bible correctly and know what translation errors there are. Or at least give it a thought when reading the Bible that certain words can mean different things and that sometimes the translators took liberties.
Here is an excerpt from Pope John Paul II
"In the fourth century, given the new politico-social situation of the Church, the question of the relationship between liturgy and popular piety begins to be raised consciously in terms of adaptation and inculturation rather than solely in terms of spontaneous convergence.
The local Churches, guided by clear pastoral and evangelizing principles, did not hesitate to absorb into the Liturgy certain purified solemn and festive cultic elements deriving from the pagan world. These were regarded as capable of moving the minds and imaginations of the people who felt drawn towards them. Such forms, now placed at the service of the mystery of worship, were seen as neither contrary to the Gospel nor to the purity of true Christian worship. Rather, there was a realization that only in the worship of Christ, true God and true Saviour, could many cultic expressions, previously attributed to false gods and false saviours, become true cultic expressions, even though these had derived from man's deepest religious sense. "
The Pope even says it. I don't see too much wrong with how some of the holidays have turned out. But if nature is worshipped instead of Jesus than that's bad for Christmas and Easter. Christians seem to celebrate these holidays a bit differently than the secular population anyway. How many times does an atheist even have to deal with Jesus' crucifixion on Easter compared to the nativity scene during Christmas? But pretty soon with the aclu it won't be long until that isn't a concern for them. There are plenty of things that go directly against the Bible with Catholicism. Asking a priest for forgiveness is not from the Bible. Saying a Hail Mary to earn forgiveness is not from the Bible. Last Rites do not get you into Heaven. Purgatory is not a real place. Baptism is nothing more than a symbol that you have accepted Christ as your savior. The list goes on and on and the internet is filled with articles on the subject. I will say though I don't like some of them because they try to belittle Catholics and make fun of them. That isn't right but there are good to the point articles about this very subject.
I'm not familiar with Niean Interpretation, google isn't either.
I'm not sure why you think literal interpretation of Gensis is silly. Just because the 24 hour creation days and global flood was misinterpreted doesn't mean you can't take it literally. Man was all in one place so a local flood was all that was necessary to judge man. Just replace a few words in your mind while reading it and you'll be fine.
I don't reject any of the Bible. Are you mormon or part of some other cult? Actually the church is pretty large and worldwide. Unless you mean my actual local church and it's pretty big.
You could say that Catholics have it right and we are wrong. But Catholics admit it's a mixture of Christian theology and pagan theology. I don't know about your but that sounds bad even to unbelievers. All our church believes in is what's in the Bible. So if it's not from God we look to see if it contradicts the Bible if it does we reject it.
For the Holy Word I would be referring to the Bible. The KJV is the best translation from what I've read. It has the least problems and all of the problems are well documented. The Christians don't need to follow the Jewish laws because they aren't bound to them. Jesus gave us this freedom. Sure if you would like to follow some of the Jewish customs that this fine but we are saved through faith in Christ not by what we eat. There is a reason the Bible is setup as the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament was made to the Jewish people through Abraham. The New Testament was given to all peoples of the earth, Jew and Gentile. We still have because all Scripture is good and used to learn from. The US doesn't stop teaching British history because we have our own country now. The Catholic Church has done some great things, but they have also done bad things as well. I go to a Bible believing non-denominational Church. Basically we believe if it's unbiblical than it's not from God. So we don't pray to marry or have confession, things like this. There are lots of things that seem to contradict in the Bible. They end up being misinterpretations. The earth is not and never was the center of the universe. There is even scripture to back up this scientific fact. There are also things like the 24 creation days and the global flood. There's not an easy way to directly translate from Hebrew to English and that's were a lot of misinterpreting comes from. It matters little if you believe in a young or old earth or a global or local flood, in the end you just need to put your faith in Jesus as your Savior. Christianity differs from a lot of religions in that it's not works that save us but faith. That faith is assured and can't be broken. But there's more to that, well a lot more to that. But the simple answer is if you have faith in Christ and have asked him to be your savior you are saved, all the other religions give no assurance. Also, Christianity is exclusive; a lot of the other religions don't say there is one path to God. I guess I'm kind of getting off topic here, but Catholicism does differ, sometimes greatly, from the Bible.
