Christianity worships the one true God. God who sent His one and only son Jesus to hang on a cross for all of our sins. HE ROSE TO LIFE after his death. My faith is based on this fact. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is what separates Christianity from other religions. HE IS RISEN!

I don't think any other religion makes that claim.

apparently, its that we're the only ones within the pro-life movement...

In Christianity God reveals Himself to man in a most tender and personal way, by becoming man.

In Christianity the dignity of humans is elevated to that of being adopted sons and daughters of God.

"I don't think any other religion makes that claim."

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that all religions claim to be the one true faith.

Christians have the privilege to love, worship and serve a thrice-holy God. The Godhead has separate functions but are in perfect unity. Christianity's pinnacle moments was when God the Son willingly died (part of God actually died - I doubt any other religions would even want to acknowledge such a possibility) and Resurrection Sunday which confirmed that everything that Jesus said during His earthly ministry was true. The OT and NT eventually came into understanding and tie together perfectly. Without the Resurrection of Jesus, we have no hope and our faith is in vain. But we DO have a Risen Savior who came to serve and give His life a ransom for many - He shall be forever praised for sparing us a life in hell and a life separated forever from His love and the love of those who also have been saved by His great mercy. I love you Lord!

@Greg: Muslims are pro-life as well (believe it or not, they are very much against abortion). Hinduism is also a pro-life religion, although apparently many in India "forget" that little tenet that abortion is a grave sin when they have those sex-selection abortions to make sure they get a male heir (*vomit*).

But as to the question, Christians are different because they believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah and that he died for our sins. No other religion does, and other than that little tid-bit Christianity is similar to most world religions except Scientology...which is not a religion but a cult.

Only Christianity teaches you to love your enemy.

Other religions teach you to either hate your enemy (antipathy) or merely tolerate them (apathy).

The cross is the universal symbol of Christianity. It's almost impossible to go anywhere without seeing it on a steeple or headstone. So how did an instrument of torture come to represent forgiveness and hope for so many? After all, we don't wear little gold guillotines round our necks or display replicas of firing squads on our church walls. The answer can be found in the cross itself. Its horizontal beam symbolizes the breadth of God's love - it includes us all. Its vertical beam symbolizes the height and depth of His love - it reaches from the highest to the lowest of us. It's why God can be just and merciful without lowering His standards, and why He can redeem us without sanctioning our sin. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn 3:16). Thankfully it doesn't say God loved only the wealthy or the famous or the beautiful or the sober, or we'd all be in trouble! No, if you live in the "world" you're included!

Jesus didn't have to die, He chose to! He told his captors, "I could ask my Father for thousands of angels..and he would send them instantly...But if I did, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that describe what is happening now?" Max Lucado writes, "The force behind the hammer wasn't an angry mob...the hand squeezing the handle wasn't a Roman infantryman...the verdict...wasn't decided by jealous Jews. Jesus himself chose the nails...Had the soldier hesitated Jesus himself would have swung the mallet." That's how much He loves you.

Here's the part I don't get. God can do anything, so Jesus didn't have to die for our sins, he could have dealt with them anyway he wished. Why didn't he just run a marathon for our sins or something?

(and isn't it cheating to say you're dying for our sins if you know you're not really dying and will have ever lasting life in heaven?)

He didn't promise He would stay dead, Hal. In fact, He was very clear before the crucifixion that He would rise again after three days. This is a HUGE part of Christianity.

I think because it is the only religion based on someone else's sacrificial love for us. It is not based on "self love" or "self realization" or "self deification", but at the same time it is different from pagan religions in that our God LOVES us. He is not arbitrary, petty, and does not have a fallen human nature. He does not demand that we offer our war prisoners as a sacrifice to seal our victory. He does not demand that we force people to go through the motions of worship and conquer the world. He is not after empty actions, but is after our hearts.

God IS Love.

Our God is a personal God. It is a turning point in the OT when Abraham makes an altar, and Melchizadek comes... at that time, all of the other gods were tied to places or things, but our God can be worshipped anywhere, any time. He is God for all peoples. Chrisitianity is the fulfillment of God's covenant with His people, Israel, and has continuity to the beginning of people.

Also, Christianity has the Church, and we are all brothers and sisters. We can help each other, pray for each other, encourage each other through the Church even if we don't even know the other person! Our Church has a great spiritual treasury that is ALL of our heritage (not just a few upper caste members, or a very few elect.)

Hal,
No other religions worship a God who came to earth as a man, was crucified, dead and buried and rose again. He lives!

Hal,
Because God is infinite, our offenses against him (sin) are also infinite. In order to "solve" the problem of sin (us saying NO to God's love) it requires a blood sacrifice. In OT times, the blood sacrifice was a lamb or other animal. But that was just a temporary fix.

Because Jesus was God, his sacrifice is infinitely holy. An infinitely holy sacrifice is required, and Jesus Christ loved us enough to make that sacrifice. He was the only One who could.

I posted on my blog about this a little bit last month:
I Guess He Didn't Get the Memo

I know I'm missing a lot of points on the atonement, but this is a HUGE subject for a combox! Some more in depth info is here:

Atonement Catholic Encyclopedia

However, the article assumes familiarity with the Scriptures.

Hal,
Because God is infinite, our offenses against him (sin) are also infinite. In order to "solve" the problem of sin (us saying NO to God's love) it requires a blood sacrifice. In OT times, the blood sacrifice was a lamb or other animal. But that was just a temporary fix.

Because Jesus was God, his sacrifice is infinitely holy. An infinitely holy sacrifice is required, and Jesus Christ loved us enough to make that sacrifice. He was the only One who could.

I posted on my blog about this a little bit last month:
I Guess He Didn't Get the Memo

I know I'm missing a lot of points on the atonement, but this is a HUGE subject for a combox!

Hal, you ask some profound questions!

> God can do anything, so Jesus didn't have to die for our sins, he could have dealt with them anyway he wished. Why didn't he just run a marathon for our sins or something?

I am no theologian, and I don't even know if this is correct, but I think the way God chose to do this was more for us....we are human, and this was a way to reach us through our humanity.

As to the weekend question....(this isn't the only reason) Christianity is the only religion that if practiced, would bring genuine peace, respect for human life, and advancment of civilization (Christianity had a huge influence on science, art, literature, etc.) It (He) is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

God is Holy. That means He is set apart and different from everything in the universe. In Him there is no darkness, He is entirely light. His realm is eternity. The past, present and future are all the same to Him. We have a difficult time understanding this because it is not in our realm of experience, however, all you have to do is study the theory of relativity and you'll get a glimpse of the inifinite.

God created humankind. We sinned, i.e., we disobeyd His loving command designed to protect us (now remember that the past, present and future are all the same to Him so when we sinned doesn't matter). Because of this and because of God's ultimate integrity He has no choice but to banish us from His Kingdom, for darkness and light cannot co-exist. By definition, where there is light, there is no darkness and vice versa. The place of banishment is called Hell. Where God lives is called Heaven. Both are eternal states which means there is no method of escape or change via time or matter. That's it, forever.

Because He loved us so much and wants to be with us, God had to find a way to eternally punish or destroy our sin but at the same time have eternal fellowship with us. He solved the dilemma by giving Himself on the cross to die. This is the ultimate expression of love and there are no human words available to desribe what He did for all of us. This cannot be understood fully on a mental level, it's a heart thing. That's why He beckons us to let go of fears and our defense mechanisms, fostered on us by a cruel world, and let Him in, for He is as gentle as a dove.

Because He died, and was resurrected, we now have the hope of eternal life. It's guaranteed!

This is how 12, ordinary, sinful and discouraged men before the resurrection were able to change the world after the resurrection. They saw the light! This is how a murderous and vengeful Pharisee named Saul of Tarsus, became one of the greatest men who ever lived, Paul. This is how I, a selfish and sinful man, has grown to love Him more and more each day.

This is the power of Easter!!!!!!

This is Christianity in a nutshell. It is not a religion as many in the world have so pitifully tried to make it, it is a revelation of God's design for relationship with Him.

It's hard for us to understand, however, faith makes up for our limited understanding. How could we, who are limited and finite, understand an infinte God? He begs us to trust Him by believing in (which is not just mental ascent but a total surrender of our lives) Christ. I do and though He slay me I will trust him.

I urge the whole world to do the same thing while you have time.

Simply say this prayer out loud:

"Dear God: I admit and confess that I have sinned against you by breaking your commandments, even one. I believe in my heart that Jesus Christ is your Son, that you sent Him to die for me and that you raised Him from the dead. I now ask for your forgiveness and ask you to come into my heart and be my Savior and Lord. I confess with my mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord. Thank you Lord."

Now, go find a Bible based church where Christ is proclaimed. Stay away from Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism. In obedience be baptized by total immersion. If you were sprinkled or christened as an infant it is incumbent on you to now be baptized by immersion in obedience to God's Word. Start attending that church regulary for the purposes of growing and mantaining your new found faith. Read God's word every day, talk to God all the time as you would a friend. He will direct your paths and promises to never, ever leave or forsake you.

If you are a Catholic, go to your priest and insist that you now be immersed in water. If he refuses, leave that church for they are not following God's Word.

Amen.

Ellie:

As things fall to the ground in obedience to the law of gravity, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 9:22 "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

This is why sin is so offensive to God and we should take it so, so seriously. It takes the shedding of blood to cover over sin.

It took the shedding of One's innocent blood

This is why I am so anti-abortion. It is a grave and extremely serious sin, which while forgiveable, should be avoided at all costs. For it cost my Savior dearly on the cross.

The Sacrifice of Christ is hard to understand if you do not understand the nature of Christ. He is God from God, he is Light from Light, and he is true God from true God. He is of the same being with the Father.

If you understand that Jesus is, was, and always will be God, then you understand that his Sacrifice was the Sacrifice of God himself. God, being infinite, could have redeemed us of our sins in other ways, but He chose to become a man to show us how much he loves us. The Eternal Word of God was incarnated in the flesh and lived as a man, equal to us in all ways but sin. He willingly took the sins of the world on his own body. In his death he destroyed our death, and in his rising he restored our life.

If you don't understand that Jesus is God, it might seem cruel that God asked him to die on the Cross. But if know that Jesus is God, then you know that God Himself suffered in order to redeem us.

That is the difference between Christianity and every other religion.

Christianity is the only religion that if practiced, would bring genuine peace, respect for human life, and advancment of civilization (Christianity had a huge influence on science, art, literature, etc.)

Actually, in the golden age of Islam, peace and tolerance reigned, and it was Muslims who were inventing advanced mathematics while the Christians were imprisoning folks like Galileo for suggesting that the Earth might not be at the center of the universe. Thinking of Buddhism, among others, it seems to me that you have a lot to learn about world religions before making such a sweeping statement.

Let's see, well...

Jesus claimed to BE GOD in the flesh. He died in our place. Man cannot become a god, but God did become a man in order to redeem us. Also, Jesus rose again from the dead. Other world religions have reincarnation in their beliefs, etc, but they do not have their leaders returning from the dead in the same bodies. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is among one of the most documented and observed events in history.

Also, Christianity shows to us that man cannot save himself...many other world religions find man consistently reaching and striving to be "good enough" to attain whatever goal their religion has in mind. Christianity comes from the viewpoint that man cannot save himself...that we cannot repair the damage of original sin. If we could save ourselves or "work" ourselves to salvation, Christ would never have come to take our place and our punishment.

HisMan, would you say that the following makes for an appropriate sinner's prayer for the sake of being born again?

I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God. Glory to God in the highest and peace to His people on Earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father. We worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory. Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world. Have mercy on us. You are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Ray, I see that your Marxist professors have brainwashed you well. Bravo for them!

The real story about Galileo and the Catholic Church if anyone's interested:

http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

What seperates Christianity from all other world religions, is that Christianity follows the teachings of Christ.

Jesus said,

I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." (John 14:6)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

John 6:47-48
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

Any religion that takes away from this, or adds to this, is not true Christianity.

"Only Christianity teaches you to love your enemy."

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Buddhism is an example.

Ray, I see that your Marxist professors have brainwashed you well. Bravo for them!

Marxist professors? Actually the teacher of my first world religions class in high school was Jewish.

The real story about Galileo and the Catholic Church if anyone's interested:

http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

Wow, who knew the Catholics were so good at spin? The fact remains that Galileo died under house arrest by the church, and that the ban on publishing his works was not lifted until 1718! Certainly the church today has removed itself from stating official positions on scientific matters that might not agree with biblical passages, but it wasn't this way.

Back to my original point, it was Islamic mathematicians, between roughly 600 and 1600, that gave us algebra, trigonometry, and calculus, among other branches of math. While this was going on, the Christians were busy crusading in the Middle East, and burning heretics at the stake (NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!)

And even more to my original point, historically, Christianity has had no monopoly on peace or respect for human life, much less scientific advancement.

Looking at it another way, what separates Christianity from most other world religions is cannibalism. Christians believe in the figurative, literal, and/or miraculous (take your pick) transformation of bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus, which they then eat. Granted, Jesus told them to do this, and it is done in ceremony with great pomp and circumstance, but the fact remains that it amounts to the symbolic eating of human flesh. I'd say this is fairly unique.

Looking at it another way, what separates Christianity from most other world religions is cannibalism. Christians believe in the figurative, literal, and/or miraculous (take your pick) transformation of bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus, which they then eat. Granted, Jesus told them to do this, and it is done in ceremony with great pomp and circumstance, but the fact remains that it amounts to the symbolic eating of human flesh. I'd say this is fairly unique.

Ray,
Not ALL Christians believe this. I think that it's prevelant in the Roman Catholic Church. However, I, as a born-again Christian, took what Jesus said to be figuratively. We are to do this in "rememberance of Him". I don't believe for a second that Jesus comes over and over again to be sacrificed at the beckoning command of a priest and be put in a gold container with a glass window.

I, personally, am appalled by this statement:

"Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command. (Cardinal John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., (Huntington, IN 1974), pp. 255-256)

The scriptures tell us:

Hebrews 10:11-12 [11] Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. [12] But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.

Hebrews 9:24-28 [24] For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. [25] Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. [26] Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. [27] Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, [28] so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

I also agree with your statement regarding cannibalism. This was a ritual practiced in pagan beliefs long before Christ ever came.

Ray, I see that your knowledge of world religious history comes mainly from Monty Python sketches. If you want to be educated, you should try reading my link instead of ignoring it as "Catholic spin". Still, if want to exercise your right to choose to remain ignorant, that's up to you.

Catholics are cannibals? Haha... haven't heard that one in awhile. That would be the case if transubstantiation was a physical change. It's not. You can plainly tell that a transubstantiated Communion wafer is still physically a piece of bread. Transubstantiation is a spiritual transformation, wherein, yes, the bread and wine do indeed become the Body and Blood of Christ. Just not physically. Most people get this confused because Jesus is physically present through the Eucharist, but that doesn't mean that the Eucharist is physically flesh and blood.

John:

That's a canned Catholic prayer in which I can find no Biblical fault. I would have no problem praying that prayer every day, however, I prefer to pray the words the Spirit gives me and not a prayer that someone else wrote. I also like to talk to God every possible waking moment as a friend and counselor and not obsessively or compulsively. Canned prayers have a way of turning into that.

However, regarding your question about whether or not the prayer can be used as a sinner's prayer unto salvation, I don't know for it lacks an explicit confession that the penitent believes in his his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, however, it is implied by the term, "Lamb of God". However, God is not a legalist but a lover of our souls, however, I cannot hosestly answer that question without direct Bibliacal confirmation. This is how I think Catholics deviate from the faith, they inject their opinion as truth.

See Romans 10:9 which states that, "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

John,
Thank you for your explanation. I guess it just gets a bit confusing when one reads this:

"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: 'Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

When I read that, I believe that a physical change takes place. In many Christian churches, the doctrine holding that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, although their appearances remain the same. So, from what I understand, you believe that even though it looks like a cracker and wine, it is actually the physical body and blood of Jesus, based on the definition and the Council of Trent's statement. So, in essence, there is a physical change, right?

HisMan, I actually combined bits from two "canned" Catholic prayers. But since your prayer was also "canned", in that you put quotation marks around a specific prayer to be prayed, I fail to see the difference. Anyway, I should have added a bit from this third Catholic prayer:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end."

I've heard some Protestants say that Catholics are not saved, because we are not "born again", because we have never recited a "sinner's prayer". Yet we recite the equivalent of a "sinner's prayer" at nearly every Catholic Mass.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing with you about Catholic vs. Protestant stuff, especially on the day before Easter, but I just wanted to make that one point.

JLM, we believe that the Eucharist is Jesus, but not that it is physically flesh and blood. I suppose you could argue that there is a "physical change" since Jesus is physically present, but that would be in a different sense than a typical physical change wherein the physical properties of a substance become different.

Here's an easy way to dispel the "cannibalism" myth. If we really believed that the Eucharist was physically flesh and blood, we would not be allowed to receive it on Fridays during Lent, since we are forbidden from eating meat on those days. Yet there is no problem with a priest performing Mass on Lenten Fridays, or anyone receiving the Eucharist on a Lenten Friday. That's because the Eucharist is not physically flesh. It's a spiritual transformation.

Jesus said that when He ascended into Heaven at the right hand of the Father that He would send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit.

Why then, does that Catholic Church think that Jesus then comes in full physical presence in the communion wafer? Is there a need for the simultaneous presence of the Holy Spirit and Jesus? Why then did Jesus say that He would send the Holy Spirit if He knew He would be present in the communinon wafers and wine?

Where does the Bible state explicitly that the bread and wine is turned into the body and blood of Christ? How does a command to have a memorial service, i.e., "do this in remembrance of me" turn into full blown transubstantiation? I know we "proclaim His death until He comes" in the communino service but again, I don't see how transubstatiation is necessary to 1) remember Him and what He did and 2) procalim His death.

Also, how long after the church started on teh day of Pentecost in AD 33 did the doctrine of transubstatiation come into being?

And I hate to be gross but what does the communion turn into as it exits the body? If this is truly the body and blood of Christ why would we allow it to be defiled, especially when the Word says that Jesus' body did not suffer decay in the womb after He was crucified. Obviuously the Father was extremely concerned with the condition of Jesus' flesh and what would happen to it if natural forces were allowed their process. Isn't this blasphemous?

Finally, why is it necessary to reenact Christ's death over and over again in the mass when the Bible specifically states that he died once for all. Why all the unncecceary constructs unless the varying superstitious theological contexts were created over time to allay fears, answer questions, soothe doubt, etc. apart from direct application and trust of God's Word. Do you think that the clergy, who were usually the only literate ones in society did this as a means of holding onto their power and wealth?

Look, I am an engineer. I am trained to think logically. Most of Catholic Theology, where it deviates from Scripture, makes absolutely no sense at all. Now, having said that I agree with the bulk of Catholic Theology where it agrees with Scripture. Fortunately most of the agreement is in the important stuff and I have learned much from my Catholic brtheren. I don't think there is another church in the world that does the amount of good that the Catholic Church does where it involves the poor and needy and teh unborn. In fact, I would say that I agree more with Catholic Theology than I do with Lutheran, Presbyterian, and most main line Protestant Theologies.

John,
Thank for explaining that to me!
I appreciate it!!!

I was under the impression that Catholics thought it was really the flesh and blood of Jesus they were consuming. Your explanation makes more sense to me that it is done in "remembrance" of Him, and not "actually" physically digesting Him.

Thank you again!
:)

Further, I think Catholic Theology is closer to teh Word of God than most if not all of the main line Protestant Theologies.

In fact, I think Christian fundamentalism is closer to Catholic Theology in regards to marriage, abortion, homosexuality, the Supremacy of Christ, the treatment of the poor and needy, etc., than that of most main line Protestant churches which I think most of which, not all, have lost their minds.

So my Catholic friends, when I challenge your theology please see is my way of nudging you closer to God's Word and away from a dependence on man's opinions.

And John, correct me if I am wrong, but the wafer and wine becomes the literal body and blood of Christ. This is what I was taught as a Catholic for 23 years.

Stephanie, Buddhism does not teach you to love your enemy. It teaches apathy, namely tolerance and pacifism. If an enemy enters your home and starts killing your family, you do not show love by permitting the enemy to have his way. Rather you show love by defending your family, even putting your own life down for them if necessary.

John:

Never once have I stated that Catholics were not saved. This is ridculous. However, I would say that there are many Catholics who believe that there way is the only way. I believe that Christ is the only way.

I just think Catholic Theology deviates substantailly from Scripture and adds to it when it is simply not neccessary.

I agree fully with the prayer you posted. It is completely Biblical.

I term a canned prayer one that is given the "Nihil Obstat" seal of approval by the Catholic Church. I don't have a problem with these, however, I think God appreciates a heart felt conversation with His child more than with something just simply read out of a missal or book of prayer. When one reads such a prayer out of a book or even from memory they would do well to think heartily about what they are saying and mean every word, otherwise one is wasting their time and breath for God does not hear such prayers.

I've heard some Protestants say that Catholics are not saved, because we are not "born again", because we have never recited a "sinner's prayer". Yet we recite the equivalent of a "sinner's prayer" at nearly every Catholic Mass.

But John, I was told by Catholics that "once saved always saved" is a Protestant myth. So, in reality, I guess it depends on what time you are talking to the Catholic, no?

No prob, JLM. It can be very difficult to understand. We do worship the Eucharist as being Jesus himself, but it's not physically flesh and blood, as any simple examination can tell you.

Now I'll make the attempt to answer all of HisMan's concerns, eventhough I said I didn't want to have this discussion today. I'll be using the KJV Bible for quotes:

1 - "Jesus said that when He ascended into Heaven at the right hand of the Father that He would send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit."

True. I have no problem with that.

2 - "Why then, does that Catholic Church think that Jesus then comes in full physical presence in the communion wafer? Is there a need for the simultaneous presence of the Holy Spirit and Jesus? Why then did Jesus say that He would send the Holy Spirit if He knew He would be present in the communinon wafers and wine?"

Yep. Jesus sent the Advocate, aka the Holy Spirit, to the Apostles. But Jesus also commanded his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood:

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

-John 6: 51-56

This resulted in many of his disciples turning away from him:

"Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?"

"From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

-John 6:60,66

The typical Protestant interpretation of this passage is that Jesus was using a metaphor, asking his disciples to believe in him. Hence they put the emphasis on this part:

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

-John 6:64-65

Yet that fails to explain why people who were already his disciples would leave, or why his words would offend them so much. How could his disciples be offended if he was merely speaking metaphorically?

3 - Where does the Bible state explicitly that the bread and wine is turned into the body and blood of Christ?

That depends on your interpretation of the events of the Last Supper. The Protestant interpretation is that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when he said "This is my body". We Catholics disagree. We think that Jesus instituted the Eucharist during the Last Supper.

4 - "How does a command to have a memorial service, i.e., "do this in remembrance of me" turn into full blown transubstantiation?"

Ah, but it's only your interpretation that it's merely a memorial service. The Protestant interpretation focuses on the words "do this in remembrance of me", yet those words are not explicit in themselves. We Catholics don't ignore those words. In fact, those words are used during the transubstantiation at every Catholic Mass! We just interpret those words in a different way. We think that Jesus told the Apostles to transubstantiate the Eucharist in memory of him.

5 - "I know we "proclaim His death until He comes" in the communino service but again, I don't see how transubstatiation is necessary to 1) remember Him and what He did and 2) procalim His death."

We do it because he told us to do it. Paul talks about the Eucharist in one of his letters:

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

-1 Corinthians 11:23-29

How can a man eat bread and drink wine "unworthily"? Why must a man "examine" himself before doing so, or else risk damnation?

Paul also wrote:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"

-1 Corinthians 10:16

It would seem that Paul found this ritual to be rather important, whether or not you believe in transubstantiation.

6 - "Also, how long after the church started on teh day of Pentecost in AD 33 did the doctrine of transubstatiation come into being?"

You're not going to like this answer, but it was done from the foundation of Christianity:

"It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.'' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood'', and he gave it to them alone."

-St. Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century

"For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the Flesh and Spirit. For as bread which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection to eternity ... Even as the blessed Paul declares in his epistle to the Ephesians that ‘We are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones’: he does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but he refers to that dispensation by which the Lord became an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones, - that flesh which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from bread which is his body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling on the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of the Christ."

-St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2nd century AD

7 - "And I hate to be gross but what does the communion turn into as it exits the body? If this is truly the body and blood of Christ why would we allow it to be defiled, especially when the Word says that Jesus' body did not suffer decay in the womb after He was crucified."

That's another good reason why the Eucharist is spiritually flesh and not physically flesh. So we don't have to worry about that question.

8 - "Obviuously the Father was extremely concerned with the condition of Jesus' flesh and what would happen to it if natural forces were allowed their process. Isn't this blasphemous?"

It might be, if the Eucharist were physically flesh.

9 - "Finally, why is it necessary to reenact Christ's death over and over again in the mass when the Bible specifically states that he died once for all."

Because Jesus told us to do it.

10 - "Why all the unncecceary constructs unless the varying superstitious theological contexts were created over time to allay fears, answer questions, soothe doubt, etc. apart from direct application and trust of God's Word. Do you think that the clergy, who were usually the only literate ones in society did this as a means of holding onto their power and wealth?"

Do you think that Paul was the kind of person who would do something like that?

11 - "Look, I am an engineer. I am trained to think logically. Most of Catholic Theology, where it deviates from Scripture, makes absolutely no sense at all."

So... speaking scientifically, it makes sense that Jesus is God and that he took his sins on to his body and saved us from them by dying on a cross? Why is it so easy for you to believe that Jesus can die for our sins, but when it comes to the Eucharist, that makes absolutely no sense and is illogical? If you ask me, Jesus allowing his body to become covered with our sins in the forms of wounds and then him destroying those sins through his death and resurrection is a million times more miraculous than the Eucharist.

12 - "Now, having said that I agree with the bulk of Catholic Theology where it agrees with Scripture. Fortunately most of the agreement is in the important stuff and I have learned much from my Catholic brtheren. I don't think there is another church in the world that does the amount of good that the Catholic Church does where it involves the poor and needy and teh unborn. In fact, I would say that I agree more with Catholic Theology than I do with Lutheran, Presbyterian, and most main line Protestant Theologies."