Yes and I've heard that many Catholic scholars believe that Catholicism is the perfect combination of Christianity and paganism. I'm more in the boat of getting my theology straight from God through his Holy Word. If the Bible says I should only be praying to God than that's what I'll do. If the Bible says that confessing my sins to man and asking forgiveness from God is wrong than I probably shouldn't be doing it. I'm not saying that the Catholic Church is all bad; they just have a lot of contradictions to the Bible though. Here is a website that outlines some of them. The Catholic Church does admit that their theology is a mixture of pagan and Christian beliefs.
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" 2 Corinthians 6:14-15
http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html
Why shouldn't you? If you only care about the here and now then there's nothing I can really tell you. I read enough scriptures from the Qu'ran to be scared of it. Which version of the Tripitaka? From what I've read there are like 5,000 versions and the number of versions is still growing. Also some sects pick and choose what portion to follow. If the entire book isn't worth following than it raises suspicions in my mind.
We don't know what Jesus' words where with his final breath. But the some of last words before his death are recorded in the Gospels. Luke explicitly claims not to record Jesus' last words and John has no account of Jesus' last words or events. I'm curious on this one, where are the errors of the order in which the species were created? Here's a link to help you with the translation errors.
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html
And on the note that if God wants you saved he'll do it. God gave us free will. You have a choice in the matter. If Christians all had perfect lives than who wouldn't be a Christian, which would negate free will. If God were hanging out here on earth how could you deny God, again there would be no free will. God wants you to you to love Him because you want to, not because he forces you to.
Yup, you are correct that some people think it is flawed and full of lies. But with it's historical accuracy and care taken to assemble it the argument becomes harder. As a human you are free to believe it or disbelieve it. I would hope that just for the chance of it being true that those people would investigate for themselves. Come up with an informed position. What's the worst that could happen?
Catholicism has always been odd to me anyway. Nowhere is written that she had never sinned but was a virgin and free of sexual sin. I'll have to bring that up next time I'm talking to a Catholic and see if they have any scripture to back it up.
"Why? I could understand complaints if some member of the clergy committed heresy, but how can normal layperson be committing heresy? Is this a case that we have some religious elite telling us how and what to believe, and if we disagree, we are committing a "heresy", and that's bad? Many of your ideas go against religious beliefs of others, so you are a heretic as well. is that "bad" as well?"
The main point is that everyone will be judged. You can believe anything you like. But Christianity is the only one to claim true salvation and all others to be false. A lot of people believe it to be condescending but the fact remains in the Bible. Oh, the trinity is tough to comprehend; I don't even truly understand it. I guess it's like trying to imagine no beginning and no end.
This is all really off topic. There are a lot of good people that are sinners. If you voice an opinion that you know is wrong or if you are leading others down the same way that's bad. Now if he dug into it and found it to be false then he should repent or face another sin of pride. I don't doubt that you are a good person. I know a lot of good people that are lost. It's not our people's standards but Gods. Expression isn't always good. If I expressed some really bad things on someone I'm not really doing the nice or right thing. If I go in hate and tell someone off what's the good in that. I could go in love and reason with the person and get the same point across, just not in a bad way. Nobody likes lies being told about him or her, especially if there is a crowd of people that look at you differently because of it. Threat you differently. Even feel differently about you because of it.
"But Jesus was also fully human, and all humans are born sinners... Unless you happen to be Catholic and let "immaculate conception" get in the way. Then Mary too is sinless. Which means she's more God than human."
I never realized that is why Catholics worship Mary. She was free of sexual sin.
"You don't sit down and say "hey, I'm going to oppose the Church today." You have a different idea, and you believe it on what you perceive to be valid grounds."
But intentions are always important. If the author knew what he was writing was bogus and did it anyway he would be leading many down a bad path. If he were alive today and the evidence was presented to him and he was repentant than that is one thing. But if his pride got in the way or if he knew all along there would be a problem.
Yeah, the 70 virgins is an islamic theology, I think mormons might have something similar to that in their theology as well. Jesus was human enough to be afraid of what He would have to go through. The 3 days he was dead he went to hell. He had taken on the sins of man and was punished like a sinful man in hell. Granted he knew what the outcome would be. There are things we go through were we might not like the means but the ends are what we are looking to.
If Jesus ever did sin he couldn't be God, God is Holy and therefore sinless. The fact that we aren't without sin shows that we need God, how can God judge us if we have done nothing wrong. Jesus felt pain and took on all that humanity had to offer except sin. But theology aside The Last Temptation of Christ is a work of fiction. I'm not sure what the original authors goal was in writing it. If he did it to commit heresy than that's bad. If he honestly didn't mean to offend people than that needs to be considered. Same thing with The Da Vinci Code, although Brown has stated he believes it to be fact. I just hope people research everything out there before believing him.
My bad, caught in the moment. There's also much earlier prior art for this. I can't remember the names of the cults, I'm pretty sure there are a couple of them, but they have similar teachings.
So how does a movie made in 1988 from a writer who died 1957 make it a fact? Plus wasn't that movie about a temptation that Jesus never acted on. I could be wrong, I've never seen the movie, but it seems to be what people picked up from it. There are plenty of "documented" writings on how The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. Just google the subject and make the decision on your own.
Out of curosity, how are they misguided? I've heard that before and no one has explained it to me. The only conclusion I've come up with is that the research isn't done with a belief in evolution. I am definately not an authority on this, but I will keep reading and try to answer your question better on id studies. If you like you can always discuss on id message boards about the subject. That's where it seems the scientists hang out that are actually studying this stuff. I'm just a lowly programmer;). On th middle thing I was just thinking along the lines of if one side is leaning one way and the other is the leaning the other way than you take both and see what the middle holds. So there are those that say the Holocaust happen and that German people are crazy killers and those that say none of this happened. Well ther German people aren't necessarily like that but the Holocaust did happen. So you can try and take the science that looks good on both sides and combine them into a middle ground and arive at your own conclusion. It's like the conspiracy theorists. Sure they make some points and you can look at evidence from both sides but in the end you'll probably never know what really happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahaha, never thought about that.
I agree. If you've been told something long enough and someone presents evidence to the contrary it puts people on the offensive. Rightly so, who wants to be shown they are wrong and have proof? I'm not saying all of the data supports God, but the alternative theories starts looking much less like unbiased science and more like an attempt to prove anything but God. All the data is out there, one must only read with an open mind. If you can read everything out there without bias and still say that yep everything's an accident than so be it. At least you read the data and interpreted it for yourself. Come back with some reasonable conversation. Show us how all this evidence against us is right and all the evidence backing us is wrong.
"What is next, evidence of the "missing link" supports creationism also? (well it was created at some point, and god does create stuff)"
I thought evolutionists gave up on the missing link to. They can't find one so the incomplete fossil records must be the problem. Man has never seen something from nothing. So it becomes a theory where accident can't be the cause. After that God sneaks in to the equation. Can't have that now can we?
""They both had a start" is just about all they have in common. You can add the next stray cat you see to the same set."
Good enough to show there was an eternal root cause of everything.
Funny thing about that comment is that the big bang actually helps support creationism. Something caused the bang and God's pretty tough so it fits perfectly into Genesis. I thought most evolutionists were moving away from the big bang because of this.
I can kind of see that except that it's required of the church. I found this; which was interesting.
Dates of Catholic Doctrine:
Year Statement
437 Proclamation that infant baptism regenerates the soul
500 The Mass instituted as a re-sacrifice of Jesus for the remission of sins
593 Declaration that sins need to be purged, established by Pope Gregory I
600 Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints, and angels
786 Worship of cross, images, and relics authorized
995 Canonization of dead people as saints initiated by Pope John XV
1000 Attendance at Mass made mandatory under the penalty of mortal sin
1079 Celibacy of priesthood, decreed by Pope Gregory VII
1090 Rosary, repetitious praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit
1184 The Inquisition, instituted by the Council of Verona
1190 The sale of Indulgences established to reduce time in Purgatory
1215 Transubstantiation, proclaimed by Pope Innocent III
1215 Confession of sins to priests, instituted by Pope Innocent III
1229 Bible placed on Index of Forbidden Books in Toulouse
1438 Purgatory elevated from doctrine to dogma by Council of Florence
1545 Tradition claimed equal in authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent
1546 Apocryphal Books declared cannon by Council of Trent
1854 Immaculate Conception of Mary, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX
1870 Infallibility of the Pope, proclaimed by Vatican Council
1922 Virgin Mary proclaimed co-redeemer with Jesus by Pope Benedict XV
Until 1215 confession wasn't even practiced by any of the churches. Granted it is a tradition of the Catholic Church but some of the dogma above is scary. Even as late in the church as 1922 was it declared that Mary is a co-redeemer. This is not just nowhere in the Bible but goes against the Bible. The church continues with making dogma that is unbiblical.