Well, thanks for throwing me a bone. I'll close by saying that I take offense at it when someone suggests that my Church is not "Bible-based". That Catholic Church compiled the books of the Bible in the first place; to say that we aren't "Bible-based" is absurd. You disagree with some of our interpretations, just as we disagree with some of yours, but frankly I find it to be bigoted to say that we're not "Bible-based" since our Catholic Church relies on Sacred Scripture, the Magisterium, and Tradition. Heck, any Protestant who uses the word "Trinity" is also relying on "Tradition" to an extent, since that word is not in the Bible, nor is the concept expressly stated. The very fact that the Bible is not clear about the Trinity is what leads Mormons to disbelieve in it.

JLM said: "But John, I was told by Catholics that "once saved always saved" is a Protestant myth. So, in reality, I guess it depends on what time you are talking to the Catholic, no?"

Well, sort of. There are false conversions. Plus it's possible that a person could recite a "sinner's prayer" or something similar and be completely committed and faithful to the words spoken, but then come to abandon God later on in life. That's why we don't believe that simply uttering one prayer at some point in your life guarantees salvation.

I was just trying to apply Protestant theology to Catholic individuals. My point was that we Catholics are saved by that Protestant theology that states you must be "born again" in order to be saved. I vaguely recall some Protestant talk radio show host getting into trouble for saying that he didn't know whether or not Pope John Paul II went to Heaven, since he didn't know if he was "born again". Yet as I've shown, by the Protestant reckoning, Catholics are indeed "born again".

HisMan...referring to our Catholic prayers as being "canned" is rather petty, don't you think?

The word CATHOLIC means universal. This means that you can be in any country on Earth and the Mass and other rituals will be performed/celebrated the same way. These prayers are worded as such to profess the doctrines that we as a UNIVERSAL church accept, can utilize when worshipping en masse in COMMUNION with one another and shared by all.

We are in NO WAY limited to ONLY these formal expressions of prayer, and ARE encouraged to utilize our own personal prayers if and when we see fit.

Formal type group prayer is utilized when we GATHER as a CHURCH to worship as a BODY of Christians.

Since you say you were raised Catholic, you should know this already. This premise is universally taught and accepted by the Catholic Church.

Ray,
You might become more enlightened about the Catholic Church's contribution to Western Society by reading
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. by Thomas E. Woods Phd.

On the contribution of Islam to science Woods writes the following:
"The fact is, however, that the contributions of Muslim scienctists typically occurred in spite of Islam rather than because of it. Orthodox Islamic scholars absolutely rejected any conception of the universe that involved consistent physical laws, because the absolute autonomy of Allah could not be restricted by natural laws. Apparent natural laws were nothing more than mere habits so to speak, of Allah, and might be discontinued at any time." p. 79

Christianity brought with it a completely different outlook on the world and the universe as compared with the ancient cultures. Wisdom 11:21 states "that God is said to have ordered all things by measure, number, weight"
Christianity believed in a rational ordered universe something many societies did not understand or realize. This idea is central to the incredible development of science. Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu and Mayan cultures did not believe in a Creator who endowed creation with consistent physical laws which could be discovered. Instead they thought of the world as a organism dominated by gods who went through endless cycles of birth, death and rebirth. These ancient cultures were characterized by an animism - created things had a mind of their own and therefore the idea of fixed physical laws was foreign and never occured to them.

John I've enjoyed reading your posts today. Good job!

"Stephanie, Buddhism does not teach you to love your enemy. It teaches apathy, namely tolerance and pacifism. If an enemy enters your home and starts killing your family, you do not show love by permitting the enemy to have his way. Rather you show love by defending your family, even putting your own life down for them if necessary."

Cranky, I don't understand. Please explain further?

John, no bone was thrown, just truth stated. Here's some more truth as taught in the Bible:

The Bible encourages believers to study the "whole counsel" of God's Word and to "test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Every believer is to "be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15). To obey God's command to test all things, we will search the Scriptures to determine what the Bible teaches concerning the Lord's Supper.

The Last Supper was celebrated by first century Christians in obedience to Jesus' words "do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22:19). This observance was established by the Lord at the Last Supper when He symbolically offered Himself as the Paschal Lamb of atonement. His actual death the next day fulfilled the prophecy. Only Paul uses the phrase "Lord's Supper" although it is alluded to in Revelation 19:9, where we are told that believers will celebrate the "marriage supper of the Lamb." Church fathers began to call the occasion the "Eucharist" meaning "thanksgiving" from the blessing pronounced over the bread and wine after about A.D. 100. Christians have celebrated the Lord's Supper regularly as a sign of the new covenant sealed by Christ's death and resurrection.
Today, the Eucharist means far more than simply thanksgiving.

So what exactly did Jesus ordain during the Last Supper? Here is the Bible's description of the events surrounding the Lord's Supper. At the Last Supper "[Jesus] took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.'" (Luke 22: 19, 20). This is strong language indeed and not to be taken lightly for "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…" (2 Timothy 3:16).

And if Jesus wasn't clear enough about His body and blood at the Last Supper, He certainly left no room for doubt when He spoke about His flesh and blood, recorded in the sixth chapter of John's Gospel:

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." (John 6: 51-55).

Repeatedly Jesus stated that His flesh is food and His blood drink. Taken together, these verses certainly seem to affirm that Jesus is truly present in the consecrated host. But, before putting the matter to rest, we must investigate the whole counsel of God.

Throughout the Bible, context determines meaning. Bible-believing Christians know to take the Bible literally unless the context demands a symbolic interpretation. Before exploring Jesus' words in John chapter 6 and elsewhere, let's review a few examples of symbolism in the Scriptures. All scholars would agree that the following verses are metaphorical. An explanation follows each verse.

Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good (Ps 34:8).

(Try and experience God's promises to find if they are true.)

"Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life" (John 4:14).

(For those who receive the gift of salvation, Christ's Spirit shall dwell in their souls assuring them of everlasting life.)

Moreover He said to me, "Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel." So I opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that scroll (Ezekiel 3:1, 2).

(Receive into your heart, internalize, and obey God's Word.)

It is apparent from searching the entire council of God that the Lord often uses metaphors and symbolic language to paint images for the reader. When the Bible says God hides us under His wings, we know that God is not a bird with feathers. However, the Bible should always be interpreted literally unless the context demands a symbolic explanation. So what does the context of John's Gospel and the other Gospels demand?

John Chapter 6

If we read the entire sixth chapter of John's Gospel, we not only get the context, but also some startling insights into what Jesus meant when He said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. John chapter 6, begins with the account of Jesus feeding five thousand, followed by the account of Jesus walking on water. Starting in verse 22, we find that on the following day, people were seeking Jesus for the wrong reasons, which we understand from Jesus' words in verses 26 and 27: "you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for food which perishes, but for food which endures to everlasting life."

These verses begin to frame the context of the verses that follow, specifically, that Jesus emphasized the need for them to seek eternal life. Jesus goes on to explain to them how to obtain eternal life, and in verse 28, when the people ask Jesus "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus replies (verse 29) "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

Here Jesus specifies that there is only one work that pleases God, namely, belief in Jesus. Jesus re-emphasizes this in verse 35 "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Notice the imperative is to "come to Me" and "believe in Me." Jesus repeats the thrust of His message in verse 40 where He states - "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Jesus could not be more clear - by coming to Him and trusting in Him we will receive eternal life. At this point in the chapter, the Jews complained about Him because He said: "I am the bread which came down from heaven." (verse 41). Jesus responds to their murmuring in verses 42 through 58, where he states that He is indeed the "living bread" and that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to obtain eternal life. However, let's remember the context of this statement. First, Jesus contrasts Himself with the manna that rained down on their fathers and sustained them for their journey, but their fathers are now dead. While Jesus offers Himself as the living bread, which, if they eat, will cause them to live forever.

Jesus is not the perishable manna that their descendants ate in the wilderness, He is the eternal bread of life that lives forever. Only by partaking in His everlasting life can we hope to live with Him forever. This contrast strengthens His main message, which is recorded in verse 47 where Jesus says, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life." Notice, Jesus said that as soon as we believe in Him we have, present tense, eternal life. It is not something we aim at or hope we might attain in the future, but rather, something we receive immediately upon believing.

When Jesus said these words, He was in the synagogue in Capernaum (verse 59), and He had neither bread nor wine. Therefore Jesus was either commanding cannibalism or He was speaking figuratively. If He was speaking literally, then He would be directly contradicting God the Father: "you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." (Genesis 9:4). Therefore, because Jesus Himself said, "the Scripture cannot be broken." (John 10:35), He must be speaking metaphorically. And that is exactly how He explains His own words in the subsequent verses.

After this, in verse 60, we find that many of His disciples said - "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?" Jesus was aware of their complaints and He responded in verses 61 through 64 saying - "Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe." Wait a minute, the flesh profits nothing! I thought Jesus said we must eat His flesh? Yet, if the flesh profits nothing, Jesus must be speaking in spiritual terms. And that is exactly what He says - "The words that I speak to you are spirit."

Jesus uses the exact same Greek word for flesh ("sarx") as He did in the preceding verses. Therefore we must conclude that eating His literal flesh profits nothing! If the Lord Himself sets the context of the dialogue, we would do well to hear Him. He said that the words that He speaks are spirit and that the flesh profits nothing.

If that isn't clear enough, Peter's words allow no room for doubt. Immediately following the dialogue with the Jews, in which some disciples went away, Jesus said to the twelve apostles - "Do you also want to go away?" (verse 67). Peter's response is profound. His reply to Jesus is recorded in verse 68 - "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Amazing! Peter did not say we have come to believe that we must eat Your flesh to live. He said that we know You are the Christ, and we have come to believe in You as the Christ.

This is the confession of faith that leads to eternal life, not eating Jesus' flesh and drinking His blood. It also agrees with the totality of Scripture. Here is a brief sampling:

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10: 9).

What must I do to be saved?…Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved (Acts 16: 30, 31).

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life (John 3: 36).

In John chapter 6, Jesus clearly contrasted the temporary benefits of the physical manna with the eternal benefits of life in the Spirit. This theme is repeated throughout the Word of God. All through the Bible, the limited and temporary benefits of the flesh are contrasted with the infinite and eternal benefits of the spirit. Consuming manna, even manna from heaven, has limited value. However, receiving Christ's life, by placing our trust and hope in Him, has infinite value. Romans chapter 8 explains this truth:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. …For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. …So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His (Romans 8:1, 5, 6, 8, 9)."

In addition to Jesus' teaching in John chapter 6, we get additional insight into His message by reading John's entire Gospel, and we begin to fully understand what Jesus meant when He said "I am the bread of life." In John's Gospel, Jesus makes seven "I am" statements. These seven are listed below.

John 6:35 I am the bread of life
John 8:12 I am the light of the world
John 10:9 I am the door
John 10:11 I am the good shepherd
John 11:25 I am the resurrection and the life
John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life
John 15:5 I am the vine

Believers should love these seven "I am" statements. Not only is Jesus claiming to be God, but He is defining who God is. Back in the Book of Exodus, Moses asks God what His name is. God responds to Moses by saying, "My name is I AM". God is the self-existent One. This I AM in the Hebrew is the name of God, the YHWH where we get "Yahweh" and "Jehovah."

And in John's Gospel, Jesus expounds and explains who God is. If your soul is hungering, Jesus would say: I am the bread of life. If you're seeking illumination and understanding, Jesus would say: I am the light of the world. Are you looking for the entrance into abundant life? Jesus would say: I am the door. Do you need guidance and protection? Jesus would say: I am the good shepherd. Are you seeking eternal life? Jesus would say: I am the resurrection and the life. Jesus knows your needs better than you do. Whatever your need, Jesus would say: I am the way, the truth, and the life. I am the vine. If you abide in Me, I will supply all your needs.

What Jesus is saying in John chapter 6 and throughout the Gospel of John is: I am all you need. I created you and I know and understand what you need to be fully satisfied and it is Me. Jesus is our all in all. No matter what we think we need, Jesus, alone can supply our true need. By studying the entire Gospel of John, we see clearly that Jesus is not proclaiming Himself to be literal bread, any more than He is proclaiming Himself to be a literal vine or gate. Rather, He is affirming that as our God and Creator, He, and He alone, is all we need. Understanding the whole counsel of God is crucial.

Before leaving chapter 6 of John's Gospel, we must realize that this chapter does not deal directly with the Last Supper, or with the doctrine of the Eucharist. That's worth repeating, John chapter 6 has nothing to do with the Last Supper! And while proponents of transubstantiation often refer to these verses to support their doctrine, nowhere in this chapter does Jesus give the disciples instruction on how to celebrate Communion, nor is the Last Supper described here.

John deals with the Last Supper starting in chapter 13, but chapter 6 is a separate subject. So even if Jesus meant that we need to literally eat the meat of His body to obtain eternal life, He does not ordain a procedure to follow concerning the Communion meal, and He certainly does not tell His disciples to institute a priesthood that will consecrate bread and turn it into His literal flesh. Nor does He teach here, or anywhere in Scripture, to worship His body and blood under the appearance of bread. The Gospel accounts do record Jesus' words at the Last Supper, so let's investigate them.

In the thirteenth chapter of John's Gospel, the events of the Last Supper are given. In verses 2 and 4 we read - "And supper being ended…[Jesus] rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself." So we see that by this time in John's account, the Last Supper was complete, which means that Jesus had already blessed the bread, broke it and said "This is My body which is given for you." (Luke 22:19).

What is interesting in John's account of the Last Supper, is that after Jesus blessed the bread and said "This is My body," He referred to the blessed and consecrated bread as mere bread (in verse 18 and verse 26). Verse 26 states: "Jesus answered, 'It is he whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it.' And having dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon." Did Jesus lose track of what He was doing? Did He misspeak? No! According to Jesus' own words, the bread remained bread even after being blessed.

Matthew 26:17-29, Mark 14:12-25, and Luke 22:7-23 give parallel accounts of what took place on the night before Jesus was crucified. In Luke 22:15-19 Jesus said to His disciples -

"With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

What is notable is what Jesus didn't say. Never did He say that the blessed bread became His literal body, blood, soul, and divinity. This is worth repeating - never in any of the Gospel narratives, or for that matter, nowhere in the entire Bible does Jesus teach that the blessed bread changes into His literal body, blood, soul and divinity. What He does say is - "do this in remembrance of Me." For we know that on the very next day, Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried. He then ascended to the Father.

We are told in Mark 16:19 that "[Jesus] was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." Jesus ascended bodily to be at the right hand of the Father. Peter says it this way: "[Jesus] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God." (1 Peter 3:22). Jesus' one and only body is in heaven. This makes sense when we remember that He said "do this in remembrance of Me." If Jesus' body, blood, soul and divinity is with us in the Eucharist, the words "do this in remembrance of Me" would make no sense. A memorial service is not held for someone who is in attendance, but rather for someone who has departed.

Now, of course, Jesus is God and "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24). Jesus is with us spiritually and He is omnipresent (present everywhere), so He is with all of us right now - wherever we may be. But His body is in heaven. "After He [Jesus] had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Hebrews 10:12-14). It is clear that Jesus' body is in heaven and we are to remember what He did for us on the cross by celebrating Communion.

The early church celebrated Communion frequently and their actions are recorded in the Book of Acts. Let's look at how the apostles and disciples celebrated Communion after Jesus' ascension. In the Book of Acts we read:

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and in prayers (Acts 2:42).

So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness (Acts 2:46).

And when he [Paul] had said these things, he took bread and gave thanks to God in the presence of them all; and when he had broken it he began to eat. Then they were all encouraged, and also took food themselves (Acts 27:35, 36).

The Lord's apostles, the very same ones that were present at the Last Supper, broke bread daily, celebrating Communion, and not once did they refer to the bread as the literal body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. Even on Sunday, which is the day that the Lord rose, they referred to Communion as mere bread. In a key verse in the Book of Acts, we read: "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread…" (Acts 20:7).

Notice that the disciples broke bread on Sunday in remembrance of Jesus' death and resurrection. Search as we might, there is no hint in the entire Book of Acts that the disciples considered the Communion service as anything but a memorial service. This does not lessen its importance, rather it emphasizes that the reason for the Communion celebration is to remember the completed work of the cross and that Jesus is now in heaven as our triumphant King!

What is interesting in the Book of Acts is the repeated, emphatic statement made by the disciples that God does not dwell in temples! "However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands…" (Acts 7:48).

[Paul said] Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything (Acts 17:22-25).

This truth is also echoed in the Book of Hebrews: "For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands…but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." (Hebrews 9:24).

Amazing! The Eucharistic Tabernacle is a "holy place" made with human hands! Yet, the Bible states that Christ is not there but in heaven. In addition, the Greek word for "temple" is "naos", which can also be translated as "shrine" or a place of worship. God says He doesn't dwell there, yet the Catholic Church insists that Jesus is present in all the tabernacles of the world. The communion host is made with men's hands, yet, the Bible states that God is NOT worshipped with men's hands (Acts 17:25). The Scriptures clearly teach us that Jesus' body is in heaven and that Communion is meant as a memorial of the finished work of the cross.

Furthermore, the apostles also commanded believers to abstain from blood. In the Book of Acts, we find that the apostles and elders came together to consider certain Jewish customs that had crept into the early church. Their decision, stated by James, is as follows:

"Therefore, I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood (Acts 15:19, 20)."

If the original apostles and disciples repeatedly commanded new believers to abstain from blood (see also Acts 15:29; 21:25), why does the Roman Catholic Church encourage followers to eat Jesus' body and blood? If the consecrated communion host becomes Jesus literal body, BLOOD, soul, and divinity, then partaking in Communion goes against the Holy Spirit's command to abstain from blood. This is a direct contradiction.

Some proponents of the Eucharist argue that 1 Corinthians 11 supports transubstantiation. They refer to verse 29 that states - "For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." A thorough read of 1 Corinthians 11, reveals that the Corinthians were not making the proper distinction between Communion and common meals. Not discerning the Lord's body meant not discerning in the bread and wine the symbols of Christ's body and blood, but partaking of them irreverently, as if it were a common feast.

It is evident that this was the leading offense of the Corinthians. Those who were eating and drinking in an unworthy manner, were getting drunk and selfishly eating before others in the body of Christ. Paul states this as the problem in verses 20 and 21. There is no indication in chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians that Paul believed in or taught transubstantiation.

What is very provocative, in verses 26 and 28 of chapter 11, is that Paul refers to the blessed bread as mere bread after it had been blessed. Paul states in verse 26 - "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes."

Additionally, if Jesus is really physically present in the Eucharist, why would Paul state that we are to celebrate the Lord's Supper "till He comes"? This would only make sense if the Lord's Supper is in memory of the finished work of Calvary. And that is exactly what Jesus ordained when He said "do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22:19). Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Of course, Jesus did not become a literal lamb when He died for the sins of the world, anymore than a wafer turns into the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus during Communion.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this Catholic doctrine is that Christ is being re-sacrificed daily by thousands of Catholic priests. And that by receiving the Eucharist a Catholic can obtain forgiveness of sins. In other words, the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is a sacrificial offering able to atone for sins. Therefore, Christ is ever suffering and dying each time a priest consecrates the wafer. Here is how the Catechism explains it:

"As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God."

Every time this mystery is celebrated, "the work of our redemption is carried on."

"The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it "re-presents" (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross."

This teaching directly contradicts the Word of God. When Jesus died on the cross He proclaimed - "It is finished!" (John 19:30). The Greek word used is "tetelestai". It was a Greek accounting term that meant paid in full. The work for our salvation is complete! Christ purchased our redemption once and for all on the cross. Jesus is not being perpetually sacrificed in the Eucharist as the Catholic Church teaches. Partaking in the Eucharist does not appease God, nor does it atone for sin. If you are a Catholic, then the following verses can be transforming and revolutionary if you will simply take God at His Word.

"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another - He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation (Hebrews 9:24-28).

And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. …there is no longer an offering for sin (Hebrews 10:11-14, 18)."

"For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God (Romans 6:10)."

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit (1 Peter 3:18)."

Clearly, the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is contrary to God's Word. It is therefore rebellion to partake in the Catholic Mass. Worse, it is an abomination to worship and adore a piece a bread. This directly violates the second commandment (Exodus 20:4, 5).

If transubstantiation is true, then Jesus' body must be in hundreds of thousands of tabernacles simultaneously. Yet, the Word of God states unequivocally that Jesus has only one body: "and that He [Jesus] might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross…" (Ephesians 2:16), and "a body you have prepared for Me [Jesus]." (Hebrews 10:5).

Finally, at the risk of being redundant, it must be pointed out that nowhere in the Bible does the Holy Spirit teach that the blessed bread becomes the literal body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Proponents of transubstantiation cannot show a single, clear, biblical teaching to support their doctrine.
One final quote, taken from "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" recounts how Mrs. Prest of Cornwall was accused of denying transubstantiation. Her final words to the Catholic bishop prior to being burned at the stake are very illuminating.

"Can you deny your creed which says that Christ doth perpetually sit at the right hand of His Father, both body and soul, until He comes again; or whether He be there in heaven our Advocate, and to make prayer for us unto God His Father? If He be so, He is not here on earth in a piece of bread. If He be not here, and if He do not dwell in temples made with hands, but in heaven, what! Shall we seek Him here? If He did not offer His body once for all, why make you a new offering? If with one offering He made all perfect, why do you with a false offering make all imperfect? If He be to be worshipped in spirit and in truth, why do you worship a piece of bread? If He be eaten and drunken in faith and truth, if His flesh is not profitable to be among us, why do you say you make His flesh and blood, and say it is profitable for body and soul? Alas! I am a poor woman, but rather than to do as you do, I would live no longer."

Happt Easter everyone.

AAAAAHHHGG, HAPPY EASTER!

Thank you Heather!!

HE IS RISEN! HE LIVES! HE REIGNS!

Hisman, JLM, Bethany,

"do this in remembrance of Me."

Also brought up was the way in which the Passover meal was not a "memorial", per se, but was a making-present of the Passover celebrated in Egypt. In the same way, Catholics believe the Eucharist at the altar is not a "memorial" or representation (what most non-Catholic Christians believe) but rather the making-present of the new Passover meal, the body and blood of the true Lamb, re-presented as though we were there receiving it when it was first instituted. Jesus inserted himself into the Passover ritual, and stopped things after that third cup. While he was in Gethsemane, he prayed that the cup might pass him by: perhaps the "cup of wrath" or perhaps the fourth cup of the passover (the cup of restoration).

http://thecrossreference.blogspot.com/2008/03/scripture-passover-and-eucharist.html

"This day shall be a memorial feast for you, which all your generations shall celebrate with pilgrimage to the LORD, as a perpetual institution." Exodus 12:14

HisMan: Happy Easter!
Christ is Risen! Truly He is Risen!

Jesus is not the perishable manna that their descendants ate in the wilderness, He is the eternal bread of life that lives forever. Only by partaking in His everlasting life can we hope to live with Him forever. This contrast strengthens His main message, which is recorded in verse 47 where Jesus says, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life." Notice, Jesus said that as soon as we believe in Him we have, present tense, eternal life. It is not something we aim at or hope we might attain in the future, but rather, something we receive immediately upon believing.

When Jesus said these words, He was in the synagogue in Capernaum (verse 59), and He had neither bread nor wine. Therefore Jesus was either commanding cannibalism or He was speaking figuratively. If He was speaking literally, then He would be directly contradicting God the Father: "you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." (Genesis 9:4). Therefore, because Jesus Himself said, "the Scripture cannot be broken." (John 10:35), He must be speaking metaphorically. And that is exactly how He explains His own words in the subsequent verses.

This part of your quote "He is the eternal bread of life that lives forever. Only by partaking in His everlasting life can we hope to live with Him forever." exactly sums up the teaching of the Catholic Church on the Holy Eucharist. However, consuming Christ's body and blood is NOT cannibalism. In the sacrament of the Eurcharist, Christ's body and blood are truly present, but NOT with their physical properties: it's normal condition is hidden under the appearance of bread and wine. The apostle's didn't bite of pieces of Christ's leg or swallow quantities of his blood. Instead in each piece of consecrated bread they received Christ whole and entire, that is his body blood and divinity under the appearance of bread and wine.
Jesus prepared his followers for the Eucharist in many ways throughout his time on Earth. The multiplication of loaves and fish as you've stated is but one example.

Your interpretation of John 6:35 "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger; whoever believes in me will never thirst." This does not mean that if we believe in Him, he will nourish us spiritually. We don't "eat" and "drink" Jesus by coming to and believing in Him.
Jesus did not stop at verse 35 as you have pointed out. The bread of life talk has two parts: The first verses 22-47 Jesus does emphasize the necessity of believing in Him. The second verses 48-59, Jesus tells us EXACTLY what he means by calling himself "bread". I note you skipped over verse 51 which states: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give (note future tense)for the life of the world is my flesh" In this verse Jesus equates the flesh we must eat for the eternal life with the flesh offered on the cross. Either they are both literal or both figurative. We know Christ offered his real flesh on the cross, therefore Christ wants us to eat his real flesh for our salvation.
If we believe the first part of his teaching then we should also believe the second part of his teaching.

The verses John6:60-70 do not mean that Jesus was speaking symbolically in the above mentioned verses. Why? For the following reasons:

1. The Eucharist discourse ends with verse 58. Verses 60-70 occur later and deal with faith.

2. The word spirt is never used in the Bible to mean symbolic. Spiritual is as real as material.

3. Verse 63:"It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." In this statement Jesus is comparing natural(carnal) man with the faith-filled (spiritual) man. 1 Cor. 2:14-34 provides an explanation of what Jesus means by "the flesh"

4. Jesus says "my flesh" and not "the flesh" when He refers to the Eurcharist. Instead "the flesh" is used when referring to carnal man. Christians do not believe that Jesus' flesh was of no avail.

5. The disciples who did not believe Jesus left after verse 63. If Jesus had assured them He was speaking symbolically, they would NOT have left at this point. This is the only time in the New Testament that any of Jesus' disciples abandon him because they find His teaching too hard to accept.

If transubstantiation is true, then Jesus' body must be in hundreds of thousands of tabernacles simultaneously. Yet, the Word of God states unequivocally that Jesus has only one body: "and that He [Jesus] might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross…" (Ephesians 2:16), and "a body you have prepared for Me [Jesus]." (Hebrews 10:5).

Why is it so hard to believe that "Jesus' body must be in hundreds of thousands of tabernacles simultaneously"? It is mysterious but not impossible for God. Just because we cannot understand how God does something does not mean that we must doubt it! How can we understand the Trinity for example? 3 distinct persons in only one God?!! How can God create something out of nothing? A mystery of faith is something that is a revealed truth but not completely understood. Once again, if Jesus could multiply the loaves and fish to feed thousands how can he not then multiply his body too?

I've only answered a few of your questions HisMan.

You may also want to consider the evidence from Eucharist miracles. Throughout the centuries God has performed many miracles to confirm his Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. These included hosts that have levitated, bled and turned to flesh. Therese Neumann who died in 1962 lived for 36 years without any food or water other than Holy Communion. After receiving Holy Communion, she was able to do farm work and house work!
One other miracle of interest is that which occurred in 700 AD. A priest in the monastery of Lanciano had serious doubts about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One day at Mass, as he finished saying the words of consecration, the Host became a circle of flesh and the wine, blood. In 1971, Pope Paul VI encouraged a thorough scientific investigation. Scientists determined that the flesh was real human flesh from a human heart. The blood was real blood, Type AB. Although the flesh and blood have been exposed for over 1200 years, they are undamaged and have not deteriorated in any way.

It's Easter, take a break and thank Jesus for dying for you.

HisMan, there is a fundamental problem with your argument - and that is that the Eucharist is not the physical flesh and blood of Christ. It is the spiritual flesh and blood of Christ.

Your entire argument - all of the pages and pages and pages of it - is based upon a false idea of what the Eucharist is. You are arguing as if the Eucharist is a piece of physical flesh and a cup of physical blood. But it is neither; it is spiritually Christ's body and blood, not physically. Otherwise, as you said, we would be cannibals, we would be killing Christ at every Mass, and all of your other arguments would apply. Fortunately, none of them apply.

You also seem to have ignored my quoted verses. You provide verses to suggest that the Eucharist is 'mere bread', while ignoring the verses which state otherwise. "This cup of blessing which we bless", wrote Paul. Mere bread and mere wine, you say? You explain away Paul saying that a man must "examine himself" before taking part in the Eucharist by claiming that Paul meant that you shouldn't gorge yourself on the bread or get drunk on the wine. That's because you ignore the verses which suggest that it's more than mere bread and wine.

This practice of ignoring verses that you don't like seems to be an unfortunate habit among "Bible believers" such as yourself.

Didn't I tell you that I found that term to be insulting? Yet you insist upon using it. On top of that, you have called my faith an "abomination". I have been as polite with you as possible. Unfortunately, our friendly conversation ends now. Know that it was your choice to bring about this interdenominational conflict on Easter Sunday of all days. How shameful.

Let me tell you something. The Catholic Church compiled the Bible. Without the Catholic Church, you wouldn't have a Bible to misinterpret. Catholic Christians have believed in the Eucharist for over 1,900 years. That is simply historical fact. I provided you with quotes from 2nd century saints as evidence to prove this. I can provide you with many, many more if you like. Here are two quotes from St. Ignatius of Antioch, from the 1st century:

"My Love has been crucified and there burns in me no passion for material things. I take no delight in corruptible food or in the dainties of this life. What I want is God's bread, which is the flesh of Christ, who came from David's line; and for drink I want his blood: and immortal love feast indeed!"

"Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of His Blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as thee is one bishop along with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow slaves."

There is indeed "one body" of Christ, and that one body is the Church. If you're right about the Eucharist, then Christianity was corrupted to the "abomination" of Catholicism mere decades after the events of the Gospels, while many of the Apostles were still alive. Somehow I doubt that that is your argument.

After the Schism, Orthodox Christians also believed in transubstantiation and the Eucharist. It was only with the Protestant Reformation, nearly 1,500 years after the events of the Gospels, that Christians decided to disbelieve in the Eucharist.

Martin Luther and his contemporaries saw the corruption in the Catholic Church. And they were right; the Church was full of corruption. However, where Luther and company went wrong was when they decided that Christians had a lot of their theology wrong for the past 1,500 years. The problem wasn't the theology, but the corrupt bishops and priests. It is the outrageous argument of "Bible believers" such as yourself that Christianity was an "abomination" for over a thousand years, only to be restored to how it was originally supposed to be... by some guy who simply read the Bible. Wow, you got us. We Catholics are just so stupid, after all, we were solely responsible for keeping and making copies of the Bible for a thousand years, yet we failed to blot out and erase all of those verses which, according to you, prove that our faith is an "abomination". We must be the biggest bunch of braindead idiots ever!

On top of that, you guys make the brilliant claim that the Bible is open to individual interpretation. As if that makes any sense whatsoever. How can the Bible possibly be open to individual interpretation if only ONE interpretation is the right one? After all, we Catholics use a different interpretation, and you call our interpretation an "abomination". Yet others should be free to interpret it as they see it, or, as you say, how the Holy Spirit directs them? So what do you do if Jim says "The Holy Spirit is telling me this" and Bob says "The Holy Spirit is telling me that"? What do you do then? Which one of them is right?

I think it's important to point out that Martin Luther himself believed the Catholic theology about the Blessed Virgin Mary. Typically when I bring this up to a "Bible believer" like yourself, I am told that Martin Luther was wrong about Mary. Well, then, perhaps Martin Luther was wrong about a lot of things. First and foremost being that it was necessary to splinter the Church into countless shards rather than put an end to the corruption.

Patricia said: "It's Easter, take a break and thank Jesus for dying for you."

Amen to that.

John,

WOW! Where have you been????? We could sure use your insights on the neverending thread...Please?????

MK!

Happy Easter! :D

Ohhhh...you too Rae..

By the way, not only doesn't the confirmation sponsor need to be from your parish, they don't even have to attend the ceremony...you can use a proxy!

Just thought I'd throw that in.

@MK: Did you get my email? I had to use my university email because my internet has decided it hates hotmail.

Yes...but I have to wait til tonight to answer it...kay? walkin' out the door now to do Easter Dinner at Moms!

YOU GO, JOHN !!!!!!!

John, you rock!
Happy Easter!

The belief that Jesus is the son of God. Not much else.

John:

Excuse me....the Holy Spirit and NOT the Catholic Church, not any church for that matter wrote the Bible.

In any event...Happy Easter to you as well.

@Rae (sixth comment, way at the top)

sorry you couldn't see my sarcasm. I don't see the point of this thread and blog entry being in a pro-life blog, unless only to cause division.

We Christian pro-lifers are guilty of too often thinking we are the only ones that stand for life, and I'm downright ashamed of it.

Think bigger. Being pro-life is bigger than this religion or that. Being pro-life is something that does not necessarily demand faith, but only knowledge, logic, and a heart to love.

Greg, I love that!

John:

I have been praying about your words and responses. Believe me, my purpose is to find the truth and obey it, not to argue with anyone on this site. My questions and statemnets are not meant to be insulting so I ask for your forgiveness in advance.

Not one of the books of the Bible were written by a "Catholic". Every single book of the Bible was written by a Jew, no? In the case of the New Testament, each of the Jewish writers believed in Yeshua as Messiah, no? So what's the point is stating that Catholics compliled the Bible, weren't these just not Christians or believers or followers of Christ.

One other thing that came to mind and it is a question I think you did not answer is this: If the bread and wine are spiritually transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the word of a Jesus ordained priest (your words, I think), what happens if that priest is practicing sin, i.e., engaging in homosexual behavior or molesting children, etc.? This question was not answered and I would really like to know your answer.

If you say that God overlooks the faults of the priest why is a priest even necessary? If God does not overlook the faults of the priest and the bread and wine are not turned into Christ's body and blood because of the priest's "uncleanliness", what happens to the parishoners that thought they were partaking of Christ's body and blood for its salvific benefits? Aren't Catholic believers then placing a huge amount of trust in human effort/behavior/integrity/actions/lifestyle in their faith walk and not in the person of Christ where is should properly be?

If you say that the liturgy of the mass, i.e., the words spoken by the priest cleanses him prior to the consecration of the bread and wine, if the priest is habitually engaging in sin, does not this make a mockery of God's grace, for does not Hebrews 10 say, "26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God"?

HisMan: "the Holy Spirit and NOT the Catholic Church, not any church for that matter wrote the Bible."

John said the Catholic Church COMPILED the Bible, not wrote it The Catholic Church recognizes it is the Word of God.

John, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the purpose of setting the NT canon to discern which books were inpsired by the Holy Spirt to ensure only inspired texts were being read at Mass?

HisMan, from the Catholic Catechism:
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

Hisman,
I am no John L, that is for sure, and I will look forward to his response, but this is what I found in the Catholic Catechism about "unclean" priests:

1584 Since it is ultimately Christ who acts and effects salvation through the ordained minister, the unworthiness of the latter does not prevent Christ from acting.76 St. Augustine states this forcefully:

As for the proud minister, he is to be ranked with the devil. Christ's gift is not thereby profaned: what flows through him keeps its purity, and what passes through him remains dear and reaches the fertile earth. . . . The spiritual power of the sacrament is indeed comparable to light: those to be enlightened receive it in its purity, and if it should pass through defiled beings, it is not itself defiled.77

Wow, John, heavyweight apologist for the faith!

Ellie is correct, HisMan. The idea that the efficacy of the sacraments was dependent on the holiness of the priest is a heresy known as Donatism. This was condemned in the early church. So as long as the priest follows the form (this is my body, this is my blood) and has the correct matter (wheat bread), the consecration is valid. You called to attention in your above paragraph many of the problems that would arise if the sacrament DID depend on the holiness of the priest.

I believe it was St Francis of Assisi who was told about an extremely scandalous priest. St Francis' response was that he would go up to that priest and receive the Eucharist from his holy hands. OK, so I tell the story really crappy, but the point is that St. Francis knew that even though this priest was fornicating (I think) the Eucharist is still the Eucharist.

@Greg: My apologies for misunderstanding. :) Sarcasm is a touch difficult to understand on the internet.

"We Christian pro-lifers are guilty of too often thinking we are the only ones that stand for life, and I'm downright ashamed of it.

Think bigger. Being pro-life is bigger than this religion or that. Being pro-life is something that does not necessarily demand faith, but only knowledge, logic, and a heart to love."

I agree whole heartedly. ^_^

Hi Rae!

"Look, I am an engineer. I am trained to think logically."

Wow, I'm a mathematician... that makes us like, what, academic cousins maybe?

"Now, having said that I agree with the bulk of Catholic Theology where it agrees with Scripture. Fortunately most of the agreement is in the important stuff and I have learned much from my Catholic brtheren. I don't think there is another church in the world that does the amount of good that the Catholic Church does where it involves the poor and needy and teh unborn. In fact, I would say that I agree more with Catholic Theology than I do with Lutheran, Presbyterian, and most main line Protestant Theologies."

I gotta say, I have a very deep respect for this, and I appreciate it very much. This really shows a selfless attitude and humility. I could only be so blessed to have this kind of attitude when describing those with whom I disagree with. God love you.

Bobby, you have a great attitude with those (like me) with whom you disagree.

You're an example to us all.

There are many, many, many liturgical abuses that go on in our church today...Everything from dancing in church to not reading scripture (I was actually at funeral mass where the first two readings were by Kahlil Gibran and Mother Teresa...absolutely FORBIDDEN!)

We are suffering much from the 70's, the priests it produced, and Vatican II (which perverted the actual message that was meant), but there are only three things that would make a mass invalid. (there is a difference between illicit and invalid...invalid would mean the the Host and wine were not actually changed to His body and blood).

Those would be if 1. If the priest did not believe in the true presence.
2. If anything other than bread made with only wheat and water, or anything other than wine was used.
3. If the words of the consecration were changed...even slightly.

It's pretty hard to invalidate a mass. A scandalous priest will be punished SEVERELY for his behavior (see purgatory), but as Bobby said before, the church herself should not be punished for the priest indiscretions...

Actually, the person who is in most danger of going to hell is the pope. His responsibility is so huge, and every slip, every sin, affects so many people. I wouldn't want his job for anything. He needs our prayers. As do all the priests.

Bobby:

I took more Calculus classes than I care to remember and vector analysis and differential equations, statistics, probability theory, etc., etc. I even taught my professor how to solve a differential equation with multiple unknowns in an unconventional way because I didn't understand the textbook way. He then used that method to obtain some sort of accreditation for our engineering school. Oh well. I had nighmares well past graduation that I still had math classes to complete. I then learned how to apply mathematics to design spacecraft, aircraft, do structural and mechanical analysis, etc. Somewhere out it space there's a plaque with mine and about 100 other mathematicians, scientists and engineers attached to the Galileo spacecraft. I designed the pointing system for that spacecraft. So yes we are mathematical as well as theological bros. One thing I know is that Theology is more interesting to me now than mathematics and I think both prove God's existence, His infinite nature, and utter genius.

John:

Why then is the priest, good or bad, necessary at all? Why can't I just have communion in my home?

Is taking communion neceessary for salvation?

Ellie:

Please read my entire commnent. I asked John what his point was in stating that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. And did these people, when they compiled the Bible call themselves Catholic or Christian? Again, what's the point?

Finally, I'd like to say this. I think there is more that unites us than divides us. It is apparent that we all love Christ for what He did for us and is doing. It will be awesome to spend eternity with you guys when all our questions will be answered. I know that our understanding is skewed by our prejudices, our experiences, our mental capacity, etc., and for that I ask God to give me grace. I don't pretend to know everything, I am just trying to honestly seek Him and His will for my life. Up to this point, my search has me in disagreement with some Catholic doctrine. This is not to say that I won't change or that you won't change. Perhaps we can leave a legacy to the future church that eliminates or minimizes the divide. I actually hate the term Potestant. I understand the term Catholic, however, why can't we all call ourselves Christian?

I think ultimately, we will be measured on how we treat our brethren. If we can't love each other despite our different understandings, the love of God is not in us and here is where Paul's command to "examine oursleves", becomes relevant. In teh context of the Corinthia love feast, the Christians in attendance were treating each otther very poorly. I don't know about you but I don't want anyone mistreating my bride.

In a sense, blogging on this site is way for me to examine myself and test what's inside against what others think and understand to be truth. I even try to understand Hal, although, I have a difficult time with that since he can't even seem to come to a realization that there is a god, some god, some higher power. However, I haven't walked in his shoes, lived his life, had his challenges, etc. Besides, I don't think we win anyone to Christ by fighting them.

Thanks for bearing with my long posts, however, this gives me a way to categorize my thoughts, have them tested, be challenged and hopefully learn. I'm glad you Catholics are there defending your faith because it shows a depth of conviction that is so lacking in the world today. While most of my Christian friends are awesome God-lovers I ever get discouraged by their actions sometimes, and I am sure they by mine. This is why a tender heart and forgiving spirit are so vital in maintaining one's faith. Again, examining oneself in light of Christ's sacrifice does this. Perhaps we are not so far apart on the most significant part of the Eucharist and that is, the recognition of the Presence of Christ be it in the bread and wine symbols or in our hearts.

So, Happy Easter to all. Yes, indeed He is Risen and for that we can all be hopeful of a great and glorius future.

Hi HisMan,
Peace to you on this holy Easter.

I appreciate all your questions and concerns, really. When one follows the "yellow brick road" of these questions, one will eventually find Truth.

Perhaps a copy of the Catechism will help answer the myriad of questions that you have. You're not the first to "go there".
And Happy Easter to all my blog buddies, prolife and prochoice alike! I've missed you!!

MK wrote: "Those would be if 1. If the priest did not believe in the true presence.
2. If anything other than bread made with only wheat and water, or anything other than wine was used.
3. If the words of the consecration were changed...even slightly."

You're absolutely correct MK. In fact, I have not attended a specific parish because I feel that the priest does not believe in the Real Presence.

Hisman,

I'm sure John will do a better job answering this, but when Jesus instituted the priesthood, He designated these men to lead the church. To understand this, we must first explain what we mean by a sacrament.

We believe that baptism is causes a profound, mystical change in us. It is not caused by us believing. It it a gift given to us, through the Holy Spirit. It is where we are changed on the inside, and now permanent members of the Body of Christ. This is why we can do it to infants. It requires nothing of the person. It is a gift. When a person is older, they must consent of course, and it could appearas though it is their consent that saves them, but it isn't. It is the baptism itself.

We have seven sacraments. Baptism, where we receive the Holy Spirit and enter the communion of believers.

Confession, where we receive graces, sanctifying graces as opposed to how you understand grace. Again, a mystical gift, that gives us spiritual strength and helps on our journey to become holy. It's not just about telling some guy what we did wrong. We receive these beautiful graces, and our spiritual life, our souls, become more Christlike.

Confirmation, where we enter more fully into the church (I think this is more like what Bethany and JLM think their baptism is.) It is done to young adults (normally, although people entering the church for the first time will also make their confirmation). This is when we confirm our faith, and the Holy Spirit will give us our "gift"...again, it is a mystical experience. NOT a magical one. But a mystical one. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Marriage, where a couple ceases to be two persons, but instead their flesh becomes one, and they are no longer two individuals but one person...much like the idea of the trinity. This is why Catholics don't allow divorce. Marriage is not a contract, but a covenant...And we understand how seriously God takes covenants. We cannot "unjoin" what God has joined. Much like you believe that once you have been saved, you cannot be unsaved, we believe that once you are married, short of death, you cannot be unmarried. Again, graces are received, when partaking of this sacrament.

Anointing of the sick is done when a person is near death, or gravely ill. It is done not as healing of the physical body, but rather, as a healing of the soul. It is meant to put a person right with God...to prepare the person to meet God, and hopefully to give them an opportunity to make a good confession, thereby foregoing any temporal punishments (skipping purgatory) and going straight to heaven). This does not happen because of anything that the dying person does, but through the graces he receives upon receiving this sacrament.

Holy Orders is done only to men who are becoming priests. Again, it is nothing about the man that makes him special, it is about the gift of special grace that is GIVEN to him, by God. This grace, this mystical change that takes place in the man, changes him in a way that cannot be seen or tasted, smelled or felt. But it happens nonetheless. From that point on, he is given the singular privilege of being able to baptize, hear confession, marry couples, anoint the sick and yes, consecrated bread and wine, thereby changing them into the body and blood of Our Dear Sweet Lord...

Only an ordained priest can do this. Anyone can say the words, but they will have no effect. Only an ordained priest has this power, which was given to him by God...We believe this first gift was given to the apostles, and they were told to pass it on. This is the apostolic succesion. Every priest has had a Bishops hands laid upon him, passing this gift to him. And that Bishop had a bishop and so forth all the way back to Peter....

I hope this helped. Like I said, John will do a MUCH better job than I just did...but there it is, for what it's worth.

Hisman, sorry for any misunderstanding. I only meant to correct that John used the word "compile" not "wrote."

MK: "Actually, the person who is in most danger of going to hell is the pope. His responsibility is so huge, and every slip, every sin, affects so many people...."

I have never thought about this! Thanks for this insight.

MK's Compendium of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. Well said!

Ellie,

I think this is why Our Lady tells us so often, to pray for our priests. They are just men, and satan knows that to destroy the church he must strike at it's heart. Attack the priests, and attack the Eucharist. Without them, the church has nothing.

Even the worst priest still brings Jesus to the world every day. Imagine a world without the Eucharist. I said a couple of days ago, that the saddest, lonliest, scariest image I know, is the empty tabernacle. I'm so grateful for time change, because somewhere in the world He was still in a tabernacle. If we were all on the same time zone, on Holy Thursday, He would not be in a single tabernacle. I shudder to think how that would affect the world. Makes a comet crash seem like child's play.

Thank God for our priests. Even the "bad" ones. No priest, no Eucharist. Some people have no way of receiving Him (Think China)...we are so blessed and we take Him so for granted. And we take our priests for granted too.

MK, Vatican II is awesome. I like speaking our masses in english!

Happy Easter!

PIP, did you go to church today? Happy Easter.

@Jasper: I'm planning to begin attending Mass at the Church of St. Thomas More in St. Paul. :)

http://www.luke-acts.org/

Bobby, you have a great attitude with those (like me) with whom you disagree.

You're an example to us all.

THAT is why I adore Bobby.

What separates Christianity from all other world religions?

Religion is man trying to reach up and find God, and doing things to gain His favor.

Christianity>/b> is knowing that God is reaching down to undeserving man with His mercy and grace through Jesus Christ.

Yes I did Jasper. Happy easter to you too! And everyone else here.

HisMan said:
If you are a Catholic, go to your priest and insist that you now be immersed in water. If he refuses, leave that church for they are not following God's Word.
Posted by: HisMan at March 22, 2008 11:35 AM
*****

HM, My priest w be happy to but the logistics would be tough cause I don't think I could entirely immerse in the baptismal font in the church. What faith of Christianity are you? Where does your congregation gather for baptism, at a lake or river?

Happy Easter JLM, PIP and Jasper.

How were the Easter Egg hunts?

MK, regarding baptism, you said, "We believe that baptism is causes a profound, mystical change in us. It is not caused by us believing. It it a gift given to us, through the Holy Spirit. It is where we are changed on the inside, and now permanent members of the Body of Christ. This is why we can do it to infants. It requires nothing of the person. It is a gift. When a person is older, they must consent of course, and it could appearas though it is their consent that saves them, but it isn't. It is the baptism itself."

If belief doesn't casue the change, then why don't Catholics just go around sprinkling everyone with water so that they too can be mystically changed?

@HisMan: Because most Catholics aren't priests? Pretty sure MK meant that a priest has to do it.

And said "mystical change" doesn't necessarily carry over later in life (well...it does, but people do choose to ignore said mystical change).

HisMan,
Here is a canned prayer that is better every time you say it. A great man named Jesus Christ was recommended praying this prayer whenever we pray.

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come,
thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive ose who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation.
But deliver us from the evil one. Amen

It is better the 1000h time then it was the 999th

christianty has the pope and hes got those red shoes.

boy, you can't say that about other religions now can you?

Hisman,
I just remembered something in a book I have that might explain why the NT isn't more clear on the Eucharist. Here's the link to the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Living-Mysteries-Guide-Unfinished-Christians/dp/1931709122

It distinguises between proclaiming the Gospel and learning about the Mysteries. The Gospel was to be proclaimed, but the "Mysteries" (like, the Eucharist) were too sacred to be publicized, and were only explained once one was received into the Church.

I got the impression that the NT was intentionally vague on what was called the Mysteries. (Hopefully someone here more knowledgable and can confirm all this.)

In the early Church, those who were not yet received in the Church could stay for the readings (Liturgy of the Word) but could not stay through the "breaking of the bread" (Liturgy of the Eucharist). (In fact, many parishes follow this tradition for those who are going through the RCIA program to be received in the Church.)

Once they received the Sacraments at Easter Vigil (usually), they could then stay and receive the Eucharist.

They were then futher catechised from Easter to Pentecost in the "Mysteries."

(This book linked above is a series of readings from well known Church fathers that were actual lessons taught to the new Church members during Easter to Pentecost.)

The readings are fascinating, because they were written 1,600 and 1,700 years ago, and any one of those great bishops (I think they were all bishops?) could give these same homilies and it would be relevant to our time.

Maybe you could purchase the book and do the daily readings. It might explain some of your questions.

I say this prayer below almost every day, and I say it now for in wishing you all a Happy Easter,

Lord, once through the message of an angel,
you revealed to us the incarnation of your son.
Now, may who share in his suffering and death,
join him in his rising to new life.
Where he lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come,
thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation.
But deliver us from the evil one. Amen

I saw on the news that the Pope prayed the Easter prayers in today in sixty three different languages. That is "almost" as cool as speaking in tongues.

btw, mnswer to the question on this thread about how is Christianity different is kinda obvious but here it is. Christians believe Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and we center our lives and actions around Jesus teachings.

but did jesus floss?

? ? The world may never know

Down, ??? the world doesn't care.

Jesus knew that his body was a temple. I'm sure he flossed.

:)

That's easy. Jesus.

TruthSeeker:

Water is one of the most plentiful substances on earth.

You don't need a to be near a lake or river to be immersed.

Hisman,

I addressed your immersion question on the never ending thread...

The tombs of the leaders of all the other major world belief systems are famous because of who is in them; the tomb of Christ is famous because of Who is NOT in it.

"What separates Christianity from all other world religions?"

You're assuming Christianity is unique based on the form of this question. In a way, of course it is. But so is every other religion. You could have just as easily substituted Judiasim or Hinduism, or Islam. Every religion has elements that "separate" it from every other. Does that make each "special" somehow? How many religions can claim this:

"When he had grown up, Zeus caused Cronus to vomit up his sisters and brothers, and these gods joined him in fighting to wrest control of the universe from the Titans and Cronus, their king. Having vanquished his father and the other Titans, Zeus imprisoned most of them in the underworld of Tartarus."

Pretty powerful stuff. Remember, Zeus will not be mocked.

The tombs of the leaders of all the other major world belief systems are famous because of who is in them; the tomb of Christ is famous because of Who is NOT in it.

AMEN, jtm!!!!

Thank you jtm!! And Amen!! The empty tomb=hope.

ALL RELIGIONS ARE THE SAME
Every religion in the world makes the adherant prove himself or improve himself to a degree sufficient for him to reach nervana or eternal peace or heaven, (you choose the word) EXCEPT for Biblical Christianity. In Christianity, it is not what man does, but what God did.

Religion says, "look at me. See how faithful I am. See how worthy I am." This is a "works" BASED theology, centered in the pride of the believer. Christianity does teach the necessity of good works, but as a loving empowered response to Salvation, not as a means of Salvation.

In Christianity, the focus is on Jesus and what he did, not on man and what he can do. For man to truly accept Christ as savior, he must see the need to be saved. "The penalty for sin is death . . ." And this is the problem all men share.