Some Catholics say Peter was the first Pope. They come to this conclusion because Christ said he would build his church upon this rock. The statement refers to Peter's statement that Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus was God in flesh. This is the one statement that makes Christianity what it is. We are followers of the Messiah who has saved us. There wasn't really anything of the Catholic Church you see today until Constantine. This is why some people believe Constantine to be the first Pope; it's where the Catholic Church splintered into what it is today. I'll end up reading on the histories of the Catholic Church and see how it was all formed.
Okay, I set my prefs to be plain old text so hopefully this post isn't all jacked. Thanks for the help on that; it was starting to annoy me, as I'm sure it was annoying you.
I was in the wrong for inferring that. I just question some of their practices as being unbiblical. I am learning from Catholics, like you, about some of practices and stuff that go on there.
Yes, but you've heard the Word of God and aren't subject to universal revelation. Those people know there is a Creator and do what everyone knows is morally right. They are doing God's will at that point and have a faith in the Creator.
This site gives Biblical references that all Christians are saints.
http://www.gotquestions.org/saints-Christian.html
But praying to them to pray to God seems like an unnecessary step. Jesus taught us how to pray for ourselves. I agree in asking Christians to pray for problems we might have but never to ask God to forgive us or as the only way that I can communicate with God. I still pray for my needs but also the needs of others.
Ah, I guess some of my Catholic knowledge comes from tv. I thought priests in confession would have the person say the rosary a certain number of times depending on the severity of the sin. Which if they do is odd since the Bible says all sin is equal in the eyes of God. So lying is the same as murder, wrong is wrong.
One thing though I would suggest is to read the Bible often and not be afraid to question things in your church. Most of the Catholics I know that are in a non-denominational church now started that way. After reading the Bible the Catholic church seemed to miss a lot of the stuff the Word of God has to offer. I'm not trying to convert you at all. If you have accepted Christ and your faith is valid then the church you're at shouldn't matter. I just know the ex-Catholics at our church realized that they had never been saved and that is a problem.
I'm using firefox so I'm not sure why the newlines are getting in. Okay, so you are non Bible believing Catholic. It sounds like all your beliefs come from the Pope. Another religion that does this is Jehovah's Witnesses where the Watchtower gives them what they need to believe. I've heard this a lot from Catholics where the church discourages reading the Bible. On Philippians 2:12 check out the next verse. The works that are talked about are the works that God does in you. If you read the whole chapter you can see the context. James is explaining 2 kinds of faith, fruitless and fruitful. If you are truly saved you will have fruits, works, like Abrahama nd Rahab. If you don't have true faith than it's a usless faith. Demons have faith in God, but it isn't going to save them. He compares the false faith of someone without works to the faith the demons have. Works in way get you to Heaven though. Yes faith saved Noah and his house. When the Messiah was not here there were people that found favor with God. You'll need a time machine if you want to get out of accepting Christ as your Savior. Than the Catholics have it right. Faith in Jesus saves, but if you don't really believe in Jesus than your life will be fruitless. Either is equally bad, there's no gray here. Your either in or out. Both a and b are not going to Heaven so it matter little which is worse. Yes the first part takes what Gabriel said and paraphrases it. I read that article and never realized how the scriptures were stretched for this. I suppose she was the mother of God but she wasn't ever given a status likened to God. Jesus asked the diciples to look after her when he died. I don't this being a command to follow Mary in anyway, she was more a helper in the ministry than a leader or special person in it. The whole thing of praying to the saints because they missed the second death is interesting. Nowhere did jesus pray to Abraham or any other person than God. Just because someone isn't in hell doesn't mean they can be prayed to. Thank you though for the article I've never actually seen the Catholic reason for praying to saints. But a quick question, all Christians are saints, can we pray to anyone who was a Christian? It seems odd that the church singles out some of the children of God. Oh another question, why would one need to say the prayer more than once? Jesus even says in Matthew 6:7 "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
Yeah, no spell checking now. Forgive any errors. Yes it is but the lengths that have been gone through for what we have today I think we are doing just fine. In 2:1 it clearly states that all of heavens and earth are finished being created and God had entered into his rest from creation. Chapter 1 is the outline and chapter 2 is the focus on man. This sight goes into the Hebrew and indications from other scripture about it. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/ge nesis.asp
Oh, I'm sorry. I never meant you to think that I thought Catholics were pagans. Just that a lot of the rituals incorporated paganism to make it more acceptable to pagan cultures.