The animal sacrifice of the "unblemished lamb" is a picture of what only God was qualified to do. Man, because of sin is blemished and cannot shed his own blood to attone for his own sins. "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Only God's (JC's) sinless blood meets the standard of a Holy and Just God. Only as a man could His sinless blood fulfill the law. God became man, took upon himself the weakness of humanity, was tempted as we are, yet did not sin. He suffered and died for us because He loves us, but He also would not contradict his own laws, by "running a marathon" or performing some other method of redemption.

Man's response to God should be one of Humility, not one of Pride. We as men in our sinful state have nothing of value to offer Him. But if one can realize his helpless estate before God, only then will he humble himself and ask God for that which he cannot do for himself.

Accepting Christ as Savior: Believing God became man, suffered, died, and rose again; concuring death. Admiting our sinfulness to our Creator and asking Him to save us. This is true Christianity, where God gives us His power to live righteously. If we do good as Christians it is Glory to God, not to man. He makes us his children through adoption, and we become co-heirs with Christ and look forward with true hope to eternity with him.

God did it all. This is a relationship, not a religion.

Kquist,
AMEN! AMEN!!AMEN! AMEN!!AMEN! AMEN!!AMEN! AMEN!!AMEN! AMEN!!AMEN! AMEN!!AMEN! AMEN!!AMEN! AMEN!!

EXACTLY!

If you dont buy into it, then there isnt any difference between one religion and another.

Kquist,
One more thing....I just read your post about three more times...I STILL have the chills!!!

Thank you SOOOOOOO much for posting the TRUTH!!!

That's easy. Jesus.

Not quite, Tony. The Muslim faith accepts Jesus as a prophet of God as well. They simply don't believe he is the Son of God. What separates Christianity is the context of Jesus.

Hmm... I think Christianity is unique in that it is the only religion I know of to adapt its dates and traditions to make converts.

Easter is a perfect example, considering the word "Easter" is an adaptation on the name of a Pagan goddess, Eostre.

The fact that Christmas and Easter fall right around the times of the year when the ancient Pagan holidays celebrating the seasons change took place is certainly not a coincidence.

Not that its totally a bad thing - I mean, would Christmas be as nice and festive without Christmas Trees (also Pagan)?

"Obviuously the Father was extremely concerned with the condition of Jesus' flesh and what would happen to it if natural forces were allowed their process. Isn't this blasphemous?"

...above by Hisman.

Why do you say that? There are many Saints that are incorrupt so God could have made Jesus' body incorrupt as well.

Kristen:

Huh?

Hal:

Are you really Cameron?

Kristen,
Oh! I love reading about the incorruptables!!!

HisMan,
http://tinyurl.com/2u9qjp

Hisman, I am not Cameron.

My answer to the original poll...I guess as a backward compliment, (Catholic) Christianity is the one relgion that Satan-worshippers always try to abuse and challenge all the time...you can't say that with the other world religions...

Well, Jesus died on the cross for our sins which is a good thing whether you believe in it for real or symbolically and he rose to come back again and that God loves us...

But shoot me here because this is what I believe in though I am not a National Council of Churches Kumbaya singing Stalinist hippie... when all is said and done all roads lead to one and God who loves us still has many rooms in his mansion for the varied population of believer and sinners who He created and loves as his children.

I don't believe those fundamentalists who say if you don't choose Jesus as your personal God and savior that you will go to Hell. I know many good Jews, Buddhists, Atheists even that are better people, more decent and "Christian' like than a holier then thou Bible thumping verse quote fire and brimstone Christian who thinks that just because he is a "Christian" he or she is better than all the rest and damnation to the rest!

Real Christianity is much more than pastors, mega churches, Southern fundamentalist culture (and I was born in Georgia!) and that chauvinism that seems to put off so many non Christians and even Catholics and Christians themselves -it's more about Christ-consciousness than anything that drives the positive esoteric nature of true Christianity. As a Christian myself I think it's in very bad taste, and actually kind of tacky to believe that one is better and to look down on others who don't practice your faith. Take my cousin for example, she is a Southern Baptist - I love her and she loves me, but the insults that she bombards us with just because we are Catholic and "papists" as she puts it borders on insanity! I have never seen somebody who says that they are a "Christian" be so belligerent to our Mother Mary and what the other 3/4 of my family believes in! But you know what, with all her hatred towards us Catholics I would never, never dream of insulting her for practices that I view as intolerant and reactionary like she learns in her church - even when she called Rome the "Wh--e of Babylon, and this is coming from a pro Life, National Review reading classical liberal/conservative like me.

Please don't hate me for saying this - we are not perfect and we are all trying to do the good that God has given us - never forget the babies though - that is one thing we might have that other religions might be lacking in.

FD-

I agree 100%, but boy, I can't wait to see the responses you're going to get from the many "Bible thumping verse quote fire and brimstone Christian(s)" who populate this site!!

Samantha B.

FD,
I disagree.

I am not a fundamentalist. I am a Christ follower. Yes, I know many good people as well. If we all just have to "be good" then Jesus wouldn't have had to die on a cross to pay for our sins. He did. He gives salvation as His gift. Does He love all of His children? Absolutely.
Jesus said I am The Way, The Truth and The Life, no one comes to The Father except through me. John 14:6
I am sorry about your experience with your cousin.

I would hardly consider myself a "Bible thumper" but I do turn to Scripture for truth. Is that the definition of a bible thumper? So be it. :)

I am not ashamed to be a bible thumper at all! It's out of love for my neighbor that I thump the truth!!!

FD, if you think you're going to heaven by being good or doing good works, you're eternally, dead wrong.

Geh, Easter completely wanked me out of ANY tips yesterday. There was this party of 5 people who you could tell just came from church. You know, that place that tells you to treat others how you would like to be treated and give to the poor (like me) and so and so. They racked up a $101 check, were extremely high maintenance- one of the women sent her steak back 4 times- instead of realizing that maybe a Crab Shack isn't the best place to order a steak. They were constantly asking for things- cocktail sauce, ketchup, and so on, and got cranky if it took me more than 20 seconds to get it. They left exact change for their tip, meaning that I lost money on that table, because 3 percent total sales are given as tip out to bussers, hostesses, and bartenders.

Stupid holidays.

Also, who's read about how Christianity destroyed Roman civilization?

JLM- so it's God's prerogative to send a good person to hell just for not believing in an unsubstantiated myth?

Kristen:

Huh?

Posted by: HisMan at March 24, 2008 1:56 PM

What do you mean "Huh?" Haven't you heard of the Incorruptables?

ROSIE -

I know! I have a book about them but I really wish it went into more detail about their life. What's really amazing is that there are so many.

Oops! Above from me.

Hi all. I'm not much one for religious debates, but I am enjoying all of the posts. They are all quite interesting:] *waves to all*

FD, I agree. In Mary's apparitions in Mejugorie she's stated several times that the separation of religion is on Earth, not in Heaven.

She specifically pointed out a Muslim woman that was very holy, as an example of a life to lead. And, just as the Church has not said non-Catholics go to hell who are we to judge who does and does not reach Heaven? Sounds a lot like throwing the first stone and all that...

Yeah, lets stop the religious in-fighting and get back to the chosen task which is to save the baby and babies and p-ss off the femi-SS!

"JLM- so it's God's prerogative to send a good person to hell just for not believing in an unsubstantiated myth?"

Erin, it's not unsubstantiated nor a myth. You send yourself to hell by rejecting Jesus Christ your Lord and Savoir.

JLM- so it's God's prerogative to send a good person to hell just for not believing in an unsubstantiated myth?

Erin,
No offense, but that didn't make sense. Jesus is God, so if you don't believe in Jesus, you don't believe in God. Well, then there is no God to send a person to hell, right?

Erin,

While I'm going to try and stay out of the Catholic/protestant debate on this thread (got enough of that goin' on over at the neverending thread), I gotts say that this is too good to pass up...

JLM- so it's God's prerogative to send a good person to hell just for not believing in an unsubstantiated myth?

God's perogative? God's perogative???!!!!?!?!? Hellloooooo. By definition, EVERYTHING is God's Perogative! lol.

I mean c'mon....

Exactly, mk. So the most powerful being in the universe apparently is a mean kid with a magnifying glass. No wonder I don't worship it.

"Erin,
No offense, but that didn't make sense. Jesus is God, so if you don't believe in Jesus, you don't believe in God. Well, then there is no God to send a person to hell, right?"

and the best part: No Hell to be sent to.

HisMan, I am glad that you are not interested in a fight but rather in a discussion. As such I will once again do my best to be as polite as possible.

HisMan said: "Why then is the priest, good or bad, necessary at all? Why can't I just have communion in my home?"

A priest is necessary because we believe in Apostolic Succession. There is evidence for Apostolic Succession in the Bible:

"And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."

-Acts 1:24-26

The Protestant objection to this evidence is that this was only a one time thing; the Apostles were simply replacing Judas Iscariot in accordance with the Scriptures, and had no intention of replacing other Apostles after they had died. But history tells us differently:

"After the Holy Apostles founded and set the Church in order in Rome they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy [II Tim 4:21]. His successor was Anacletus."

-St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2nd century

"Linus" is Pope St. Linus, the first successor to St. Peter.

Anyway, Apostolic Succession means that we Catholics believe that the current Pope is the actual successor to St. Peter, and the Cardinals are successors to the other Apostles. Only they and the priests they have ordained can transubstantiate the Eucharist. We believe that Jesus gave this ability to the Apostles, and that it has been passed down through Apostolic Succession for 2,000 years.

HisMan said: "Is taking communion neceessary for salvation?"

Receiving the Eucharist is absolutely, positively, NOT necessary for salvation! But I can't just make a bold statement like that without explaining it.

The Eucharist is plainly not necessary for salvation, even for a Catholic, as children under the age of seven are not permitted to receive the Eucharist. If we needed it to be saved, then children under seven would not be able to be saved, and that is preposterous.

The Catholic Church teaches that Baptism is the only Sacrament necessary for salvation. We accept the validity of non-Catholic Baptisms, as long as they are done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

On top of that, we accept Baptisms other than those of water. There are spiritual "Baptisms" in which a person sought to be Baptized but was never able to receive that Sacrament. There are even cases in which a person lives according to the word of God which is written on his heart, and yet in spite of his never being Baptized, he can be saved.

The Catholic Church does not rule out salvation for anyone; not even atheists. We entrust their souls to God's great mercy.

While it is technically not necessary for salvation, we Catholics believe that the Eucharist is a wonderful gift from God, and that it helps us a great deal as we seek to live holy lives. The Eucharist is Christ's body, and so when we receive it we become a part of the body of Christ; his body which was raised from the dead and will live forever. However, we are grateful for God's mercy in that salvation may be attained for those who do not have the benefits of the Eucharist.

You also asked why we Catholics don't just go around Baptizing everybody, if all you need for salvation is Baptism. Well, without a legitimate sponsor who can act on behalf of the Baptized (if he or she is too young), or a willing convert, it wouldn't really be a valid Baptism. In addition, God doesn't force salvation on anyone. He created us with the free will to choose between Heaven and Hell. It is wrong for us to try to "force" salvation on people by sprinkling them with holy water and declaring them Baptized.

No, the Christian way to do it is to preach the Gospel and convert the hearts and minds of people, so that they willingly seek the Sacrament of Baptism. That is how it has been done since Christianity began.

And to attempt to answer some of your other concerns, HisMan:

-It is important to realize that it was the Catholic Church which compiled the Bible, because that is the very Bible you now cite in your opposition to Catholic teaching. As I said, it would be rather ridiculous of us, as the only keepers of the Scriptures for 1,000 years, to leave a bunch of stuff in the Bible that contradicts our faith. We Catholics don't believe that anything in the Bible contradicts us, and that's exactly why we didn't change it. It's just the opposite; we believe that the Bible is the word of God. Our religion is based upon it, and we would never dare to change the Bible.

But we interpret the words of the Bible differently than you do. In addition, we believe that the correct interpretations of Scripture have been passed down by the bishops for 2,000 years.

I especially like this example about interpretation, which I learned from reading a book by Catholic Apologist Patrick Madrid. Consider the sentence, "I never said you stole money." At first glance, you might think it can only be interpreted in one way - like this:

"I never said you stole money."

Typically, that's where the stress would be placed in this sentence. Meaning, money was stolen, but the person being spoken to was not accused of stealing it. But there are many other ways of reading the same sentence:

"I never said you stole money."

In this case, somebody accused him of stealing money. It just wasn't the person speaking.

"I never said you stole money."

Sure; maybe you wrote it down, or implied that he stole money. You just didn't "say" it.

"I never said you stole money."

In this case, with the emphasis on "money", the person is being accused of stealing something; just not money.

So we see that even with a statement that simple, there are multiple ways to interpret it. How much more complex is the Bible than that sentence? And who is to say which is the correct interpretation of Scripture? As I said, we Catholics say that the Catholic Church has passed down the correct interpretations throughout the centuries.

While we are a faith of the Bible + Bishops + Tradition, for us, the Bible always comes first. Neither the Pope nor Tradition may contradict the Bible. The Bishops and Tradition must always conform to the Bible. Thus I feel that we too are indeed a "Bible based" church.

-The question about sinful priests was already answered by Ellie and Bobby. (By the way, please, folks, I'm really no expert here. I'm just a humble student of great apologists like Fr. John Corapi, Bishop Fulton Sheen, and others.) Though I do want to tell the story of St. Francis and the sinful priest that Bobby mentioned, which I originally heard from Fr. John Corapi:

A priest had scandalized the people of a town, in that he was committing the sin of fornication. St. Francis, who had recently received the wounds of the Stigmata, was passing through the town. The people, seeing that the holy Brother Francis was there, asked him to come and talk to the priest, and demand that he end his sinful ways and return to holiness. So they brought St. Francis to the priest, and Francis knelt on the ground before the priest, barely able to stand due to the pain from the Stigmata. While the people waited for St. Francis to condemn the priests' actions and demand his repentance, Francis took the priests' hands in his own, and said to him, All I ask is that these hands bring me to Jesus! The priest, shocked by his words, repented immediately.

Erin, God created us with free will. He loves us enough to allow us to choose between Heaven and Hell.

Ironically, you condemn God exactly because He has allowed you to oppose Him.

and the best part: No Hell to be sent to.

You have every right to believe or not believe that, Hal. It would just really suck if you're wrong, right?

@JLM: And wouldn't it really suck if you were wrong that you tried so hard to get to heaven only to find out it was all for nothing?

JLM, there are many things I could be wrong about in life, the non-existence of Hell is not one of them.

The whole idea of a "loving" god testing us, tempting us, punishing us, and judging us is not something I can comprehend, let alone believe on "faith."

If God wants something of me, he knows where to find me. Otherwise, I'll assume he's not interested on doesn't exist.

Rae said: "And wouldn't it really suck if you were wrong that you tried so hard to get to heaven only to find out it was all for nothing?"

No.

I believe in Heaven, but I am not motivated by a belief in Heaven.

I am motivated by justice and righteousness and love. I have dedicated my life to these concepts, which I believe are from God. I will never regret a life dedicated to great principles, regardless of whether or not Heaven exists.

It is not hard work to stand up for justice, to defend that which is right, and to love others. It is simply my duty.

"I am motivated by justice and righteousness and love. I have dedicated my life to these concepts, which I believe are from God. I will never regret a life dedicated to great principles, regardless of whether or not Heaven exists.

It is not hard work to stand up for justice, to defend that which is right, and to love others. It is simply my duty."

John, I feel the same way (except the God part). I try to live a good life dedicated to great principles. Hell or no Hell, Heaven or no Heaven, I'll do my best.

Rae,
I would lose nothing then, right?

@John: I agree with you. I'm just saying that sometimes it seems that people only believe in God and "try to be good" as a way to get to heaven and avoid hell, not because what they're doing is right for the sake of being right.

@JLM: Not necessarily. You lose the joy and happiness you would have gotten if there was a heaven. I'd say that's pretty negative. I know I'd be pretty disappointed.

Look, if there's a God, there's nothing he can't do, right? So he can change his own rules if he wants too. Instead, he's going to stand by them and condemn a bunch of smart, good people to hell because he wants to?

JLM, there are many things I could be wrong about in life, the non-existence of Hell is not one of them.

Well, as long as you're absolutely sure about it then!

The whole idea of a "loving" god testing us, tempting us, punishing us, and judging us is not something I can comprehend, let alone believe on "faith."

Just because you can't comprehend something, does not make it non-existant. I don't comprehend Calculus...but it's there!!!

If God wants something of me, he knows where to find me.

Well, if a day comes when He knocks on your door will you answer it???

Otherwise, I'll assume he's not interested on doesn't exist.

You know what happens when we "assume", right Hal???

The whole idea of a "loving" god testing us, tempting us, punishing us, and judging us is not something I can comprehend, let alone believe on "faith."

Posted by: Hal at March 24, 2008 6:02 PM

God doesn't tempt us, the devil does. As far as punishment and judgment, we choose the punishment. God allows us to see ourselves as he sees us. We choose the punishment just as we choose the sin.

Isn't God supposed to be greater than the Devil, though?

If there is no heaven, and you tried your best, at least you died trying.

@JLM: Not necessarily. You lose the joy and happiness you would have gotten if there was a heaven. I'd say that's pretty negative. I know I'd be pretty disappointed.

But Rae, if there weren't a heaven or hell, and we died, there would be nothing more to think about then, right?

God IS greater than the devil, but he also gave us free will. Pick a path.

If you always do what you've done, you'll always get what you've got.

heather- but God has the ability to save every human being in the world. He doesn't. He can, because he's God and he can do anything, but he doesn't. Hmm. Seems pretty mean to me.

@JLM: Why does it have to be that there has to be Heaven or Hell or nothing more to think about? What if there is something else there, that's not Heaven or Hell...something completely different and something you didn't expect?

heather- but God has the ability to save every human being in the world. He doesn't. He can, because he's God and he can do anything, but he doesn't. Hmm. Seems pretty mean to me.

Sorry for butting in...

God already did give the means to save the entire world (Jesus Christ). You want to be saved??? go get it!!!

JLM, there is also the possibility that another religion is right...I guess that would be where disappointment sets in.

Erin, there was a time in my life where I found myself turning my back on God. I declared to my family and friends "I am now officially an agnostic." I had just been through too much. I hated God, and I told him so every night and day. He waited for me patiently. I'd love to tell you a story, but it will be dismissed as another "Heather's nuts" piece. Maybe some other time. It's just that something happened that restored my faith. Still,that change of heart took time.

JLM, any time. As I've said, I'm not too good at this.

@JLM: Why does it have to be that there has to be Heaven or Hell or nothing more to think about? What if there is something else there, that's not Heaven or Hell...something completely different and something you didn't expect?

Rae, my understanding comes from the bible. The only answer I can give you, is "God said so". The entire theme is good vs. evil...no shades of gray. Now, He didn't tell us what heaven would be like...it's beyond our comprehension. I believe hell is the opposite of the true, unexplainable heaven. The total absence from God.

Oh, and even though I was a self proclaimed "agnostic" I still cursed God...imagine that.

Heather- sure you did. I still say 'g-d d--- it', and 'oh g-d'. It's ingrained in our culture. It has nothing to do with an actual belief in God. I'm perfectly happy with my life without any religion or God. I'm a good person, I do good things, and I'm happy. Frankly, that's all I care about.

Well, my brother is also agnostic. That's by his own choosing. Although, I find it sad and depressing not to believe in anything. That's almost tragic.

JLM, there is also the possibility that another religion is right...I guess that would be where disappointment sets in.

That is true, however, there is only one faith.

In an earlier post, I said this:

Religion is man trying to reach up and find God, and doing things to gain His favor.

Christianity is knowing that God is reaching down to undeserving man with His mercy and grace through Jesus Christ.

It was definately brief! But my favorite post here, one that sums up EVERYTHING that Bethany & I were trying to say on the other really long thread, is this one, Posted by: Kquist at March 24, 2008 12:41 PM

ALL RELIGIONS ARE THE SAME
Every religion in the world makes the adherant prove himself or improve himself to a degree sufficient for him to reach nervana or eternal peace or heaven, (you choose the word) EXCEPT for Biblical Christianity. In Christianity, it is not what man does, but what God did.

Religion says, "look at me. See how faithful I am. See how worthy I am." This is a "works" BASED theology, centered in the pride of the believer. Christianity does teach the necessity of good works, but as a loving empowered response to Salvation, not as a means of Salvation.

In Christianity, the focus is on Jesus and what he did, not on man and what he can do. For man to truly accept Christ as savior, he must see the need to be saved. "The penalty for sin is death . . ." And this is the problem all men share.

The animal sacrifice of the "unblemished lamb" is a picture of what only God was qualified to do. Man, because of sin is blemished and cannot shed his own blood to attone for his own sins. "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Only God's (JC's) sinless blood meets the standard of a Holy and Just God. Only as a man could His sinless blood fulfill the law. God became man, took upon himself the weakness of humanity, was tempted as we are, yet did not sin. He suffered and died for us because He loves us, but He also would not contradict his own laws, by "running a marathon" or performing some other method of redemption.

Man's response to God should be one of Humility, not one of Pride. We as men in our sinful state have nothing of value to offer Him. But if one can realize his helpless estate before God, only then will he humble himself and ask God for that which he cannot do for himself.

Accepting Christ as Savior: Believing God became man, suffered, died, and rose again; concuring death. Admiting our sinfulness to our Creator and asking Him to save us. This is true Christianity, where God gives us His power to live righteously. If we do good as Christians it is Glory to God, not to man. He makes us his children through adoption, and we become co-heirs with Christ and look forward with true hope to eternity with him.

God did it all. This is a relationship, not a religion.

Posted by: Kquist at March 24, 2008 12:41 PM

I look forward to the day that I will be reunited with my dad, my deceased friends, and my deceased animals. Dad, Pumpkin and Blackie, I'll see you again. I know I will.

heather- that's strange. I find it incredibly liberating. It's a beautiful feeling, in my opinion, to realize that no cosmic force is perpetually holding you up to some archaic judgment. Knowing that I can control my own life and need not fear anything is a wonderful feeling.

It's just that something happened that restored my faith. Still,that change of heart took time.

Oh, and Heather...you're better at this than you think!!!!

The piece from you above reminds me of something. It reminds me of the converted abortioninsts. They find God, but continue doing abortions. Then, one day, sometimes weeks or months later, something "clicks", and they just can't do them any longer. As we grow closer to God, we "see" Him more. Our desire to know Him fuller is fulfilled in us over time. If we ask Him to show us, and have the true desire to know Him more, He gives it to us!!!

"God already did give the means to save the entire world (Jesus Christ). You want to be saved??? go get it!!!"

There are easier ways to save the entire world. God just didn't feel like it. Fine. But don't come crying to me Mr. God when people aren't impressed.

It's a beautiful feeling, in my opinion, to realize that no cosmic force is perpetually holding you up to some archaic judgment. Knowing that I can control my own life and need not fear anything is a wonderful feeling.

Oh my goodness! You fell hook, line & sinker for Satan's greatest lie ever told! Enjoy that feeling while it lasts. I guarantee you it won't. Satan doesn't love you....God does!

"Well, my brother is also agnostic. That's by his own choosing."

I'm fascinated by that word choice, "by his own choosing." All belief and non-belief is by our own choosing. You choose to believe in God. Your brother chooses not to. The only ones who don't get to choose are the children brought up in a church and told the lie so many times they can't imagine any other reality.

JLM, why thank you. I liked what a lady I once knew said. Someone asked her "Are you a practicing Catholic?" She replied "Yes." "I'm practicing until I get it right."

Hal, it's not beautiful. It's sad.

Hal, I meant to say, It's not fascinating, it's sad. I'm also not sure it's altogether true. He's just lost hope.

JLM- I love myself. That's what's actually important in life. And that's what's going to get me places.

I've never liked religion, especially Judeo-Christian ones, because of exactly what you just posted, JLM. That men are 'sinful in nature' and should be 'humble' and so on...such intense hatred for oneself is terrible and psychologically damaging.

heather, as an atheist, the time when I had most lost hope was when I was still clinging to religion. Ever since I realized that I don't believe in God, I have felt more motivated than ever to take my life into my own hands.

It's pretty basic. You do the wrong thing in life, and you will always have bad consequences. Do the right thing, and you will be blessed.

Erin, It will backfire. Trust me.

heather- I must be doing the right thing by not believing in God, then- because my life is fantastic and wonderful and beautiful and I love it.

Erin, why did you lose hope? Was someone kind of forcing religion on you? Did someone or something let you down?

I've never liked religion, especially Judeo-Christian ones, because of exactly what you just posted, JLM. That men are 'sinful in nature' and should be 'humble' and so on...such intense hatred for oneself is terrible and psychologically damaging.

Erin,
Through Christ, I am able to love myself and others. I never "hated" myself...I just humbled myself to God and told him that yes, indeed, I am a sinner. And then, I praised Him for giving me His Son that cleansed me!

You, even not believing in God, have morals and standards that you set yourself to, no? Have you always been perfect in following those standards? Have you ever did something to go against those standards? It's kindof the same thing. You didn't hate yourself because of it, but you humbled yourself "to yourself" to admit that you were going to do it "right" next time.

Am I wrong?

"and the best part: No Hell to be sent to."

JLM: You have every right to believe or not believe that, Hal. It would just really suck if you're wrong, right?

Ahoy, JLM. You know - this is called "Pascal's Wager" - ever heard of that? It's not so simple as you think, and it certainly depends on how one views things.

Doug

Lol...heather, you HOPE that it will backfire. Because if it doesn't, it'll shatter your fragile dogma. You know what's different from when I was in 7th grade in a psych ward because I'd tried repeatedly to off myself and now? No God. Heck, the pastor from my church, who is an awesome guy, came and prayed with me. Nothin. Now? I take my life into my own hands. If I feel like something isn't quite right, I make an appointment and get it fixed. I go to school because I want to, not because I'm afraid of the consequences if I don't. That's how you teach kids, you know? Don't do this, or I'll punish you, and in time, a person just starts doing it because they know that they should.

Heather,
LOL!

JLM- I am just as capable of loving both myself and others without God as you are with it.

Hal: Bobby, you have a great attitude with those (like me) with whom you disagree.

You're an example to us all.

Co-signed! You're both great.

Erin, you are opening up a little. Keep it coming.

Heather,
LOL, I meant, on your 7:10 PM post!

JLM, lol back to you:]!

................and then she took a sip of her beer.

An Irish priest is driving down to New York and gets stopped for speeding in Connecticut    The state trooper smells alcohol on the priest's breath and then sees an empty wine bottle on the floor of the car.

He says, "Sir, have you been drinking?"

"Just water," says the priest.

The trooper says, "Then why do I smell wine?"

The priest looks at the bottle and says, "Good Lord!   He's done it again!"

lol!

@JLM: How do you know you're not already in Hell? What if our life on Earth here is Hell? I mean...I personally cannot imagine anything worse than the state of our world today.

@Erin: I hate myself very much...when I went to Church and when I quit going...I never really started feeling better about myself when I stopped going. However, this is not to say I don't believe you, because I do believe that you do feel better.

Different strokes for different folks...

Erin, why did you try to harm yourself?

JLM- I am just as capable of loving both myself and others without God as you are with it.

ok

Rae, why do you hate yourself?

HisMan: I had nightmares well past graduation that I still had math classes to complete.

Ha - I hear that. Same for me in college and afterwards, at times. Even before - dreaming I was at school with homework undone or a test where I was totally unprepared. Later I was a bricklayer/concrete man, and the "anxiety dream" would be a bunch of concrete poured and getting hard too fast for me to finish it.

I am wondering about you 2 {Rae and Erin} 2 very beautiful girls. 2 extremely smart girls. Rae the artist. Erin the witty Irish girl and waitress. I mean, why?????

AND 2 smart students to boot!

@JLM: How do you know you're not already in Hell? What if our life on Earth here is Hell? I mean...I personally cannot imagine anything worse than the state of our world today.

WOW! I've actually joked about that before. I always said "I know I'm going to heaven because I've already been through hell".

But seriously, I know I'm not in hell because God is present in my life. I can't explain it, but there have been a number of things that have happened to me in my life that in no way, never ever ever, would I deny that there is a God, He's real, He's the Living God, and He is ever-present in my life.

And you are correct, things are pretty bad here. There are some days that I just want to cry looking at what's going on in the world today. Just when I thought nothing could top it, along comes another story on the news that does! I sometimes feel (well, alot lately) that my "world" is getting smaller and smaller. It's a very strange and depressing feeling!

However, and you may not believe this, but I do. In the bible, God talks about the end times. Things will get worse and worse until His second coming. So, although I don't like what's going on in the world, I do know that every time it gets worse, it's only getting closer to His second coming.

kquist and JLM:
"Every religion in the world makes the adherant prove himself or improve himself to a degree sufficient for him to reach nervana or eternal peace or heaven, (you choose the word) EXCEPT for Biblical Christianity."

Yes, but WHICH Biblical Christians? Which interpretation? Many denominations consider themselves biblical Christians but disagree in their interpretations of biblical passages.

The NT canon was decided by Church councils (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They had to decide which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit to be read at MASS. It is a LITURGICAL book. The canon wasn't decided until the end of the 300's.

(This just happened to come up as I'm watching "Journey Home" on EWTN right now and it seemed timely to post it.) You just can't say biblical Christians have the Truth if they are in disagreement about what the Bible actually says.

heather- I have some cleaning to do, if you're around in an hour, I'd love to keep this up! If not, we can continue tomorrow. Back in a bit!

Well, my brother is also agnostic. That's by his own choosing. Although, I find it sad and depressing not to believe in anything. That's almost tragic.

Heather, "tragic"? It's not "not believing in anything." Your brother believes in plenty, but perhaps they are real things, unquestionably real here in our experience, rather than the differing matters of faith - the at least possibly imaginary stuff.

JLM, Amen to that!

okay, Erin. See you back:]

I find it incredibly liberating. It's a beautiful feeling, in my opinion, to realize that no cosmic force is perpetually holding you up to some archaic judgment. Knowing that I can control my own life and need not fear anything is a wonderful feeling.

Erin, I think it'd be interesting to see what beliefs individuals and groups of people came up with, were they raised without anybody telling them stuff in that area.

I look forward to the day that I will be reunited with my dad, my deceased friends, and my deceased animals. Dad, Pumpkin and Blackie, I'll see you again. I know I will.

Heather - right on, and I think we all can identify with those feelings. Lots of animals have short lifespans compared to us, don't they? Sigh. I think of Paddington - part Bernese Mountain Dog, gone 35 years now.

Ellie,
These verses (at least to me!)

Romans 3:27-29

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

AND

Romans 3:23-25

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

and one more....

John 3:16

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

crystal clear, no interpretation necessary!

@heather: I'm always angry at people. I have a short temper. I swear too much. I hold grudges. I eat too much. I'm lazy. I don't like being criticized. I get angry when I get criticized and I start hating that person. I hate myself because I'm not nice. I'm judgmental. I obsess over past wrongs.

Doug, do you know where Bay Village is?

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body."

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."
Matthew 26

JLM,
crystal clear, no interpretation necessary!

Back at ya! :-)

Rae, this is going to sound corny, but the devil wants you to feel this way! He wants you to hate you. He thrives on people's misery. THE DEVIL IS A LIAR!

@heather: I'm always angry at people. I have a short temper. I swear too much. I hold grudges. I eat too much. I'm lazy. I don't like being criticized. I get angry when I get criticized and I start hating that person. I hate myself because I'm not nice. I'm judgmental. I obsess over past wrongs.

*SIGH* If only Rae could see herself the way I see her! She'd LOVE herself!

@heather: Ummmm...no.

Ditto to that, MK.

MK, agreed!

*sigh* I told you I'm not good at these debates. Somebody help.

Loving yourself is narcissism. Narcissism is baaaaaaaaaad.

Don't buy it? Look at Somg a few posts down. That's a demon. He's pimping abortion and candy.

Don't buy what?

I ignore SoMG. I don't really care what he says.

Rae, that wasn't relly directed at you. Just tossed it out there. Somg is just an example of someone who the devil won't bother. He already sold his soul long ago.

Rae,
Who is perfect anyway??? At least you see things about yourself that you don't like. That's humble! It's like a desire to change. (Although I think you're too adorable, and see none of that in you!)

I think all of us have things about ourselves we don't like. I have ALOT!!!! Some people are just too proud to admit it. It's the humble one's that desire change, or acknowledge things, that become better people for it!

JLM, I will second that!

There is a coming judgment of Satan and his angels.

2 Peter 2:4 (KJV)

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [the Greek word here is "tartarus"], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;”

Jude 1:6 (KJV)

“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
In the day of judgment “…the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

John 17: (verify verse #) talks of the time of judgment, the prince of this world will be driven out.

Hell was not made for man. Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. But those who do not receive Christ as their Lord and Savior will be sent to Hell, and have their part in the lake of fire.

Satan is "the god of this world" he " has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the Gospel of the Glory of Christ" ( 2 Corinthians 4;4)

Satan is a liar. The Bible tells us he is the father of all lies.

Erin, you say that you like being an atheist because it gives you freedom. Yet you say that the reason why you're an atheist is that you don't like a God who gives you freedom, ie, the freedom to choose to love Him or hate Him. So are you saying that you would prefer it if God denied us freedom, and forced us to love Him? Or do you want God to force those who hate Him to live with Him for eternity?

Those who choose to love God go to be with Him after they die. Those who choose to hate God don't go to be with Him after they die. What about that do you find to be an injustice?

Rae, you seem to be trying to hold the weight of the world on your shoulders. But you don't need to do that, because Jesus Christ carried the Cross on his shoulders. The flesh is weak, and if you rely only on yourself, it will be easy for you to fall into sin, self pity and despair. That's why we must all try harder to lean on Christ. Know that he, like the father in the story of the prodigal son, is constantly watching and waiting for you to return to him. When you do return and ask him to take away your pain and doubt, he will run out to meet you and embrace you.

When I was in darkness, this all sounded like a bunch of gobbly goop to me. Today, it makes sense.

Heather,
Excellent post!!!

Doug said: "Erin, I think it'd be interesting to see what beliefs individuals and groups of people came up with, were they raised without anybody telling them stuff in that area."

I imagine it would be much like if you raised somebody without teaching them any Math, or any English, or any Science.

Hal said: "John, I feel the same way (except the God part). I try to live a good life dedicated to great principles. Hell or no Hell, Heaven or no Heaven, I'll do my best."

Except that you put yourself before others. The ability to put others first is probably the real main reason why there are so many practicing Christians in the pro-life movement.

I've also found that helping others helps me. It's called "getting out of self."

JLM, thanks. I dug it up.

Rae,
God loves you and you are special and lovable! Satan wants you to despair and feel like you are so awful, that you could never be loved by anyone, especially God. That's the big lie that he tries to get everyone to believe.
There will never be another Rae in this world - EVER!
God love you!

Heather,
You digged good!

ha-ha!!!!

"Except that you put yourself before others."

John, you don't know me, so I'll forgive this observation. I do NOT put myself before others. In fact, I probably go to the other extreme.

Rae,

Loving yourself is narcissism. Narcissism is baaaaaaaaaad.

No No No!!!! worshiping yourself is baaaaaaaad. Loving yourself is a reflection on your faith that God only creates good things. Hating yourself is an insult to God. Loving yourself is a compliment to Him.

Judas hated himself.

Here is what Sheen says from his book "Characters of the Passion"...

"But Judas did not repent in the true sense of the word. Rather, he had a change of feeling. He repented, but not to Our Lord; he repented unto himself.

The latter is only self-hatred, and self-hatred is suicidal. To hate self is the beginning of self-slaughter. Self hatred is salutary only when associated with the love of God.

And as the sun darkened, two trees made history on opposite sides of Sion-one the tree of Calvary and hope; the other, the tree of Ennom and despair. On one hung Him Who would unite heaven and earth and on the other hung him who willed to be foreign to both.

And the pity of it all was that he might have been Saint Judas."

Disillusionment and disgust may be a step toward religion, bit it is NOT religion. Some think they love God because life did not deep all its promises, or because their dreams did not come true. they longed for an earthly part and it turned out to be a mirage. they begin to see the vanity of the world. Depressions, sorrows, sickness, war disappointments, have gradually weaned the from the world.

They no longer get much enjoyment from the world. the have no prospects of ever recovering their youth, so they turn to a mild hatred of sin. they confuse wisdom with satiety. They think they are pure because they are no longer tempted. They judge virtues by the vices from which they abstain. They care very little for the approval or disapproval of the world. Old friends are no longer interesting; new friends cannot be found.

The result is that in the course of time they turn to religion as a solace. They begin to keep the commandments because they have no strong motive for not doing it. Their good is the good of inertia. Because such people are full of anxiety, complexes, and fears, they begin reading Freud and learn that their emotions must in some way be sublimated. They repent, but they repent unto themselves. They are sorry for their lot, but not sorry for having offended God.

But let us be sure that whatever be our sins, and regardless of the depth of our betrayal, there is ever a Hand outstretched to embrace, a Face shining with the light of forgiveness, and a Divine voice that speaks a word to us, as it did with Judas even unto the end: "Friend".

Hal said: "John, you don't know me, so I'll forgive this observation."

I don't recall asking for your forgiveness.

Hal said: "I do NOT put myself before others. In fact, I probably go to the other extreme."

Suuuure.

Whoo, OK. Cleaned a bathroom and cleaned my room. I have accomplished something.

Anyway, heather, I don't really KNOW why I was so depressed in middle school. I just remember that I was. It was a chemical issue with my brain- I'm on meds for it now and probably will be for the rest of my life, and I'm 100% OK with that- because that's just the way it is!

There's plenty of things I've dealt with in my life, and there's plenty of things that most people who have dealt with in their lives. Sure, I have some issues. I'm phenomenally insecure about my looks and my social skills, I have some definite anger issues under the right circumstances, I get VERY hormonal around my 'special time', I have a bad habit of biting my fingernails, and when people leave me terrible tips, I quietly curse at them while they're leaving the restaurant.

Sure, I've got stuff to work on. Everybody does. But equating that to some silly idea of 'original sin' just seems crazy. I mean...do we prosecute people for the crimes their grandparents committed?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus

John,
Thank for explaining that to me!
I appreciate it!!!

I was under the impression that Catholics thought it was really the flesh and blood of Jesus they were consuming. Your explanation makes more sense to me that it is done in "remembrance" of Him, and not "actually" physically digesting Him.

Thank you again!
:)

JLM

I just wanted to clarify an earlier post (above):
We do believe that in the Holy Eucharist, Christ's body and blood are truly present, but not with their normal physical properties. When a person receives Communion in the Catholic church they receive Christ whole and entirely - that is his body, blood, soul and divinity - under the appearance of bread and wine. We do not receive bits and pieces of Christ - that is one person gets a bit of arm another a bit of his foot!
I hope I haven't confused you but it seems that you misunderstood John (or maybe I misunderstood you!).

Hal,
Not to be judgemental or anything, but you put yourself before 2 of your children, yes?

John-

The flesh is weak? Man, my flesh is wicked strong. After being through my terrible car accident a few weeks ago, surviving a crime that my friend did not, and the times in my youth when I tried to kill myself, if my flesh was weak, I'd be dead a lot already.

Or maybe it's weak, but I'm like a cat! I have 9 lives!

Well, it's probably down to 4 or 5 by now. But still!

John- I'm just saying that for an all powerful, all loving, merciful entity, he should be able to come up with an idea better than all this.

Patricia said: "Hal, Not to be judgemental or anything, but you put yourself before 2 of your children, yes?"

Patricia, that is essentially what I was driving at, though considering that pro-aborts pretend that the pre-born don't really exist, I can see why he objected to my comment.

Erin,
Here's some interesting info on Epicurus:

The only surviving complete works by Epicurus are three letters, which are to be found in book X of Diogenes Laertius' Lives of Eminent Philosophers, and two groups of quotes: the Principal Doctrines, reported as well in Diogenes' book X, and the Vatican Sayings, preserved in a manuscript from the Vatican Library.

Numerous fragments of his thirty-seven volume treatise On Nature have been found among the charred papyrus fragments at the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum. In addition, other Epicurean writings found at Herculaneum contain important quotations from his other works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

Erin,

John- I'm just saying that for an all powerful, all loving, merciful entity, he should be able to come up with an idea better than all this.

Really?!?!?!? Like what, for instance. Give it your best shot!

Erin said: "The flesh is weak?"

Erin, it's a metaphor, meaning that people are easily tempted to sin.

"I'm just saying that for an all powerful, all loving, merciful entity, he should be able to come up with an idea better than all this."

Can you give me an example of a better idea which doesn't destroy free will?

God was born into the world as a man and showed us the greatest act of love when he took our sins onto his body in order to open the way to salvation for us. All we need to do to spend eternity with God is to love him and appreciate the great sacrifice of Christ.

I'm asking you seriously, because I can't think of anything - what would be better than that?

Ok guys, to be honest this is a bit off topic, however I'd like to see your reactions to it. Assistant Attorney General to Reagan and H.W. Bush endorses Obama for president. Supposedly he was originally a Romney supporter.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/endorsing-obama.aspx

I encourage you all to read the endorsement in full before reacting.

Yeah, well John, I like to be a little more obvious when it comes to Hal.

JLM- who said something doesn't really matter if the idea is true to it's heart, which this one is. If you had an actual response to the quotation, you wouldn't have to go after the source ;-)

Either way, I prefer Epictetus, but that statement by Epicurus is a brilliant summary of athiest philosophy, whether the fellow realized it or not.

OK, here's my idea. Adam and Eve mess up, God, who can see all the eons of suffering that will follow after this 'original sin', says "Like heck", and starts over and makes something that won't penalize generation upon generation for something that their ancient ancestors did.

Dan, who cares? Why are you guys so obsessed with Republicans who support Obama? Has there even been a Republican or Democratic candidate who didn't get some supporters from the other party? Should I start posting about Democrats who support McCain?

Well, I went and read it anyway. And this is priceless:

"In various ways, Sen. Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them."

Yes, just ask Jill about that. Hey Jill, Obama was so very interested and understanding about what you had to say regarding the situation at Christ Hospital, wasn't he?

According to Obama, if you disagree with him on those issues, you are being "divisive" and must be silenced. He will never listen to pro-lifers. To claim that he will listen is naive at best and dishonest at worst.

John-

it had nothing to do with the party of the endorser and everything to do with the endorsement itself. I wanted to see what you guys would think about it.

Erin, you didn't give a new idea; you just said that you don't like the way God did it again. You simply phrased it differently this time.

So let me ask you; would you prefer it if Adam had been denied free will? Without free will, Adam would not have been capable of committing sin, and so humanity would still live in bliss in the Garden. We just wouldn't have free will.

Btw- If I can get satisfactory answers to all of the questions in this video, I will convert. Instantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIacUKjz4xs

(Here are the questions if you're kinda lazy ;-))

1) Why won't God heal amputees? Yet supposedly heals anything that can by itself heal naturally?
2) How can a mother enjoy Heven knowing her atheist son is suffering in Hell?
3) Why do good moral atheists go to Hell and evil immoral Jesus-accepting Christians go to Heaven?
4) Why is God obsessed with testing our faith when those fond of skeptical inquiry will be led to Hell?
5) What finite sin deserves infinite punishment?
6) Why do we deserve Hell for something Adam and Eve did? Should we charge grandchildren with the crimes of their grandparents?
7) Why does the creationist accont of the creation of the earth contradict with all of science? Is a test of faith worth the damnation of those deterred from God beacause of this fact?
8) Why would an omniscient author create such a barbaric and scientifically illiterate book with all the knowledge he could provide?
9) Why would God create the gays when he finds gay acts abominable? Homosexuality is usually biologically deduced from the fact that there are many biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
10) What about animal sacrifice entices God so intensely as to have pages and pages on how to do it?
11) Why is religion so demographic?
12) Why do people of all religions claim (their) god speaks to them if there's only one God? Is God speaking to Hindus? Isn't that misleading for God to do?
13) Why does God want us to stone our rebellious children? He specifically says his words are perfect and should never change.
14) Why does God drown innocent babies in the Great Flood?
15) Why do we deserve Hell for not being as perfect as Jesus?
16) Why does God want us to stone non-believers and worshippers of other gods?
17) Why doesn't God want women to talk in church?
18) Why does God want us to stone people who work on Sundays? (EDIT: that's to be the sabbath, which is actually Saturday)
19) Why does god demand so much killing and destruction?
20) Why did God enlighten only one specific small area of the world? Did he not foresee the immense conflict this would bring?
21) Why has God planeted so much evidence of evolution and a non-designed world?
22) Wh would God combine our breathing and eating channels into one single orifice? think of the lives this slipshod design has caused.
23) Why do so many creatures have completely useless features that evidence evolution? (in other words, why do we have vestigal organs and why do other creatures have vestigals that show evolution)
24) In natural disasters, may people die before having accepted Jesus. Why strip their chances to get into Heaven so viciously?
25) Why do we still have gurus like Jesus today, tricking people into believing they can perform miracles? Why should atheists disregard these gurus yet accept Jesus as the only true miracle worker?
26) Why does God condone slavery?
27) Why does God want us to stone women who aren't virgins on their wedding night?
28) Why was Zarathustra misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
29) Why was Mohammed misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
30) Why was Nanak misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
31) Why was Siddhartha Gautama misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
32) Why was Sathya Sai Baba misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
33) Why was Joseph Smith misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
34) Why was Guru Maharishi Mahest Yogi misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
35) Why was L. Ron Hubbard misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
36) Why does all scientific evidence point to a Earth much older than implied in the bible?
37) Why does God blame Eve for something he had to have planned, being omniscient?
38) Why did he bind the fruit to the damnation of future billions if that's not what he really wanted? Remember, he created every detail in the set up and knew the exact outcome of every possible detail.
39) Why does atheism statistically increase with intelligence?
40) Why is there no evidence of a Great Flood accepted by serious scientists?
41) Where did God get his morals?
42) Why do Christians criticize scientists for not being 100% sure of everything? Isn't it best to start with the position of not knowing THEN looking for the evidence?
43) Why do Christians often think it's admirable to have all the answers in the absence of evidence?
44) Why do Christians start with conclusions before they start with evidence in claims about science?
45) Why do Christians criticize abiogenesis when in the Bible, man came from dirt?
46) Why do Christians always resort to "God is mysterious"? Why does that sound so much like a cop out?
47) Why do Christians always resort to "God is beyond logic"? WHy does that sound so much like a cop-out?
48) Why haven't I ever met a Christian that can answer these questions without using cop-outs, lying, or ignoring the question altogether?

Dan, OK. I think it stinks.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus

How about is He willing but reluctant to do so because then we would be reduced to being nothing more than animals that follow His will automatically? How aabout the very thing that makes you able to rationalize and pick apart God's choice is the gift He gave you that separates you from the fish or hedgehog? How about the very thing you are arguing with (your mind and free will) you are using to argue against the one who gave them to you to begin with. How about without Gods gift of free will, you would be unaware of God and thus unable to reject Him?

If He did it any other way, you'd never know, because you would be working on instinct instead of rationalization.

You should be on your knees thanking Him for giving you the singular privilege of being able to rail against Him. Yeah, that sounds malevolent...

John- if Adam not having free will meant that no human would ever suffer for eternity in hell?

Damn right I would.

Doug, do you know where Bay Village is?

Heather, I really didn't, other than knowing it was a suburb of Cleveland, from hearing it mentioned on Cleveland news over the years. After seeing it on the map, it's directly across town from where a brother of mine lives - Cleveland Heights.

I'm with Erin on that one. Heck, I've even said in prayers I wouldn't mind if He took free will away to save us all.

The only ones who don't get to choose are the children brought up in a church and told the lie so many times they can't imagine any other reality.

Hal, I agree, and think that's sad. And this isn't saying that religion is bad, per se, and of course I can't prove that a given thing is necessarily going to be a lie, but I do wish that people weren't indoctrinated. If they want certain things and eventually come to a faith themselves when they're grown-up enough, fine.

FWIW I think Zeke was severely indoctrinated, along with getting a dose of anti-woman sentiment.

Alright all, im gunna go try and sleep, its gunna take hours because of anxiety levels. Frickin' college letters/scholarships. Couldnt I just know now? Ugh. Oh well, a few days and I'll know where I'm going...

G'night all, and God Bless.

JLM- who said something doesn't really matter if the idea is true to it's heart, which this one is. If you had an actual response to the quotation, you wouldn't have to go after the source ;-)

Erin,
I think you may have misunderstood. I never heard of the guy before, and I agree...whether he knew it or not, it was the philosophy of atheists! When you posted that, I was curious as to who he was, and was befuddled at what I posted. It didn't make a lick of sense to me! I thought that you would find that interesting as well. Apparently, I was wrong! I apologize!

Doug said: "Erin, I think it'd be interesting to see what beliefs individuals and groups of people came up with, were they raised without anybody telling them stuff in that area."

John L: I imagine it would be much like if you raised somebody without teaching them any Math, or any English, or any Science.

John, I disagree 180 degrees there. Math and Science would be discovered, via physical reality, to some degree, and language would develop between people as an "agreed-upon" deal. But unprovable belief....?

Erin,
I will take on every question you have. It will take me ALOT of time, though. If I do that, will you promise not to just dismiss everything right away and just give it some thought first?

btw...I'm taking this on not to convert you, but for you to see it the way a believer does. If you like what you hear and convert, then God bless that! If you don't, I can't say I'd be fine with that, but it is your choice and I'll respect that.

Deal?

No need to apologize, JLM, I got a little snippy. Epicurus was a Greek philosopher, he had a lot of ideas similar to Buddhism in terms of finding supreme happiness in enlightenment. He was also the first man to propose atomic structure, though I doubt he really quite understood what he was getting into. Another wonderful quote by him:

"'Tis not possible to live pleasantly without living wisely, well, and justly, by agreeing to neither harm nor to be harmed. As such, it is impossible as well to live wisely, well, and justly, and not then live pleasantly."

(I'm pretty sure this is a half decent translation. My Greek is rusty.)

Doug, just wondering. I grew up there. I was in Shaker Heights a week ago.

Okay. I was on the phone. Let me catch up here.

Loving yourself is narcissism. Narcissism is baaaaaaaaaad.

Rae, I think that if we do not change, it is because we love ourselves enough, or it could be said that we really don't "hate" that part of ourself. If we did, we wouldn't do the given thing anymore.
......

I'm always angry at people. I have a short temper. I swear too much. I hold grudges. I eat too much. I'm lazy. I don't like being criticized. I get angry when I get criticized and I start hating that person. I hate myself because I'm not nice. I'm judgmental. I obsess over past wrongs.

It just sounds weird for me to hear you say you "hate yourself." Are you truly unhappy with yourself? Nobody's perfect, of course, and I also think we all do things from time to time that we feel are "bad" or "stupid," but down deep, do we not accept ourselves?

Doug

Erin, did you say that your friend was killed in that car accident??

Erin,
Don't worry about it...you weren't snippy at all! I caught the "wink"
:)

That second quote IS deep!

Thanks for the extra info on him! I looked at his name first very quickly. I pronouced his name at first really, really bad. It came out sounding like "i pick your a%$...not good, but funny? I had to look at his name again, because I was sure my pronunciation was incorrect. It sure was!!!

Btw- If I can get satisfactory answers to all of the questions in this video, I will convert. Instantly.

Erin, sounds to me like you want there to be a god, a certain type of god.

Dan,

I'm with Erin on that one. Heck, I've even said in prayers I wouldn't mind if He took free will away to save us all.

And yet you aren't willing to bend your own to save yourself? Interesting.

So you'd be willing to turn us all into robots, just so you wouldn't have to change your lifestyle? Wow.

I'm with Erin on that one. Heck, I've even said in prayers I wouldn't mind if He took free will away to save us all.

Dan, how can you really be sure we have free will?

"Not to be judgemental or anything, but you put yourself before 2 of your children, yes?"

No.

I had, and still do have, "issues" with religion. My faith is constantly being tested, and I have gone into backslides and doubt more times than I care to admit. My BIG question is this..please don't laugh me outta here. Why did God destroy man and the earth once and then he gave us all a second chance KNOWING how we are?? Heck, take the free will.

Ugh.

:: laughing :: Oh Dan, I remember those times - wanting to get into a college, wondering which ones were gonna come through....term papers, exams....