Oh and I do know a lot of Catholics. The ones in my church call themselves recovering Catholics. They are usually the most critical of that church. They never realized what was going on there until they came to a non-denominational church.
Wow, please give me the scripture where saying Hail Mary full of grace..... is mentioned in the Bible as having been a ritual for anything. Well it is inferred since it's not a requirement for Heaven. Only acception Jesus and the one and only way into heaven. All baptisms in the Bible happened after the person believed in Christ.
Your right, there are going to Catholics as well as Baptists etc. in heaven. My only point was that Catholics have some beliefs that could lead someone to believe they are saved when they are not. The real point is accepting Jesus is the only way the Bible makes that clear. So as long as that is what the Catholics believe than it's better thant he rumors I heard that Baptism is required and that we are saved by works and not grace.
I just noticed that that's what's happening.
No Christian believes that baptism forgives sins. Only praying to God and asking forgiveness can do that. Also I noticed that it says that the Catholic Church is the only true church. I don't believe that since there are plenty of churches that meet the "salvation through the completed works of Christ" criteria for Christianity. Their wording the trinity seems odd, but if they are saying that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all in the God Head then they have the Biblical interpretation of God revealing Himself to us correct. For the Bible that is accepted today you can read here http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=689 Out of curiosity what Bible are you reading that says man was made before Cattle? I just looked up both passages and cattle aren't even mentioned until 2:20 and that's when Adam was naming the animals. No I was just saying the Hebrew to English. Day in Hebrew can mean 12h, 24h or a time and morning and evening can refer to dawn or dusk or the beginning or end of a time. There's lots of literature on this and I suggest reading it, it's very interesting. I believe in Genesis 100%. I think a lot of people started to not believe it because science was reporting to have proved the Bible wrong. It actually proved it right as long as you interpret the Bible correctly and know what translation errors there are. Or at least give it a thought when reading the Bible that certain words can mean different things and that sometimes the translators took liberties. Here is an excerpt from Pope John Paul II "In the fourth century, given the new politico-social situation of the Church, the question of the relationship between liturgy and popular piety begins to be raised consciously in terms of adaptation and inculturation rather than solely in terms of spontaneous convergence. The local Churches, guided by clear pastoral and evangelizing principles, did not hesitate to absorb into the Liturgy certain purified solemn and festive cultic elements deriving from the pagan world. These were regarded as capable of moving the minds and imaginations of the people who felt drawn towards them. Such forms, now placed at the service of the mystery of worship, were seen as neither contrary to the Gospel nor to the purity of true Christian worship. Rather, there was a realization that only in the worship of Christ, true God and true Saviour, could many cultic expressions, previously attributed to false gods and false saviours, become true cultic expressions, even though these had derived from man's deepest religious sense. " The Pope even says it. I don't see too much wrong with how some of the holidays have turned out. But if nature is worshipped instead of Jesus than that's bad for Christmas and Easter. Christians seem to celebrate these holidays a bit differently than the secular population anyway. How many times does an atheist even have to deal with Jesus' crucifixion on Easter compared to the nativity scene during Christmas? But pretty soon with the aclu it won't be long until that isn't a concern for them. There are plenty of things that go directly against the Bible with Catholicism. Asking a priest for forgiveness is not from the Bible. Saying a Hail Mary to earn forgiveness is not from the Bible. Last Rites do not get you into Heaven. Purgatory is not a real place. Baptism is nothing more than a symbol that you have accepted Christ as your savior. The list goes on and on and the internet is filled with articles on the subject. I will say though I don't like some of them because they try to belittle Catholics and make fun of them. That isn't right but there are good to the point articles about this very subject.