Man, I've been out of college 30 years, and I don't miss that stuff one bit.

No, heather, do you remember that time I told you about when I was downtown and that mugging went all bad?

Doug- I don't really know. Honestly, there's a part of me that wants to think that millions of people aren't living a lie. But there's so many different warped perspectives both inside and outside of the major religions...that either way, most of them are, probably. It just makes me depressed.

mk- it's not a matter of being willing to bend. Thing is, usually, if someone grew up with faith, they bent so much that they broke. It's not about lifestyle, it's about God's personality. He's an all-mighty, supreme being. I can't believe that he would know and see everything and at the same time plan it, and doom thousands on thousands to hell. It just doesn't seem like a supreme being would play that way with his toys. Doesn't it kinda make you want to say, "Hey! Pick on someone your own size!"?

Erin,
Deal???

Sometimes it can put me into a tizzy.

1) Why won't God heal amputees? Yet supposedly heals anything that can by itself heal naturally?

Amputees are healed in Heaven.

2) How can a mother enjoy Heven knowing her atheist son is suffering in Hell?

If he hates God, why would he want to go to Heaven? Free will, remember - you choose where you're going. Though it is true that God Himself is disappointed that Satan chose Hell over Heaven. This mother would likely become a powerful saint, praying for the salvation of souls.

3) Why do good moral atheists go to Hell and evil immoral Jesus-accepting Christians go to Heaven?

That is Protestant theology which Catholics like me don't agree with. Evil Christians are in serious danger of Hell while moral atheists can be saved.

4) Why is God obsessed with testing our faith when those fond of skeptical inquiry will be led to Hell?

That is also Protestant theology, so it doesn't apply to me. I was skeptical; then I came to realize that Jesus Christ loves me enough to take my sins onto his body and die for me, and that he would do it for me even if I hated him. Then my skeptism seemed silly.

5) What finite sin deserves infinite punishment?

A person freely chooses Hell over Heaven. Why do you oppose free will?

6) Why do we deserve Hell for something Adam and Eve did? Should we charge grandchildren with the crimes of their grandparents?

Jesus took away our sins so that nobody should go to Hell. Unfortunately, some still choose to go there, just as Adam and Even chose to sin.

7) Why does the creationist accont of the creation of the earth contradict with all of science? Is a test of faith worth the damnation of those deterred from God beacause of this fact?

I'm Catholic; I don't care about creationism.

8) Why would an omniscient author create such a barbaric and scientifically illiterate book with all the knowledge he could provide?

The Bible is not a science text; it's a instruction manual to eternal life.

9) Why would God create the gays when he finds gay acts abominable? Homosexuality is usually biologically deduced from the fact that there are many biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

There is more to homosexuals than their sexual preference. They are called to live holy lives in the service of God.

10) What about animal sacrifice entices God so intensely as to have pages and pages on how to do it?

Christians don't practice animal sacrifice.

11) Why is religion so demographic?

Moses said, go forth and proclaim liberty to all the lands, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Jesus Christ said, go forth and preach the Gospel to all nations.

12) Why do people of all religions claim (their) god speaks to them if there's only one God? Is God speaking to Hindus? Isn't that misleading for God to do?

I'm a Catholic, not a Hindu.

13) Why does God want us to stone our rebellious children? He specifically says his words are perfect and should never change.

Many rules in the Old Testament were only for a certain time and a certain place. Pretty much the only laws in the Old Testament that were intended for all time were the Ten Commandments.

14) Why does God drown innocent babies in the Great Flood?

The innocent are rewarded in Heaven.

15) Why do we deserve Hell for not being as perfect as Jesus?

I'm Catholic, so I believe in purgatory. I don't need to be perfect when I die to get to Heaven.

16) Why does God want us to stone non-believers and worshippers of other gods?

That's an Old Testament law from a barbaric time period in history.

17) Why doesn't God want women to talk in church?

Women talk in my Catholic Church. Women LEAD Protestant churches. This criticism seems kinds of ridiculous.

18) Why does God want us to stone people who work on Sundays? (EDIT: that's to be the sabbath, which is actually Saturday)

Two questions in one! Again, stoning people to death is an ancient, barbaric practice for an ancient, barbaric time. Do modern Jews stone people to death? Why not, after all, they only have the Old Testament? They don't because they are not ignorant. They know that those rules only applied to that ancient, brutal society.

The second question: Yes, the sabbath was originally Saturday. St. Peter used the authority given to him by Jesus Christ to change it to Sunday since that is the day Jesus rose from the dead.

19) Why does god demand so much killing and destruction?

Why are atheists obsessed with the Old Testament? When was the last time God "demanded" killing? Usually when it was done in the Old Testament, it was to save Jewish society. Would you prefer that the Jews were exterminated?

20) Why did God enlighten only one specific small area of the world? Did he not foresee the immense conflict this would bring?

Actually, most of the conflict came about through heresies and selfish behavior.

21) Why has God planeted so much evidence of evolution and a non-designed world?

Yeah, as I said, I'm Catholic. The Young Earth Creation questions aren't relevant.

22) Wh would God combine our breathing and eating channels into one single orifice? think of the lives this slipshod design has caused.

I assume that "caused" is supposed to read "cost". But, again - I'm Catholic. ID questions don't apply. The Bible tells me how to attain eternal life, not why I have earlobes.

23) Why do so many creatures have completely useless features that evidence evolution? (in other words, why do we have vestigal organs and why do other creatures have vestigals that show evolution)

(I'm Catholic)

24) In natural disasters, may people die before having accepted Jesus. Why strip their chances to get into Heaven so viciously?

Catholic theology says that they can be saved.

25) Why do we still have gurus like Jesus today, tricking people into believing they can perform miracles? Why should atheists disregard these gurus yet accept Jesus as the only true miracle worker?

I don't think there is anything like that in the Catholic Church.

26) Why does God condone slavery?

He doesn't. Ancient Jewish society allowed a form of indentured servitude which was nothing like what we think of when someone says the word "slavery".

27) Why does God want us to stone women who aren't virgins on their wedding night?

(Ancient barbaric civilization)

28) Why was Zarathustra misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?

Zoroaster didn't take our sins onto his body, die, and rise from the dead.

29) Why was Mohammed misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?

Mohammed was merely a Christian heretic.

30) Why was Nanak misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?

Nanak didn't take our sins onto his body, die, and rise from the dead.

31) Why was Siddhartha Gautama misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?

Buddha didn't take our sins onto his body, die, and rise from the dead.

32) Why was Sathya Sai Baba misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?

Baba didn't take our sins onto his body, die, and rise from the dead.

33) Why was Joseph Smith misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?

Um... Smith believed in Jesus.

34) Why was Guru Maharishi Mahest Yogi misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?

Did he take our sins onto his body, die, and rise from the dead?

35) Why was L. Ron Hubbard misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?

Tom Cruise didn't die for our sins.

36) Why does all scientific evidence point to a Earth much older than implied in the bible?

Yo, I got Catholicism here!

37) Why does God blame Eve for something he had to have planned, being omniscient?

God gave us free will.

38) Why did he bind the fruit to the damnation
of future billions if that's not what he really wanted? Remember, he created every detail in the set up and knew the exact outcome of every possible detail.

Because he was planning to send Jesus to make salvation incredibly easy for everyone.

39) Why does atheism statistically increase with intelligence?

Because pride cometh before the fall.

40) Why is there no evidence of a Great Flood accepted by serious scientists?

(Catholic)

41) Where did God get his morals?

God created morality.

42) Why do Christians criticize scientists for not being 100% sure of everything? Isn't it best to start with the position of not knowing THEN looking for the evidence?

(Catholic)

43) Why do Christians often think it's admirable to have all the answers in the absence of evidence?

(Catholic)

44) Why do Christians start with conclusions before they start with evidence in claims about science?

(Catholic)

45) Why do Christians criticize abiogenesis when in the Bible, man came from dirt?

(Catholic)

46) Why do Christians always resort to "God is mysterious"? Why does that sound so much like a cop out?

Because God is mysterious.

47) Why do Christians always resort to "God is beyond logic"? WHy does that sound so much like a cop-out?

God created logic.

48) Why haven't I ever met a Christian that can answer these questions without using cop-outs, lying, or ignoring the question altogether?

I guess you never met a Catholic.

Erin,

That's just it! No one is doomed to hell. They go there by their own choice.

You yourself, just tonite, have said over and over "I reject God"...well, what is He supposed to do with you. You don't want Him? Then you don't have to have Him. No dooming. Your choice. You're all about "choice" right?

I was also in a car accident. As far as I'm concerned, I should be dead. I walked away unscathed. Even the cops and paramedics couldn't believe it. I called out to God for help and prepared to die...I'm still here. Go figure.

Doug,
John, I disagree 180 degrees there. Math and Science would be discovered, via physical reality, to some degree, and language would develop between people as an "agreed-upon" deal. But unprovable belief....?

Ah, actually not, Doug. It was Christianity that allowed the huge inroads in science and math to be made. Christianity was the ONLY religion that viewed the world as being designed by an all powerful and loving God, who ordered all things. Christianity viewed nature as being subject to God's laws, laws which could be discovered and applied.
Without God, a person is lost. You just don't know it.

My BIG question is this..please don't laugh me outta here. Why did God destroy man and the earth once and then he gave us all a second chance KNOWING how we are?? Heck, take the free will.

Heather, I like this side of you.

There are several answers to that, depending on what one believes. In the enormously long thread there is evidence of the massive thought that has gone into it from a couple of perspectives.

From mine, God didn't do that, and there were people way back when who saw it in their interest to promote such beliefs. I realize that you and many others don't agree with me, and I'm not saying it's "bad" to believe as you do, but I see an explanation that makes a lot more sense to me.

People don't like uncertainty, and for example in the dim and distant past people saw lightning, heard thunder, and wondered what in the heck the deal was. "A god did it" was an easy explanation, and things went from there.

John, I liked #35.

Doug, thank you for your input:]

"John, I disagree 180 degrees there. Math and Science would be discovered, via physical reality, to some degree, and language would develop between people as an "agreed-upon" deal. But unprovable belief....?"

Ah, actually not, Doug. It was Christianity that allowed the huge inroads in science and math to be made. Christianity was the ONLY religion that viewed the world as being designed by an all powerful and loving God, who ordered all things. Christianity viewed nature as being subject to God's laws, laws which could be discovered and applied.
Without God, a person is lost. You just don't know it.

No, Patricia. Religious people have made contributions to science, sure, but it's not like it's "Christianity that allowed" scientific progress. In history, it's often religion that held knowledge back, as well.

The rest of what you said didn't address what we were talking about.

I was also in a car accident. As far as I'm concerned, I should be dead. I walked away unscathed. Even the cops and paramedics couldn't believe it. I called out to God for help and prepared to die...I'm still here. Go figure.

Thank God you are ok!!! I guess there's some unfinished work with you, eh?

Honestly, there's a part of me that wants to think that millions of people aren't living a lie. But there's so many different warped perspectives both inside and outside of the major religions...that either way, most of them are, probably. It just makes me depressed.

Erin, I see religion as both helping with suffering and making it less, as well as contributing to it and making for it, at times, just the way the world is, I think.

It doesn't really make me depressed, it's just there. Anywhere I look there's room for improvement if not desperate need for it, but still - I'm pretty happy with the world, all in all.

Yes, JLM. I also wanted to point that out to Erin.

Answer to question #39:

Myth #1 Atheists are Smarter:
http://ncregister.com/site/article/14434

"According to the studies of John Galbraith Simmons, of the top 20 scientists in history, 15 were religious believers (four of whom were deists), two were agnostic, and three were atheists. There were more Catholics among them (five) than either agnostics or atheists, and five more came from other Christian denominations. Thus a full half of the most influential scientists in history were Christians."

"Sir Isaac Newton, for instance, whom Simmons considers to be the most important scientist who ever lived, was aided greatly in his endeavors by his belief in an ordered universe created by a God of order. Thus he could write, 'It is the perfection of God’s works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion.'"

Ellie, seriously, I would believe that atheists are generally more intelligent than the rest of the population. I know that many Christians are intelligent, even on a genius level, but I wouldn't be surprised if atheists are typically smarter than Christians.

It's because of what I said - pride comes before the fall. Lucifer the Lightbearer was an extremely beautiful angel, but instead of acknowledging that his beauty came from God, he started to worship himself. It's the same thing with intelligent people who turn atheist.

Hey Elizabeth, (this post was on a thread back on March 19...)

How old are you? (If you don't mind me asking.)

I've really liked your posts of late - they seem more "mature" and I thought you were really young. Maybe it's just me...

A few alternate answers to John's post:

2) How can a mother enjoy Heven knowing her atheist son is suffering in Hell?

Because she lacks nothing in the Presence of God. She is in full union with LOVE.

7) Why does the creationist accont of the creation of the earth contradict with all of science? Is a test of faith worth the damnation of those deterred from God beacause of this fact?

The Bible tells nothing us about science - it is not a scientific treatise. The importance of the creation account is that God created the world and that a man and a woman were given a test (as the angels were) and they failed it. Sin entered the world.

14) Why does God drown innocent babies in the Great Flood?

The innocent are often punished along with the good. It is a protestant idea that good people are rich, happy and never suffer. It is a Catholic notion that good people often suffer a great deal.

21) Why has God planeted so much evidence of evolution and a non-designed world?

That's your opinion! I might say why has God planted so much evidence of a creator and an ordered world?

22) Wh would God combine our breathing and eating channels into one single orifice? think of the lives this slipshod design has caused.

The human body is a marvel of creation. However, the physical body is subject to the laws of nature. And John, you SHOULD think more deeply about WHY you have earlobes!!

23) Why do so many creatures have completely useless features that evidence evolution? (in other words, why do we have vestigal organs and why do other creatures have vestigals that show evolution)

Amazingly, we do not KNOW everything about every creature, including ourselves. What may be considered vestigal now, may later be discovered to have a function. Google "appendix".

27) Why does God want us to stone women who aren't virgins on their wedding night?

I don't, know, this might be a useful practice to return to. ( ok, I'm just joking....)

36) Why does all scientific evidence point to a Earth much older than implied in the bible?

Again, another opinion stated. There is considerable disagreement on this question.

37) Why does God blame Eve for something he had to have planned, being omniscient?

Actually, Adam's more to blame than Eve (sorry guys). If he had said no to Eve, there would be no original sin, but he really liked Eve, see and.....

40) Why is there no evidence of a Great Flood accepted by serious scientists?

Again, another opinion question. There are many reputable scientists who believe in the Bible and the events therein.

42) Why do Christians criticize scientists for not being 100% sure of everything? Isn't it best to start with the position of not knowing THEN looking for the evidence?

A good scientist starts with a hypothesis and designs research to investigate the question. That is, unless you are researching embryonic stem cells, or abortion. Then you cook the evidence to fit the hypothesis.

44) Why do Christians start with conclusions before they start with evidence in claims about science?

Again, an opinion question. I give up.

JLM, My car accident was in March of 2004. I was driving in some ice rain going down the highway, and the ti-rod on my car broke. My car spun 3 times or so. Once I stopped spinning, I was rolling into oncoming traffic. Head on. Accidents go in slow motion. I had a minute to think "That's it." "I'm going to die."..I remember saying "I'll see ya soon, dad."..I then quietly prayed "God, please help me." I waited for the impact. My cell phone and purse were on my lap. All I could see was darkness from the ice rain. I let out a feeble scream. With that, I opened up my driver door, tossed my cell phone and purse over to the passenger side, and jumped. I landed on my feet. It was as if someone had pulled me from that car. I felt the hard rain pelting me. I couldn't see, but I heard sirens. I saw a man in a blue truck on the side of the highway. I began running to him. I fully expected to be mowed over by a semi or a car. I finally made my way to the man in the blue truck. My car was still rolling. Suddenly, it veered right, and it crashed into a guardrail. It looked like a crushed tin can. Nobody was hurt. After assessing the scene, the paramedic looked at me and said "Someone was watching over you."

Doug,
I'm sorry but you ARE wrong.

Christianity has made significant contributions in every area of Western life.
Scientifically as I've already mentioned as well as in the development of economic theory ( the contributions of Emil Kauder in the area of subjective value theory), international law (Father Francisco de Vitoria and other Spanish theologians of the 16th century) including the theory of just war, and western law whose origin and nature is tied uniquely to Western theological and liturgical concepts of the atonement and the sacraments. In medieval times, canon lawyers and Catholic jurists sought to establish legal systems which would replace lingering barbaric laws such as trial by ordeal. These latter ideas were replaced by rational procedures. Canon lawyers also introduced such concepts as extenuating circumstances in crimes and the development of canon law of marriage formed the basis of the development of contract law.
I could go on and on but I won't.
What offends you Doug, is that Christianity also developed our moral code in Western society and that you find a bit too restrictive.

HisMan said:
Water is one of the most plentiful substances on earth. You don't need a to be near a lake or river to be immersed.
Posted by: HisMan at March 24, 2008 9:50 AM
****

But if I were gonna get baptized again in order to get total immersion then I would prefer it was in a river like Jesus' baptism. I would like that as a renewal of my Baptismal vows.

Patricia: Christianity has made significant contributions in every area of Western life.

I didn't say it hadn't.
......

Scientifically as I've already mentioned as well as in the development of economic theory ( the contributions of Emil Kauder in the area of subjective value theory), international law (Father Francisco de Vitoria and other Spanish theologians of the 16th century) including the theory of just war, and western law whose origin and nature is tied uniquely to Western theological and liturgical concepts of the atonement and the sacraments. In medieval times, canon lawyers and Catholic jurists sought to establish legal systems which would replace lingering barbaric laws such as trial by ordeal. These latter ideas were replaced by rational procedures. Canon lawyers also introduced such concepts as extenuating circumstances in crimes and the development of canon law of marriage formed the basis of the development of contract law. I could go on and on but I won't.

Doesn't matter; that's not the argument and does not contradict what I said.
......

What offends you Doug, is that Christianity also developed our moral code in Western society and that you find a bit too restrictive.

Sigh. Wrong again. I'm really pretty happy with the way we have our society.

Posted by: Amanda at March 24, 2008 1:27 PM
*****

Amanda, your post at 1:27 is correct. Christianity chose those dates to coincide with the pagan holidays in order to "offset" them.

Your point Doug is that Christianity has held back society: "it's often religion that held knowledge back" .
My point is that it has not been a detriment, rather it has contributed greatly to the development of society on all levels.

Hal and Rae,
Do either of you believe you have a soul, a sentience, a spirit that exists currently within your physical being?

@Truthseeker: I don't know.

Interesting answers. How about .... responsible for the largest number of documented abuses against mankind in the name of God?

That's a different kind of answer. =)

Stephanie -- Buddhism is not a religion, it is a spirituality.

Although, I find it sad and depressing not to believe in anything. That's almost tragic.

Heather, atheism is not a lack of belief in anything. It is a strong belief that god/gods does/do not exist. Except with my belief, I don't have to constantly feel guilty and shameful, I don't have to ritualize my life, I don't have to look for signs all over the place to answer my prayers (we call them wishes, or hopes, or dreams), I don't have to stress out over every little thing I'm doing -- yes, I understand I'll make mistakes, but I'm not worrying about being condemned to hell for anything I do, nor do I feel compelled to harm other people in the name of God's wishes or force my beliefs on others so that I can "save" them. Because if you don't believe in heaven/hell, then it doesn't matter if other people do, since you don't believe anything will happen either way.

I don't believe I have a spirit or a soul, at most, I'm a piece of matter and energy functioning in the universe.

And I don't feel sad or empty, nor do I have a complete loss of "moral code" (just because it's not the Bible's moral code doesn't mean I don't have one based on common humanity and well-being). Simply put, I'm just content to exist and then die.

(Since I've become an atheist, I no longer have a fear of death. That was an interesting result)

Edyt,
How bout karma. Do you believe people have karma?

Nah, but it's a good way to live your life anyhow. The belief in karma essentially encourages good deeds with the idea that eventually you'll be repaid in one way or another.

So I see nothing wrong with it. I just don't feel like I need to have a motive to be kind/do good deeds. I can just do it.

"Hal and Rae,
Do either of you believe you have a soul, a sentience, a spirit that exists currently within your physical being?"

No, I don't. What a strange question.

I am a spirit, I am a soul. But when, I'm gone, I'm a memory.

Edyt and Hal,
If there is no karma and when you are gone you are gone, then would you cheat/lie to others if you knew you could get away with it?

John:

Thanks for your thoughtful posts:

You said..."You also asked why we Catholics don't just go around Baptizing everybody, if all you need for salvation is Baptism. Well, without a legitimate sponsor who can act on behalf of the Baptized (if he or she is too young), or a willing convert, it wouldn't really be a valid Baptism. In addition, God doesn't force salvation on anyone. He created us with the free will to choose between Heaven and Hell. It is wrong for us to try to "force" salvation on people by sprinkling them with holy water and declaring them Baptized."

Why then are babies baptized or should I say sprinkled?

And regarding your comment about Catholics compiling the Bible, and the logic that asks; "why then would they change it" is confusing. Many of the doctrines that are in place now weren't in place when the final canon was finished about AD 100 or so, right?

Truthseeker:

Brian "Head" Welch, a recent convert to Christianity and former "Korn" guitarist was baptized in the Jordan River. While not necessary to be baptized in the Jordan where Jesus was baptized, it would be cool and very special. I would love to go to Israel some day.

Yes Heather, Catholics are right on about the existence of guardian angels. Read Psalm 91. What a story. I've had a few similar things happen to me as well. Thank God for angels.

Erin, I've picked out a few of your questions to answer:

2) How can a mother enjoy Heven knowing her atheist son is suffering in Hell? Obviously she would have no memory of such a son since it would be as he never existed. For he would be in the state of being eternally destroyed in hell. He however, would, as a part of the self damnation that accompanies the hellish state, would remember his mother, and continally regret that he did not do what it took to get to heaven, i.e., have faith in Christ, and be with her. Ever heard of Lazarus and the poor beggar?.

3) Why do good moral atheists go to Hell and evil immoral Jesus-accepting Christians go to Heaven? This question demonstates total arrogance and a lack of humility. We ALL have sinned and deserve hell. Christians simply admit it and are trusting in God to save them, atheists do not. Besides, who said evil immoral Christians go to Heaven? I think that's questionable and oxymoronic. You cannnot be a true Christian and be evil and immoral. You can be one who committed evil and immoral acts and then repent and believe and be saved. However, to God, even good, moral atheists don't really exist as all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. So, your question is based on a false assertion which is that atheists are good enough to merit entry into God's eternal Kingdom.

4) Why is God obsessed with testing our faith when those fond of skeptical inquiry will be led to Hell? God tests our faith to stregthen our faith, not to destroy us. He promises that if we seek Him we will find Him. If you're goal is to prove that God doesn't exist, and you're setting out to prove this, by definition you are not seeking Him, therefore, you won't find Him. This is called deductive reasoning.

5) What finite sin deserves infinite punishment?
There is no such thing as a finite sin. All sin is committed against an infinte God. He deals with sin in an infinite way, infinitely. Besides, we are not finite either for we have an immortal soul.

7) Why does the creationist accont of the creation of the earth contradict with all of science? Is a test of faith worth the damnation of those deterred from God beacause of this fact? I think this is a false statement. More and more we are learning that the Bible speaks about things previoulsy unknown to man. Keep in mind that in Eden, everything was perfect, the weather, Adam had complete knowledge and everything at his disposal. He lacked nothing. When sin entered, everything changed. Men became stupid, had to relearn and recover all that was lost. They were illiterate. I have a question for you. On the day of creation, would trees have rings, would there be fossils in the ground, would carbon dating show material to be thousands or millions of years old? Think about it. If I created a painting it would have all the elements of a painting, right. I mean, if there were no texture or color or contrast, would it be a painting? God created the earth. It was His prerogative to create it with or without fossils, with trees that had rings, with elements that had a radiactive signature, etc. Do you think it would have been a sterile, bland, lifeless, homogeneous blob of stone, water, dirt and air. Remember we're talking about an infinte, multi-dimensional God creating a physical, three dimensional world by just speaking it into existence. Would an ant expect a man to draw a stick figure or a portrait? Besides, we don't know how long Adam and Eve lived in Eden before they sinned. It could have been billions of years. Remember, God asked him to name all the creatures. Now if, Eden was a great place, I think this task would have been rather enjoyable and effortless. Perhaps Adam took a year long hike just to find an elephant and then came back to God and said, "Look, I think I'll call this one an elephant". And if Adam had to do this millions of times, what do ya think? This is somewhat speculative as I don't know how big Eden was or how many animals it contained, however, it does have some potential for truth.

9) Why would God create the gays when he finds gay acts abominable? Homosexuality is usually biologically deduced from the fact that there are many biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Gays choose to be that way just as theives, adulterers, liars and murderers choose to be that way. We are all sinners in need of a sinner. God din't create us that way, we choose to be that way. Even the Bible (Romans) says that He gives homosexuals up to their lifestyle internally recieving the punishment of their sin. Perhaps this abandonment accounts for the biological differences. The way out from all of these conditions is Jesus Christ.

14) Why does God drown innocent babies in the Great Flood? I'm sure it broke His heart to do so, but, yes they were innocent babies on the way to becoming just like their evil parents. That's why he had to destroy the earth and everything in it. However, God can redeem anyone on the other side. He answers to no man. Can you accept that?

22) Why would God combine our breathing and eating channels into one single orifice? think of the lives this slipshod design has caused? Excuse me, the last time I looked I had a nose AND a mouth. Seems to me that people who choke are the ones who talk and eat at the same time. Hint: I think God wants us to enjoy our food and, talk less, and be better listeners.

26) Why does God condone slavery? He doesn't. He merely gives instructions to his believers on how to live in a Christlike manner if you are in this situation. Many people are slaves to their addictions and bad habits and sins and unbelief and don't know it. Slaves to misery and slaves to doubt. Christ came to set us free. Evil does exist in the world, if only for a time and a season, the purpose of which is to put us in bondage. Bondage to depression and lust for knowledge and whatever. This is not the permanent state of humankind unless they so choose. Even the Israelites, who were slaves to Egypt for 400 years, weren't comfortable with freedom and wandered in the desert for 40 years before entering the promised land. Slavery is a human condition not created by God but a result of our sin.

28) Why was Zarathustra misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
29) Why was Mohammed misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
30) Why was Nanak misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
31) Why was Siddhartha Gautama misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
32) Why was Sathya Sai Baba misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
33) Why was Joseph Smith misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
34) Why was Guru Maharishi Mahest Yogi misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
35) Why was L. Ron Hubbard misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?

Jesus Christ was the only one who rose from the dead and then appeared to over 500 people as proof. In one way or another, all these dudes you ask about in some way denied the diety of Jesus Christ. For example, Joseph Smith taught that Christ was a man and became a god. This is utter nonsense. He did not believe in the Jesus of the Bible but a different Jesus. The Bible says that anyone that denies Christ in an anti-Christ, i.e., they are against Christ, the Christ of the Bible.

40) Why is there no evidence of a Great Flood accepted by serious scientists? There's plenty of evidence of the Great Flood it's just that most scientists are too afraid to admit it for fear of being ostracized. There are plenty of scientists/believers that acknowledge that there was a Great Flood and present convincing evidence of such. Keep in mind, that this was not just a flood, this was an earth changing cataclysmic convulsion. Everything was literally destroyed as it was God's purpose to "get rid of any vestiges or evidence" of a human society that had become inexorably evil. It says the whole earth was covered in water. That means that the water level reached up to and past Mt. Everest. Now that's 28,000 feet or so or 5 plus miles. Do you think that when that water receeded that just a little bit of damage and changing was done to the point that even the evidence of the flood would be difficult to distinguish or detect or compare to the earth's prior state. How many feet can a paleontologist or archaeologist dig? Heck, we haven't even explored the deepest parts of the ocean yet which are said to be 5 or 6 miles deep. Do you make the connection? The flood made the Indonesian psunami and Katrina look like a sunny spring like day at the beach. Now, you're gonna have to use your own brain if you want to understand this stuff. If a mere 500 foot wave hit NY City, do you think that scientists coming back a few thousand years later be able to find anything? I don't think so. We're talking 28,000 feet of water covering the earth and then receeding. I mean, that Inonesian beach town was leterally wiped off the face of the earth and most of the people and stuff lost will never, ever be found. God knows where the people are and He cares.

39) Why does atheism statistically increase with intelligence? This is just not true. The truly intelligent recognize God as Creator. If you're equating intelligence with IQ perhaps you're right, however, the more accurate word is wisdom which is intelligence properly applied. In fact, people with high IQ's who have low morals are considered fools or those who lack wisdom and proper judgment. Solomon was one of the wisest men who ever lived. Read about him. Would you say that Hitler was intelligent? How about Stalin? I mean these guys commanded armys. Where did their misapplied intelligence or foolishness get them? How many of these so called intellegensia are simply miserable, hateful people?

I have a question for you: Why do you seek the counsel of men? You are confused because you choose to be that way. You're not going to get all the answers. If you did, you'd be God and He won't allow it because, well, He's God and you're a creature. Besides, your mind has infinite potential and there would always be another question. You would never be satisfied and always miserable if the conditon for beleiving in God was understanding everything. You set yourself up to fail before the journey. Accept that you were not created to know or understand everything. Learn to live by faith and discover the joy of not having to know everything. Besides, remember there's an enemy of your soul and he's done a good job of messing up your mind. Let go, let God in, trust and do not lean on your own understanding.

Here's a Bible verse for you, please think about it:

Proverbs 3: "5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight."

Doug,
The complete agnostic.
Every answerof Doug is a game of plus and minus,maybe yes, maybe no, on every matter of life, except abortion. A typical outcome of adolescent morality based on object relation gains and losses and carried forward into adulthood morality.
On abortion matters, Doug becomes a raving dogmatist, a absolutist of morals, who closed his mind with these words,;" no one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do".
When did you become a preaching absolutist, of the positive morality of the murder of growing human beings, Doug?

Edyt:

You do believe in a god....it's yourself. In fact you are not an atheist. It's impossible to be an atheist. God designed us to believe. We are made in His image and He has infinite faith. So do we. We either believe in Him (by living His way) or ourselves (by living our way). So, in effect you are also a liar because you contradict your own self-evident nature.

For you have set up a moral code and faith that contradicts God's revelation. You have placed yourself above God. Really, that's what you've done. This same action got satan and a 1/3 of the angels kicked out of Heaven.

Christianity is not someting made up. It was revealed to men by God at His whim. If Christianity were man made, I could see and understand your decision to arbitrate it's practice. However, it was not man who created Jesus, it was not man who from the beginning set up the inexorable plan of God beginning with creation, the prophets, the Jews, the early church. Jesus gave His life willingly and of His own accord. Men did not take Jesus' life for He could have summoned an army of angels to defend Him.

You, by rejecting God's revelation and offer of forgiveness, are stating that you in effect are god since you choose to live another way and you know better. How long has God been around? Forever? How long have you been around? 30, 40, 50 years and you know better?

God says fine. Have it your way. He warns us that our way leads to eternal separation from Him (since that is what we decide) and it is simply called Hell.

Your lack of a fear of death doesn't surprise me since it is evidence of a conscience that has been seared by the acceptance of the lie of the devil, which is: "God doesn't exist". The mere fact that you can think and make a choice for or against God proves God's existence.

You believe that gravity exists, right? Why? You can't see it, you can't taste it, you can't touch it, yet you believe it, you can't even tell me how or why it exists. Using the logic of an atheist, you are foolish if you believe gravity exists becasue faith requires that I be able to see, taste, touch, smell, hear and prove that gravity exists. You would say to me that's ridicuolus...I might not be able to see, taste, smell, hear, or touch gravity or tell you how it functions, but I know it exists because I can see it's effects. I trust it because wihout gravity my car and house and I would float into space. Really?

You can honestly tell me that you can live in this world and while you cannot see, taste, hear, smell or touch God or prove the existence of God, and not see the effects of God? You've never looked into the eyes of a child, or felt the pounding of your own heart, or the sweet aroma of a flower, or the beauty of a butterfly, or the magnificence of the forest and mountains and all of creation? You must be god then.

Wow... It has been a long time since I showed up. I was going to cause some mischief, but it seems that I don't have to... Sad day...

Oh, a request to the pro-lifers. Please stop putting the 'Planned Parenthood Is Bad For Aurora' signs in my front lawn. We, the members of the Punk Capitol on Gladstone, do not appreciate getting so many of these things. We've already made 3 'Planned Parenthood Is RAD For Aurora' signs, and it's gotten boring. We get your point. You don't like PP. Cool. Stop littering on our lawn. It's getting annoying, and we're just going to throw them at the kids who go to Aurora University across the street.

That's pretty much all I have to say. [I sound like a cranky old man. YOU KIDS STAY OFF MY LAWN! Heh heh heh, I can't wait to be old.]

Edyt,

I don't believe I have a spirit or a soul, at most, I'm a piece of matter and energy functioning in the universe.

As with Erin, the only reason you can have the thought that you don't have a soul, is that you have one. If you didn't, you would be like all the lower beasts and be incapable of even "thinking".

That "thing" that separates you from the chimpanzee, that allows you rational thought, is the very "thing" that is meant when we say Created in the Image of God. You have thought, God is thought. Your ability to think is the piece of God that He shared with you.

Ironic, no?

Hisman, thank you. Edyt, thank you for the reply. I don't fear death either. And I do believe in God.

Erin

I'll take a shot...

1) Why won't God heal amputees? Yet supposedly heals anything that can by itself heal naturally?

I guess this question is really a different question in disguise. The real question you are asking is why can't everything be perfect? Why can't I have everything the way "I" want it. The answer? Well, it really isn't about how many limbs a person has. I could just as easily ask, "I'm a mom, why can't I have six hands???" It's about "How do I handle/accept what I do have?"
*
Everyone of us is lacking something. Some are not as visible as an arm or a leg. It's how we deal with our shortcomings that matters. It's more about defining us, than defining God. If each of us spent on lives focused on what was missing, instead of what we DO have, we'd be miserable whether we had all of our limbs or not. If that amputees leg grew back, he'd just be griping about not winning the lottery tomorrow. What I want to know is why is he asking "Where is my leg" instead of saying "WOW! Thanks guys for these awesome eyes! The world is amazing and I'm so grateful you took my legs instead of my eyesight"...it's all about attitude.

2) How can a mother enjoy Heven knowing her atheist son is suffering in Hell?

If a woman makes it into heaven, it is because she has understood that everything here on earth is a gift, including her son. She didn't "own" him. She obviously has put her complete trust in God, understands the concept of free will, and loves God enough to "give up her son", so that she can spend eternity with Him. Sound familiar? God also gave up His son, so that she could spend eternity with Him.

3) Why do good moral atheists go to Hell and evil immoral Jesus-accepting Christians go to Heaven?

First of all, you'd have to define "good, moral"...many people on this very sight believe they are good and moral, yet condone the slaughter of the unborn. So if there is a God, and an atheist desires to be with Him, (oxymoron), and the said atheist has lived a life that is in accord with God's morals, then whose to say he isn't going to go to heaven? Although by definition, this would tick an atheist off, since he doesn't want to go to heaven. So which should it be? A good and moral atheist gets his wish, and doesn't have to spend eternity with God, or a good and moral atheist is forced to spend eternity in heaven, the very place he doesn't want to be? Why would sending a person to heaven, when he doesn't want to be there, be considered a reward?

4) Why is God obsessed with testing our faith when those fond of skeptical inquiry will be led to Hell?

I have reread the 10 commandments and I can not find anywhere "Thou shalt not ask questions"...on the contrary, thousands upon thousands of books have been written just for such people. Skeptical inquiry is the first step to finding God. I honestly don't know where you get this idea from. Just look at the "neverending thread" and you'll see that 8 or so christians have been questioning their beliefs for the last two months. We're well on our way to 4,000 comments, all of which are skeptical inquiries.
*
As to why God is always testing our Faith? It seems to me you have it backwards. It is us that are always testing God's mercy. We are the ones that test our own faith. Everytime we put ourselves in the path of temptation, we test our faith. Every time we rebel against His law, we test our faith. Every time we think we "know better" than He does, we test our faith. I think it would be better to remember, how very patient God is with us. I'm less amazed that we continue to believe in Him, than I am that He continues to believe in us. He never fails. We constantly do.
Seriously, He should be the one asking that question.

5) What finite sin deserves infinite punishment?

How about the finite sin of totally rejecting God and requesting to never have to have anything to do with Him? Looked at that way, we aren't getting our just punishment, so much as getting our just "reward". I remember when my son Michael was little and we'd be playing monopoly. He'd be losing and get really mad, stomp off, and refuse to play. Then he'd sulk in his room, thinking how awful we were for making him miserable. Meanwhile, we'd continue the game. Now, were we punishing him? Or did he "choose" to leave the game? Who was really punishing him? Wasn't he actually punishing himself? He could have come back to the game anytime he wanted. We weren't stopping him. While he was off pouting, we were laughing and having a great time.
*
So which sin is worthy of eternal punishment? Why, the one which is self imposed of course. The one where you "choose" eternal punishment, or eternal reward, if you will. God gives us want we want. If we "want" to live without him, then that is what God gives us. He loves us that much.

6) Why do we deserve Hell for something Adam and Eve did? Should we charge grandchildren with the crimes of their grandparents?

Ahhhh, again with the backward questions. The real question is "Why do we deserve heaven because of something Adam and Eve didn't do?
*
sin has repurcussions. That's life. Whether you believe in God or not, each of your choices has consequences. Adam and Eve's choices had consequences. Why is it that you always want God to change, and never yourself? What you are really asking is "Why can't God be in the same place as evil? Why can't He change so that I don't have to?" The answer is that God was here first. He created you. That should be enough. Must He also lower Himself so that you don't have to raise yourself? What kind of a world would we live in, if God kept becoming more and more like us, instead of us striving to be more and more like him?
*Adam and Eve were created at the top of ladder. They were placed in the highest spot. When they chose to climb down instead of remain on top, they set the stage for everyone that came after. We must now strive to ascend. They are the ones that chose to descend. If God were to "come down" the ladder to where we are, we would still be in the same place. Only by reaching for God can we undo what Adam and Eve did. Not by bringing God down to our level. But by going up to His.

7) Why does the creationist account of the creation of the earth contradict with all of science? Is a test of faith worth the damnation of those deterred from God beacause of this fact?

why would this deter you from God? This confuses me. Again, do you want God to lower Himself? It seems to me that there is no real contradiction between the idea that God created the world and science. John is right. As Catholics we are only required to believe that God is indeed the Author of all things. Whether He did it in 7 days or 7 billion years is irrelevant. The only contradiction I see, is when you adhere to science and leave God out. Adhering to God and bringing science in is not a contradiction. Science is just a way to measure Gods creation. If your view of science leaves no room for God, then perhaps you have it wrong? I know of nothing in science that definitively removes God from the equation, do you?

8) Why would an omniscient author create such a barbaric and scientifically illiterate book with all the knowledge he could provide?

Why would you read a book about art and question why it doesn't explain math? Or a book on gardening and wonder why it doesn't tell you how a car engine works? God"s goal in writing scripture was not to teach us how many molecule of oxygen are in air. It was to teach us how to spend eternity with him. Let the scientists write the science books. Let God write the book of eternal life.

9) Why would God create the gays when he finds gay acts abominable? Homosexuality is usually biologically deduced from the fact that there are many biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Finding homosexual acts abominable, is not the same as finding homosexuals abominable. Like the man in your first question that has a missing limb, we all have something that challenges us. You might just as well ask "Why did God invent any human being, when He finds so much of what human beings do abominable"...why did He invent Charles Manson? It all comes down to free will. It all comes down to perception. How do we see this world we live in? If we focus on all of the things that we "can't" do instead of all of the things that we can, we are going to be very unhappy. A single woman is called to the exact same challenge as a homosexual man. Both are called to lived chaste lives. Both are asked to attain holiness, without the benefit of a partner.
*
Each of us are asked to overcome our own obstacles to holiness. Whether that is learning to live without a leg, without a partner or without wealth is not the issue. The issue is, do we let our obstacles control us? Or do we control them?

I'm going to post these and come back for the rest...
10) What about animal sacrifice entices God so intensely as to have pages and pages on how to do it?
11) Why is religion so demographic?
12) Why do people of all religions claim (their) god speaks to them if there's only one God? Is God speaking to Hindus? Isn't that misleading for God to do?
13) Why does God want us to stone our rebellious children? He specifically says his words are perfect and should never change.
14) Why does God drown innocent babies in the Great Flood?
15) Why do we deserve Hell for not being as perfect as Jesus?
16) Why does God want us to stone non-believers and worshippers of other gods?
17) Why doesn't God want women to talk in church?
18) Why does God want us to stone people who work on Sundays? (EDIT: that's to be the sabbath, which is actually Saturday)
19) Why does god demand so much killing and destruction?
20) Why did God enlighten only one specific small area of the world? Did he not foresee the immense conflict this would bring?
21) Why has God planeted so much evidence of evolution and a non-designed world?
22) Wh would God combine our breathing and eating channels into one single orifice? think of the lives this slipshod design has caused.
23) Why do so many creatures have completely useless features that evidence evolution? (in other words, why do we have vestigal organs and why do other creatures have vestigals that show evolution)
24) In natural disasters, may people die before having accepted Jesus. Why strip their chances to get into Heaven so viciously?
25) Why do we still have gurus like Jesus today, tricking people into believing they can perform miracles? Why should atheists disregard these gurus yet accept Jesus as the only true miracle worker?
26) Why does God condone slavery?
27) Why does God want us to stone women who aren't virgins on their wedding night?
28) Why was Zarathustra misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
29) Why was Mohammed misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
30) Why was Nanak misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
31) Why was Siddhartha Gautama misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
32) Why was Sathya Sai Baba misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
33) Why was Joseph Smith misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
34) Why was Guru Maharishi Mahest Yogi misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
35) Why was L. Ron Hubbard misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
36) Why does all scientific evidence point to a Earth much older than implied in the bible?
37) Why does God blame Eve for something he had to have planned, being omniscient?
38) Why did he bind the fruit to the damnation of future billions if that's not what he really wanted? Remember, he created every detail in the set up and knew the exact outcome of every possible detail.
39) Why does atheism statistically increase with intelligence?
40) Why is there no evidence of a Great Flood accepted by serious scientists?
41) Where did God get his morals?
42) Why do Christians criticize scientists for not being 100% sure of everything? Isn't it best to start with the position of not knowing THEN looking for the evidence?
43) Why do Christians often think it's admirable to have all the answers in the absence of evidence?
44) Why do Christians start with conclusions before they start with evidence in claims about science?
45) Why do Christians criticize abiogenesis when in the Bible, man came from dirt?
46) Why do Christians always resort to "God is mysterious"? Why does that sound so much like a cop out?
47) Why do Christians always resort to "God is beyond logic"? WHy does that sound so much like a cop-out?
48) Why haven't I ever met a Christian that can answer these questions without using cop-outs, lying, or ignoring the question altogether?

Yes Heather, Catholics are right on about the existence of guardian angels. Read Psalm 91. What a story. I've had a few similar things happen to me as well. Thank God for angels.

Hisman-------------------------------------------------------- Thanks. I just went to Psalm 91. I can tell you this much. I know it was an angel. I was ready to surrender to death. Hisman, Can you share one of your stories?? Please? I've talked to others who have also had similar experiences. I love to hear their stories.

"Tom Cruise didn't die for our sins.

36) Why does all scientific evidence point to a Earth much older than implied in the bible?

Yo, I got Catholicism here!"

LOL!

I don't even understand what Scientologists believe in. What do they believe in?

God has used the suffering in my life to draw me to Himself. The death of the best grandma in the world, thoughts of suicide, suicide attempts of a very good friend, utter despair and desperation over my abortion and 2 miscarriages have led me to The One who knows suffering better than anyone. I did not accept Jesus until I was around 28. I would love to say that my life has been perfect after that. HA! Life is difficult. It is hard to live here when you long for heaven and the promise of being with Him for eternity.
God has restored HOPE to me in the lowest points in my life.
It is in the loneliest places that these verses have meant so much...
The Lord your God is with you...
He will take great delight in you,
He will quiet you with His love,
He will rejoice over you with singing. Zephaniah 3:17

I am praying for all of you.

Though You have made me see troubles many and bitter You will restore my life again. From the depths of the earth You will again bring me up. You will increase my honor and comfort me once again.
Psalm 71:20,21

Reading all of these posts in such good medicine for my soul this morning. I'm still learning.

"God created the earth. It was His prerogative to create it with or without fossils, with trees that had rings, with elements that had a radiactive signature, etc."

LOL. [rude comment deleted to avoid banning for blasphemy]

"If Christianity were man made, I could see and understand your decision to arbitrate it's practice."

Thank you, you DO understand.

"The mere fact that you can think and make a choice for or against God proves God's existence."

Hmmm, I don't think that's true. How about this instead? "The mere fact that you can think and make a choice for or against God proves God doesn't exist."

"There's plenty of evidence of the Great Flood it's just that most scientists are too afraid to admit it for fear of being ostracized"

Really? How big was that Ark? Did Noah have time to find Zebras in Africa, duck-billed platypuses in Australia, and bison from North America before the water hit the 28,000 foot mark? Was the flood fresh water or salt water? How much pet chow did he stock up on before the rains came? You REALLY believe this story is literally true? Come on.

Erin,

10) What about animal sacrifice entices God so intensely as to have pages and pages on how to do it?

Animals, the ones that people sacrificed, were often livestock. So firstly, they were "precious" to the people sacrificing. Secondly, blood is extremely mysterious. It holds the key to so much of who we are. The Jews believed that "life" actually existed in blood. They aren't too far off. Offering blood sacrifices was like offering life itself, exactly what God turned around and did for us. Keep in mind that what was done in the Old Testament was often a precursor or foreshadowing of what God would do in the New Testament. Blood to you might be "gross", but to God it was life giving. Rather than gross, it is beautiful. It contains the secrets to life. Offering it up makes more sense when you think of it less as messy, and more as awe inspiring. It's what blood symbolizes that makes it a worth offering.
11) Why is religion so demographic?
I thought you were all about science. Simple logic tells us that where something begins is where it is concentrated most. You might as well ask why nations are so demographic. More Irish people live in Ireland than Poland. God revealed Himself to people in a certain place and it spread outward from there. Why did He choose Jerusalem? Wouldn't you be asking the same question if He chose San Francisco? People began in that part of the world, so that is where God appeared. Wouldn't have done Him (or us) much good if he revealed Himself in the Andes, if there weren't any people there, now would it? So you're real question is why did God first put people in that part of the world, and the answer is, He had to put them somewhere...

12) Why do people of all religions claim (their) god speaks to them if there's only one God? Is God speaking to Hindus? Isn't that misleading for God to do?

Who says they don't? We believe that those "other Gods" are simply fallen angels (now called demons) doing their best to take the focus off the One True God. So I guess you could say that satan, in his never ending quest to thwart God by stealing souls, uses his fallen comrades to lure people away from the truth. I'm sure that most or all of the people you mentioned really did hear from the "gods"...And there are grains of truth in all religions. It's not like they are completely wrong. What makes them so enticing is those very particles of truth that come from the One True God.

13) Why does God want us to stone our rebellious children? He specifically says his words are perfect and should never change.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. The two thoughts have nothing to do with each other...
*
For the first part I would say, see John Lewandowskis answer. The world that the people of the Old Testament lived in was harsh. This is how they dealt with opposition. I'm sure that thousands of years from now, people will be asking similar questions about what we do now...we will appear barbaric to societies that exist in the future. God can only work with us where we are. 6000 years ago, we didn't have psychiatrists or bi polar meds. What these people knew was eye for an eye. And it wasn't just the Jews, it was all of society.
*
How do you think we will look back on abortion? People reading Jills will be led to believe that God condoned killing our children when we didn't want them.

14) Why does God drown innocent babies in the Great Flood?

God doesn't drown innocent babies. Innocent babies dies as a consequence of their parents sinful behavior. How many unborn are slaughtered in the womb, due to their parents choices?
*
Is God killing these children? No, their parents choices are killing these children. The people were told how to avoid the flood...they chose to ignore the warnings. They continued in their offensive behavior and their innocent children suffered.
*
Also, it is a scientific fact (I know how you like those) that all of us will die. It is a human concept that the death of the young is worse than the death of the older. Why did anyone have to die in that flood. Why does anyone have to die period? Answer me that from an atheist point of view. We all must die. That's a fact. Some of us die sooner than others. But what's the difference really? The parents of those infants got the worst end of the deal by far...the infants went straight to heaven. Where are the parents? It seems merciful to me, not malicious. He actually spared those children an eternity in hell, by taking them so young.

15) Why do we deserve Hell for not being as perfect as Jesus?

By definition, heaven is perfect. To allow imperfection to enter it, would change it by definition. If we allowed sin/evil to enter heaven, it would cease to be heaven. By disallowing sin to enter heaven, God is protecting the integrity of heaven. We deserve hell, because we choose hell. In His mercy, God grants us our desires. Those that desire eternity without God, shall get it. If they were forced to go to heaven, you would be asking, "Why does do people deserve heaven when they don't want it? Why does God force them to go there, when clearly they don't want to?"

16) Why does God want us to stone non-believers and worshippers of other gods?

I've already answered this to the best of my ability as has John Lewandowski. Those were different times, and they called for different remedies. I believe He sent His only son, so that we didn't HAVE to live by those rules anymore....God abhorred them as much as you do.

17) Why doesn't God want women to talk in church?

When that was written it was mans world. I'm pretty sure no one would want me speaking about brain surgery as I have never studied it. Women weren't allowed to study scripture, so why would they be allowed to teach it? When they say that women can't "talk" in church, them mean can't "teach/preach" in the synagogue. Again, God has to work within the environmental constructs of the people He is working with. These people didn't allow women to take an active role in religion. God changed all that with Mary, but that's a different question.

18) Why does God want us to stone people who work on Sundays? (EDIT: that's to be the sabbath, which is actually Saturday)

Again, the whole stoning thing has been addressed. Why didn't he want people to work on the Sabbath is the real question. Probably for the same reason that you're mother wants to know why you haven't called or visited in weeks. He loves us. He wants to spend time with us. He wants our love and admiration. If you accept the idea that God is the author of EVERYTHING then it isn't that much a leap to acknowledge that He should be adored for said creation...it's only when you deny that He is the author, that worshiping Him becomes a problem.

19) Why does god demand so much killing and destruction?

I don't see that He does demand this. I see that people do. The only time God condoned killing and destruction was to protect His children. Wouldn't you do whatever it took to keep your loved ones from being slaughtered or persecuted? Would you honestly expect anything less from God? He loves us. He wants us safe. If that means destroying anything or anyone that is harming us, then I'd say He was just being a good parent and a fierce protector. I for one am quite glad that He is watching my back...

20) Why did God enlighten only one specific small area of the world? Did he not foresee the immense conflict this would bring?

I'm pretty sure that the light has spread throughout the world. Why does the sun only come up in one part of the world while the rest remains in darkness? To everything there is a season. His light shines everywhere. Take off the sunglasses. Open the blinds. Again, this is where civilization was. Where would suggest He have begun? The antarctica?

21) Why has God planeted so much evidence of evolution and a non-designed world?

That is a contradictory question. Evidence of evolution is NOT evidence against intelligent design. There is intelligent design IN evolution.
That you cannot see it is not God's fault. It's yours.

22) Why would God combine our breathing and eating channels into one single orifice? think of the lives this slipshod design has caused.

Warped sense of humor??? How about efficiency?

23) Why do so many creatures have completely useless features that evidence evolution? (in other words, why do we have vestigal organs and why do other creatures have vestigals that show evolution)

Don't you mean, why don't we know the reason for all of our organs? How do you know they are useless. Every time you don't understand something, you ask why God is stupid! Do you accept NO responsibility for yourself? Is it NEVER your fault? Gee, where have I heard that logic before?

24) In natural disasters, may people die before having accepted Jesus. Why strip their chances to get into Heaven so viciously?