I'm not familiar with Niean Interpretation, google isn't either. I'm not sure why you think literal interpretation of Gensis is silly. Just because the 24 hour creation days and global flood was misinterpreted doesn't mean you can't take it literally. Man was all in one place so a local flood was all that was necessary to judge man. Just replace a few words in your mind while reading it and you'll be fine. I don't reject any of the Bible. Are you mormon or part of some other cult? Actually the church is pretty large and worldwide. Unless you mean my actual local church and it's pretty big. You could say that Catholics have it right and we are wrong. But Catholics admit it's a mixture of Christian theology and pagan theology. I don't know about your but that sounds bad even to unbelievers. All our church believes in is what's in the Bible. So if it's not from God we look to see if it contradicts the Bible if it does we reject it.
For the Holy Word I would be referring to the Bible. The KJV is the best translation from what I've read. It has the least problems and all of the problems are well documented. The Christians don't need to follow the Jewish laws because they aren't bound to them. Jesus gave us this freedom. Sure if you would like to follow some of the Jewish customs that this fine but we are saved through faith in Christ not by what we eat. There is a reason the Bible is setup as the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament was made to the Jewish people through Abraham. The New Testament was given to all peoples of the earth, Jew and Gentile. We still have because all Scripture is good and used to learn from. The US doesn't stop teaching British history because we have our own country now. The Catholic Church has done some great things, but they have also done bad things as well. I go to a Bible believing non-denominational Church. Basically we believe if it's unbiblical than it's not from God. So we don't pray to marry or have confession, things like this. There are lots of things that seem to contradict in the Bible. They end up being misinterpretations. The earth is not and never was the center of the universe. There is even scripture to back up this scientific fact. There are also things like the 24 creation days and the global flood. There's not an easy way to directly translate from Hebrew to English and that's were a lot of misinterpreting comes from. It matters little if you believe in a young or old earth or a global or local flood, in the end you just need to put your faith in Jesus as your Savior. Christianity differs from a lot of religions in that it's not works that save us but faith. That faith is assured and can't be broken. But there's more to that, well a lot more to that. But the simple answer is if you have faith in Christ and have asked him to be your savior you are saved, all the other religions give no assurance. Also, Christianity is exclusive; a lot of the other religions don't say there is one path to God. I guess I'm kind of getting off topic here, but Catholicism does differ, sometimes greatly, from the Bible.
Yes and I've heard that many Catholic scholars believe that Catholicism is the perfect combination of Christianity and paganism. I'm more in the boat of getting my theology straight from God through his Holy Word. If the Bible says I should only be praying to God than that's what I'll do. If the Bible says that confessing my sins to man and asking forgiveness from God is wrong than I probably shouldn't be doing it. I'm not saying that the Catholic Church is all bad; they just have a lot of contradictions to the Bible though. Here is a website that outlines some of them. The Catholic Church does admit that their theology is a mixture of pagan and Christian beliefs. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html
Why shouldn't you? If you only care about the here and now then there's nothing I can really tell you. I read enough scriptures from the Qu'ran to be scared of it. Which version of the Tripitaka? From what I've read there are like 5,000 versions and the number of versions is still growing. Also some sects pick and choose what portion to follow. If the entire book isn't worth following than it raises suspicions in my mind. We don't know what Jesus' words where with his final breath. But the some of last words before his death are recorded in the Gospels. Luke explicitly claims not to record Jesus' last words and John has no account of Jesus' last words or events. I'm curious on this one, where are the errors of the order in which the species were created? Here's a link to help you with the translation errors. http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html And on the note that if God wants you saved he'll do it. God gave us free will. You have a choice in the matter. If Christians all had perfect lives than who wouldn't be a Christian, which would negate free will. If God were hanging out here on earth how could you deny God, again there would be no free will. God wants you to you to love Him because you want to, not because he forces you to.
Yup, you are correct that some people think it is flawed and full of lies. But with it's historical accuracy and care taken to assemble it the argument becomes harder. As a human you are free to believe it or disbelieve it. I would hope that just for the chance of it being true that those people would investigate for themselves. Come up with an informed position. What's the worst that could happen?
Catholicism has always been odd to me anyway. Nowhere is written that she had never sinned but was a virgin and free of sexual sin. I'll have to bring that up next time I'm talking to a Catholic and see if they have any scripture to back it up.
"Why? I could understand complaints if some member of the clergy committed heresy, but how can normal layperson be committing heresy? Is this a case that we have some religious elite telling us how and what to believe, and if we disagree, we are committing a "heresy", and that's bad? Many of your ideas go against religious beliefs of others, so you are a heretic as well. is that "bad" as well?" The main point is that everyone will be judged. You can believe anything you like. But Christianity is the only one to claim true salvation and all others to be false. A lot of people believe it to be condescending but the fact remains in the Bible. Oh, the trinity is tough to comprehend; I don't even truly understand it. I guess it's like trying to imagine no beginning and no end.
This is all really off topic. There are a lot of good people that are sinners. If you voice an opinion that you know is wrong or if you are leading others down the same way that's bad. Now if he dug into it and found it to be false then he should repent or face another sin of pride. I don't doubt that you are a good person. I know a lot of good people that are lost. It's not our people's standards but Gods. Expression isn't always good. If I expressed some really bad things on someone I'm not really doing the nice or right thing. If I go in hate and tell someone off what's the good in that. I could go in love and reason with the person and get the same point across, just not in a bad way. Nobody likes lies being told about him or her, especially if there is a crowd of people that look at you differently because of it. Threat you differently. Even feel differently about you because of it.
"But Jesus was also fully human, and all humans are born sinners... Unless you happen to be Catholic and let "immaculate conception" get in the way. Then Mary too is sinless. Which means she's more God than human." I never realized that is why Catholics worship Mary. She was free of sexual sin. "You don't sit down and say "hey, I'm going to oppose the Church today." You have a different idea, and you believe it on what you perceive to be valid grounds." But intentions are always important. If the author knew what he was writing was bogus and did it anyway he would be leading many down a bad path. If he were alive today and the evidence was presented to him and he was repentant than that is one thing. But if his pride got in the way or if he knew all along there would be a problem.
Yeah, the 70 virgins is an islamic theology, I think mormons might have something similar to that in their theology as well. Jesus was human enough to be afraid of what He would have to go through. The 3 days he was dead he went to hell. He had taken on the sins of man and was punished like a sinful man in hell. Granted he knew what the outcome would be. There are things we go through were we might not like the means but the ends are what we are looking to.
If Jesus ever did sin he couldn't be God, God is Holy and therefore sinless. The fact that we aren't without sin shows that we need God, how can God judge us if we have done nothing wrong. Jesus felt pain and took on all that humanity had to offer except sin. But theology aside The Last Temptation of Christ is a work of fiction. I'm not sure what the original authors goal was in writing it. If he did it to commit heresy than that's bad. If he honestly didn't mean to offend people than that needs to be considered. Same thing with The Da Vinci Code, although Brown has stated he believes it to be fact. I just hope people research everything out there before believing him.
My bad, caught in the moment. There's also much earlier prior art for this. I can't remember the names of the cults, I'm pretty sure there are a couple of them, but they have similar teachings.
So how does a movie made in 1988 from a writer who died 1957 make it a fact? Plus wasn't that movie about a temptation that Jesus never acted on. I could be wrong, I've never seen the movie, but it seems to be what people picked up from it. There are plenty of "documented" writings on how The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. Just google the subject and make the decision on your own.
Out of curosity, how are they misguided? I've heard that before and no one has explained it to me. The only conclusion I've come up with is that the research isn't done with a belief in evolution. I am definately not an authority on this, but I will keep reading and try to answer your question better on id studies. If you like you can always discuss on id message boards about the subject. That's where it seems the scientists hang out that are actually studying this stuff. I'm just a lowly programmer;). On th middle thing I was just thinking along the lines of if one side is leaning one way and the other is the leaning the other way than you take both and see what the middle holds. So there are those that say the Holocaust happen and that German people are crazy killers and those that say none of this happened. Well ther German people aren't necessarily like that but the Holocaust did happen. So you can try and take the science that looks good on both sides and combine them into a middle ground and arive at your own conclusion. It's like the conspiracy theorists. Sure they make some points and you can look at evidence from both sides but in the end you'll probably never know what really happened.