You have no way of knowing that they didn't accept Jesus in their last seconds. You also don't recognize the fact that those same people have had and entire lifetime to accept Jesus and chose not to. What's with you and choice? You only understand the concept on your terms? Choice is good when it gets you what you want, but bad when it has unpleasant consequences? Just as you know that sex leads to pregnancy but refuse to accept this fact, so too, we know that everyone will die. By refusing to accept this fact, you choose to reject God and then complain that you died and didn't have a "chance" to accept Him...or you complain that you had sex and don't like the fact that you got pregnant. Duh! Again, you make bad choices, so God must be an idiot

25) Why do we still have gurus like Jesus today, tricking people into believing they can perform miracles? Why should atheists disregard these gurus yet accept Jesus as the only true miracle worker?

No one says they should disregard these gurus. They have the same choice I have. I have seen Oprah, and Obama...I have been exposed to the same false concepts as everyone else. If they choose to believe in something other than Christianity, fine. Then they will reap the consequences of that choice. I will reap the consequences of mine.
*
You want people to have the freedom to choose to believe whatever they want, but to have the benefits of the choice they did not make. Where is the sense in that? Why bother giving them a choice at all?
*
What you are saying is that I should be able to choose any "god" that I want, but still reap the rewards of the Christian God. I should worship Brahma, but not suffer the consequences of worshiping Brahma. I should worship Buddah, but still get into the Christian heaven! That's just silly.

26) Why does God condone slavery?

See John Lewandowskis answer. God doesn't condone slavery the way you mean it. Never did. Never will.

27) Why does God want us to stone women who aren't virgins on their wedding night?

already answered the stoning question...

28) Why was Zarathustra misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
29) Why was Mohammed misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
30) Why was Nanak misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
31) Why was Siddhartha Gautama misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
32) Why was Sathya Sai Baba misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
33) Why was Joseph Smith misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
34) Why was Guru Maharishi Mahest Yogi misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?
35) Why was L. Ron Hubbard misguided, a fraud, or didn't really exist while Jesus is the real deal?

For all of the above, italicized questions, the answer is the same...Why was Hitler misguided? Why was Charles Manson misguided? Why are any of us misguided. Satan. Evil. We choose to listen to lies, and ignore the truth. Always look to the fruit. What does Buddhism offer? Is that what you want? Is that the eternity you seek? Then go ahead. What doesn't scientology offer? Is that the eternity you seek? Then go ahead. You will get exactly what you choose. Why do you have such a problem with this? I choose what is offered to me in Christianity. That is the eternity that I want. So I shall have it. It's not that believing in Buddah is "wrong"...go ahead and believe in him. And reap what you have sown. An endless life of reincarnating. Or becoming one with the aliens. Or living with satan as your master. Feel free. I choose something different. Perhaps everyone of those religions offers exactly what they claim to offer. Perhaps they are true in what they claim. I personally, don't want that. So I choose the ultimate truth. I choose to live forever. I choose a God that loves me for who I am. Not one that tells me I need to do it over and over til I get it right, or one that asks me to become "non-human" so that I can become one with a tree...but if that's what floats your boat, have at it. Just quit complaining when you get what you asked for...

36) Why does all scientific evidence point to a Earth much older than implied in the bible?

I was unaware that the bible implied the earth was a certain age...I know written history is only six thousand years old...but I have no idea how long the earth has been here...

37) Why does God blame Eve for something he had to have planned, being omniscient?

What is with this "blame" thing. If you come into my house and start breaking the furniture and set the house on fire, don't be shocked when I call the police and have you removed. Is it MY fault you came into my home and behaved as you did? Adam and Eve wouldn't even have existed if it weren't for God's goodness. They dissed His house. Once again, you blame God, for the poor choices that people make. They had every opportunity to choose differently. The question I have is why don't you blame Eve? Why do you blame God????

38) Why did he bind the fruit to the damnation of future billions if that's not what he really wanted? Remember, he created every detail in the set up and knew the exact outcome of every possible detail.

Again, He gave them the CHOICE. Don't eat the fruit, live in bliss. Eat the fruit, understand what it means to have to choose between good and bad. Once you eat that fruit you will become responsible for what you learn. If you have an expensive diamond in your house and a thief comes in a steals it, should I blame you? Why did you have that diamond in your house? You knew there were thieves in the world? It's your fault you had your diamond stolen. You should never have had that diamond to begin with...tempting that poor thief!
*
Adam and Eve made a decision. They decided that knowing was more important than not knowing. How awesome was God to trust them to begin with. How ridiculous of them to break that trust. But of course, some how this is God's fault....

39) Why does atheism statistically increase with intelligence?

I simply can't improve on John's answer. Pride. Pride and nothing else. It seems to me that there is direct correlation to the amount of intelligence a person possesses and their lack of wisdom.
*
Knowing facts and figures seems to do something to people. It blinds them to real knowledge. Gives them the false sense that they actually "know" anything...Too much power corrupts. Too much money corrupts. Too much information corrupts. Leads us to believe that we ARE God. In spite of having heads full of facts, they are some of the dumbest people in the world. What good does it do to "know" everything, if you sell your soul in process. Look again, closely, at Adam and Eve.
*
These people aren't really atheists at all. They have a God. Their God is information. They are their own Gods...

40) Why is there no evidence of a Great Flood accepted by serious scientists?

Don't you mean, why haven't we discovered the evidence of the great flood?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/

41) Where did God get his morals?

John's answer says it all...God IS morality. ..

42) Why do Christians criticize scientists for not being 100% sure of everything? Isn't it best to start with the position of not knowing THEN looking for the evidence?

We don't criticize them. We laugh at them. We have seen with our own eyes how they are proven wrong time and again with the next great scientific discovery. Science is good, if kept in perspective. I wouldn't trust ANYONE who was 100% sure of knowing ANYTHING...I'd run and never look back.

43) Why do Christians often think it's admirable to have all the answers in the absence of evidence?

Answers to what? I am a Christian and I couldn't give you the answers to 99.9% percent of the questions I could be asked. There is only one subject that I feel I have any answers to. And I only have some of those. And I only have those answers because I cheated and read the book...

44) Why do Christians start with conclusions before they start with evidence in claims about science?

When dealing with thermonuclear science, it is best to start with evidence. When dealing with the spiritual world it is best to start with a supernatural source. I don't try to prove molecular biology using the bible, why would I try to prove the unseen/non physical, using physical "evidence"...

45) Why do Christians criticize abiogenesis when in the Bible, man came from dirt?

I can't criticize what I don't know...what the heck is abiogenesis? You mean evolution? What's to criticize?"

46) Why do Christians always resort to "God is mysterious"? Why does that sound so much like a cop out?

Why do atheists always ask for physical evidence for something that isn't physical...Why does that sound so much like a cop out? How can I produce what isn't there? We are dealing with unseen forces, non physical concepts...we do have "evidence" in the miracles that take place throughout the world. Zeutin, Egypt, bleeding hosts, miraculous cures, Fatima, prophecies...but you don't accept this "evidence". We have many accounts that Jesus lived, died and rose. But you do not accept this "evidence"...What you really mean is proof. If there were proof, it wouldn't be faith. Sorry, wish I could help.

47) Why do Christians always resort to "God is beyond logic"? WHy does that sound so much like a cop-out?

God isn't beyond logic, He IS Logic...logos. Love is beyond logic. Is that a copout? Emotion is beyond logic. Is that a copout? Truth, beauty, hope, honor are all beyond logic. More copouts????

48) Why haven't I ever met a Christian that can answer these questions without using cop-outs, lying, or ignoring the question altogether?

Maybe because we realize that no matter how we answer these questions you will continue to choose not to believe and we have better things to do with our time than waste it on useless questions. You tell me, is there any satisfactory answer to any of these questions? Is there anything that we could have said that would make you say "Oh! now I get it?" I doubt it. I think this was just an exercise in futility. A way to make you feel superior and show us to be fools. I suppose to a degree it worked. I'm sure you are saying to yourself right now, those idiots. They answered nothing. Once again, the fault does not lie with you, does it?

Heather: In response to your query about Scientologists, and what they believe in, you'd be amazed. Their founder, L.Ron Hubbard, was a science fiction writer who declared that if he ever wanted to make millions of dollars, he'd start a religion. And boy did he.

They idolize the likes of Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Kirstie Alley, and others...what does THAT tell you ?

They're all about mind control, bilking people out of their money, hooking people up to machines that measures "something" ...don't know what...but it's BIZARRE. They ultimately believe that a mother ship is going to come and gather them all up and take them back "home"...

Do an internet search about them...you'll be shocked.

Mike, you're kidding. My jaw just dropped and hit my keyboard. Jenna Elfman, Dharma and Greg, is also a Scientologist. *cue the spaceship hovering music*

Yeah, you are right about Hubbard, Mike.
We just had a slew of brand new shrink wrapped Hubbard books DONATED to every one of our library branches in the system where I work.
Spanking new scientology books - which we will probably weed in 2 years time!!

read about their troubles in Clearwater Florida...

yes...that Jenna whats-her-name...whacko religion for whacko celebrities. They're also VERY pro-abortion.

Mike, you mean Jenna has been? Um, look at how Scientology has ruined Tom Cruise.And Katie Holmes always looks like she's in a trance.

It's a shame. I really used to be a fan of Tom Cruise..for his acting only. Now, I can't stand the site of him.

All these religions seem equally whacko to me.

Some people believe two of every species on Earth (and enough food to feed them) fit on a wooden boat.

Well, UFO's weren't written about in the Bible.

They idolize the likes of Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Kirstie Alley, and others...what does THAT tell you ?

Mike, are you saying that they kind of worship these celebrities like they are God?

Hal,

Did you read my post to Erin?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/

You might find this interesting reading!

MK, I did read your post. I like you too much to engage in a religious battle with you. There might have been a flood in the past, but not a 28,000 foot flood as HisMan believes that wiped out every one but Noah's family and the animals he gathered up.

Hal:

Read the account of the flood then maybe you'll understand.

You seem unreachable Hal. For the life of me I can't understand why you continue on this site. Why do you even bother? Are you on a mission? Just who are you trying to save and from what? Or do you just need to feel right about your own debauchery and godlessness?

Seems to me you're bent on death be it the death of your first two children or the soul death of the people you try to mislead on this site, perhaps without realizing it.

I could understand someone blogging on this site in a search for truth, however, your constant antagonsim towards everything godly or Christian seems pointless and fruitless. You must live a miserable existence Hal, one without any meaning that transcends you and your own conclusions about God. It's sad. What a tiny circle you live in, full of, well, you.

I can think of another being like that. He's called satan, and he just can't take his eyes off himself for the good of others. He is condemned to an existence that denies God and tries to convince others of same as in some twisted and demented way of feeling better about his state and who he really is. He takes his twisted view and leads angels/people away from God. Do you see the similarity of your actions? We know his end. Yours does not have to be that way.

Hal,

Fair enough. Just wanted it out there that there is eveidence of the flood/a flood...

If there is no karma and when you are gone you are gone, then would you cheat/lie to others if you knew you could get away with it?

No, because I believe in doing your best to be a fundamentally good person. Not because of religion, or karma, or death, or anything, but just because I believe in being a good person. It's not as revolutionary an idea as it sounds, honestly.

HisMan,

Thank you for your comments, but I believe you fail to fundamentally understand atheism and therefore don't realize that because I don't believe in God, your preaching at me is meaningless. Because I do not believe in God, I am not affected by your statements that I'll go to hell, I do not believe God has been around forever, I do not believe Jesus died for anyone (he may not have ever lived, you know), I do not claim to be God nor do I believe the myths you have propogated for centuries to keep believing in something that obviously has little to no basis in reality.

The mere fact that you can think and make a choice for or against God proves God's existence.

Hahaha!! OR maybe it means that I'm an evolved creature, able to make my own decisions without wishing upon the tooth fairy for something to come true.

You believe that gravity exists, right? Why? You can't see it, you can't taste it, you can't touch it, yet you believe it, you can't even tell me how or why it exists. Using the logic of an atheist, you are foolish if you believe gravity exists becasue faith requires that I be able to see, taste, touch, smell, hear and prove that gravity exists.

There are more ways to measure scientific theories than just by the senses of the body. Gravity can be measured. Read a science textbook sometime. Maybe you'll learn some things.

You can honestly tell me that you can live in this world and while you cannot see, taste, hear, smell or touch God or prove the existence of God, and not see the effects of God? You've never looked into the eyes of a child, or felt the pounding of your own heart, or the sweet aroma of a flower, or the beauty of a butterfly, or the magnificence of the forest and mountains and all of creation? You must be god then.

Nope. I see a very complex and evolved world that spent billions of years getting to the state it is in now. Besides, the "beauty" of the world is all very objective, is it not? I mean, you see a wonderous, god-like mountain, I see a rock formation. It just is. Maybe someone who has never seen a mountain would be in awe ... And by not seeing "god" in everything, I'm not claiming god rights for myself. I'm just saying there is no god. I am not one, you are not one, there is none.

Trying to argue with me by saying God exists because I don't believe God exists is just about the dumbest thing I've heard in my entire life and it's not logical or coherent or even accurate. Things don't just EXIST because you say they don't. If I say Santa Claus isn't real, is he all of a sudden going to be real? No. He's not. So things don't just exist because you say they exist. Where is your PROOF that god exists?

And don't try telling me the birds and flowers and pretty world is proof... because it's not.

Edyt:

How do you know what is good? Who taught it to you. Is it an innane attribute? If so, who placed it within you and is it just a probable occurrence?

If you tell me you learned it from others, who taught them? Where did the first "good" come from.

I submit that only God is good and that every good gift comes from the Father of lights. Apart from Him we are nothing.

By ascertiing that you can be good is arrogant beyond understanding. You cannot, and I repeat, are not capable of being good on your own, apart from God, none of us can. In fact, stating that you are good is dishonest because you know you're not, or, you are monumentally self-deceived or, living in a fairy tale world.

MK, I respect your point of view, but again, you're looking at this through tinted glasses and expecting me to see the world the same way.

I do not believe animals are "lower beasts" in any way. We simply have evolved in a different way. There have been many studies that prove animals have thought, indeed, there are even some chimpanzee (I believe, but I'm not too good with monkey species) families who have been using "tools" to open nuts and such. They're not as primitive as we think.

Squid and octopus hunt in packs, using communication with each other to hunt fish in a strategic mannor. Didn't we, as early humans, do the same? Sure, they're not using "words" to communicate, but they use body language. (and underwater, don't we do the same?)

There is evidence cats domesticated themselves (to a degree) so that they could take advantage of human care, comfort, food... And considering how many wild cats are nearing extinction, it sounds like a pretty thoughtful and intelligent move on the side of domestic cats. I don't think my cat is smarter than me, but I do know that he thinks, as his behavior has indicated.

To restate: I do not believe I am separate from animals, nor do I believe that there is a soul that gives me the amazing ability to think or function. I simply believe that this is the way humans work, and it is how we have managed to adapt in a world that we could never survive in otherwise.

HisMan:

How do I know what is good? Well, it does not harm others. I realize some of my actions in the past, present and future will not be the best choices, but I believe that morals are innate parts of a functioning society.

For example, if we lived in a society where people didn't think it was wrong to kill people, our whole species would die out. That's why animals don't engage in cannibalism. It would destroy their way of life, their ability to prolong their species, and possibly their ability to function as a pack.

I do not believe in the good/evil dichotomy because that is so black and white it's ridiculous. I'm open to the idea that murder IS okay in some circumstances (such as the person is out of control and a serial killer or something to that effect, but I haven't seriously examined my thoughts on this yet), but I don't think things like sex and whether to drive a car or pollute the environment are issues that are either right or wrong, good or bad.

Like I said before, some people can be good without having to fear retribution after death. Wow. Amazing.

For the rest of you that aren't capable of being a good person, there's always mythology and the Bible to tell you what to do.

Check out a few of these readings about atheism and morality. It may teach you a few things.

You seem unreachable Hal. For the life of me I can't understand why you continue on this site. Why do you even bother? Are you on a mission? Just who are you trying to save and from what?"

From you, my friend, from you.

I do not want your influence to spread beyond your current narrow world. I don't want my children (or any children) infected by it.

Just heard this on Relevant Radio...

There are two paths to choose from. The path of judgment and the path of mercy.

Non believers choose the path of judgment. They will reap the consequences of their choices fairly. Fairly does not always mean pleasant...it just means you get what you deserve, or what you choose.

As I said earlier, if you believe that we just die, then perhaps you will spend eternity in state like death...perpetually rotting, alone, in a coffinlike environment. If you follow Buddah, then perhaps you will live like a tree. Or a rock.

If you choose the path of mercy, you will be judged less fairly. You will not get what you deserve but rather you will be given all of the things that were promised to you by God.

Mercy or Justice. The choice is yours. Hal and Edyt, Erin and Doug, you have chosen justice. Which is the way you want it. No judgments from me. I'm just saying it like it is.

MK, you're sweet. God, however, never promised me anything. Nor have I promised Him anything. We have an "understanding" I guess.
I leave "Him" alone and "He" leaves me alone.

But you guys aren't actually ANSWERING any of these questions. You're just trying to pretend like the answers don't matter.

Also, the fact that we can think doesn't mean that we have a soul. That's just silly. The fact that we can think means that we have a BRAIN. You know that scientists can essentially read a persons mind at this point, because we can understand the synaptic connections so well? We can't isolate everything, but a basic thing like if a person is thinking about a house, or a dog...it's pretty amazing.

Hi there, Erin:]

Hi heather!

I flew out to Chicago from Atlanta this morning, I'm spending a few days taking care of my grandparents, cooking and cleaning and whatnot. So I'll be on and off at unpredictable intervals. Just don't let me miss any direct questions!

"What separates Christianity from all other world religions?"

Nothing. It's all smoke and mirrors.

The innocent are often punished along with the good. It is a protestant idea that good people are rich, happy and never suffer. It is a Catholic notion that good people often suffer a great deal.

I'm not sure what protestants think that, but I'm sure not one of them! I've never heard of such a protestant?

I agree with the notion that good people, that is those that would live Godly in Christ Jesus, do suffer greatly. This is Biblical. Just saw that and had to clear it up! :)

JLM, we believe that the Eucharist is Jesus, but not that it is physically flesh and blood. I suppose you could argue that there is a "physical change" since Jesus is physically present, but that would be in a different sense than a typical physical change wherein the physical properties of a substance become different.
Here's an easy way to dispel the "cannibalism" myth. If we really believed that the Eucharist was physically flesh and blood, we would not be allowed to receive it on Fridays during Lent, since we are forbidden from eating meat on those days. Yet there is no problem with a priest performing Mass on Lenten Fridays, or anyone receiving the Eucharist on a Lenten Friday. That's because the Eucharist is not physically flesh. It's a spiritual transformation.

John,

How is it the physical presence of Jesus Christ when He is only there Spiritually? Wouldn't that be a Spiritual presence? Bobby has explained to me about the substance and the accident, but this still doesn't explain how Jesus could be there only in Spirit, yet you could say He is physically there. It makes no sense. Either He is spiritually there, or He is physically there, and if He is physically there, the bread should physically change from bread to flesh, and the wine should physically change from wine to blood. But since you and I would both agree this doesn't happen, how could Christ simply be there spiritually but then you still feel that his physical presence is there?

Does my question make sense? I hope so.

Erin,

I love you girl, but I spent two hours answering those questions. For you to say that I'm not answering them is a little disheartening. You didn't say I had to come up with answers you'd agree with...

HisMan:

"Why then are babies baptized or should I say sprinkled?"

Babies can be Baptized because they have legitimate sponsors. It's usually their parent or guardian.

"And regarding your comment about Catholics compiling the Bible, and the logic that asks; "why then would they change it" is confusing. Many of the doctrines that are in place now weren't in place when the final canon was finished about AD 100 or so, right?"

That is true. Many Catholic doctrines were made "official" Catholic teaching over the years. One of them is the doctrine that Mary is the Mother of God. This was derived through simple mathematics; Mary is the Mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, so therefore Mary is the Mother of God, ie, she was the human mother to the human incarnation of God.

However, we were talking about the Eucharist. I have provided evidence that Catholics have believed in the Eucharist since the Church began. If they really thought that the plain text of the Bible contradicted them, then why would those Catholics, as the only owners of the Bible for a thousand years, not change the text to suit their beliefs?

It's because we don't think that the Bible contradicts our beliefs. We Catholics think that the text of the Bible supports and explains our beliefs. How so? We interpret the text in a different way than you. No Catholic doctrine may contradict the Bible. If we truly believed that it did contradict the Bible, then it wouldn't be Catholic doctrine.

Bethany,

Maybe this will help...

In transubstantiation, the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus so that, although it retains its "accidents" (the way it looks and tastes) it is no longer bread and wine. And once thus changed, it cannot go back to being bread and Wine again.

Let's look at this a bit closer.

Here is a diagram of what the bread is before transubstantiation:

We can notice several things about this. The bread is finite (limited) and physical BOTH in looks (accident) and substance (what it is).

Now let's look at Communion AFTER transubstantiation:

And as we notice, the Bread is still finite and limited in its accident (how it looks) BUT in its substance, it is no longer PHYSICAL as it becomes the entire Person and Divinity of Jesus! That means the substance of the Eucharist is INFINITE! (By logical deduction it must be like this because otherwise, if it were still physical, we would ask what PART of Jesus' Body did we receive, an ear or a finger). The substance of the Eucharist is NON physical even though the accidents (how it looks) remains physical.

So what happens when we consume the Eucharist. We don't know exactly what happens to the accident since in Communion only the accidents are physical (what it looks like) but Jesus in His total Body, Soul and Divinity combines with OUR non physical part, our soul, in the most intimate Embrace ever!

Which is why we say before Communion "Happy are They who are called to His Supper".

Since the Communion Bread is permanently changed, if we have any left after Mass, we must keep it in a special place and we respect it as the Body and Blood of Our Lord because that's exactly what it IS!

Perhaps this is why it is called, the "miracle of transubstantiation."!

If you read John 6, Jesus explains that He was going to give us His Body and Blood and that those who did not eat and drink of it "had no life within them". His listeners, well familiar with symbols, understood Jesus to be TALKING LITERALLY and they remarked "Lord these words make no sense!" Jesus did NOT correct them but simply repeated what He had said before. At the end of John 6, it states that MOST OF JESUS's Disciples LEFT him and Jesus did NOT call them back and correct them at all. He allowed them to leave and turned to Peter and asked if Peter was going to leave also and Peter said his famous "Lord to whom shall we go - for You alone have words of Eternal life"

So what the Catholics teach about Communion and what has been taught since the earliest writings of the church is correct according to the 6th chapter of John!

http://net-abbey.org/luthcomm.htm

Bethany,

Your question makes sense. It's not easy to understand the Eucharist. It is my understanding that the Orthodox don't even make the attempt to explain it; they just call it a "mystery".

OK, maybe it will help explain it if I talk about the physical and spiritual aspects of the Eucharist separately.

Physically, the Eucharist is bread and wine. It is physical matter; it is something tangible. We can touch it.

Spiritually, the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Yet this spiritual change occurs to a piece of physical matter... which means that Jesus is present, physically.

To put it another way, it's also true that Jesus can be present spiritually without the matter of the Eucharist. But with the Eucharist, we have the presence of Jesus through something that is physical, and so Jesus is physically present.

John L.,
Thank you! I think I've got it now:

Jesus is physically in the bread and wine by being there spiritually.

Am I correct?

OK:

Hal:

It is not I who aborted your first two children. You did that. You did not even given them a chance at life. Yet you say you are trying to protect your xurrent children.

You're a nut.

mk- I'm sorry, I'm not trying to dismiss all the work you put into it. This is equally frustrating for both of us, I think- you don't understand how I can simply not believe in any of this stuff and I don't understand how you do. It's nigh impossible to get past that type of extreme difference.

Erin,
I totally understand! That's why I asked you what I did..twice. I didn't expect a response.

However, if you are ever at a crossroads in your life, and you don't know which way to turn, (sounds like a song, eh?) at least you have heard of another option available to you...and you will remember.

JLM,

Jesus is physically in the bread and wine by being there spiritually.
*
Am I correct?

thats close, but you're closer to describing CONsubstantiation, which means Jesus goes into the bread. We mean that even though it doesn't "appear" to, it actually BECOMES Jesus. Or Jesus BECOMES it.

He's not in the bread. He IS the bread.

Erin,

I wasn't asking you or expecting you to slap your forehead and say "AHHHH NOW I GET IT!"...I just was disheartened that you dismissed my effort and said that I didn't really "answer" the questions. I did. And I felt they were very thoughtful answers.

JLM,

I liked Bobby's analogy a lot...about the cat and dog...that's the best one so far.

mk,
Please do not take offense to this at all, ok??? But I know you and Bobby and Brian have tried your hearts out to get me to understand something that I just don't. John L.'s explanations seem to resignate with me, and help me better understand the theology behind this.

You know how you have 3 or 4 math teachers that will show you how to do something, and you just stand there and go, "duh...." (that would be me)...then one day you have the one that breaks out the toy cars and beans and stuff that makes you finally understand what their talking about? Well, that's John L. The three or 4 other math teachers were just as qualified, and nice, too!..but...well..you know what I mean!

Right, MK. I believe Luther described consubstantiation as a piece of metal that has just come out of a furnace, one that is really hot. The metal is like the bread and the heat is like Jesus. They're both kinda interwoven together.

But in the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation, there is nor more bread. In consubstantiation, the bread "shares" itself with Jesus. But transubstantiation, the breadness is completely annihilated and replaced with Jesus' body, blood, soul, and divinity.

JLM,

I'm not taking offense. I'm just saying that you are not understanding John correctly. What you have described is not what we believe. We do not believe that Jesus' spirit "enters" the bread. We believe that Jesus spirit BECOMES the bread. This difference is CRUCIAL. Lutherans believe what you describe. Catholics don't. I wouldn't want you to think you understood it, when you haven't. You are really close.

Bobby is better because the cat doesn't "enter" the dog, the cat BECOMES the dog, while still remaining a cat.

Oh geeze JLM, no offense whatsoever taken! I'm grateful for John's explanation. Very good. Time to retire for the evening. God love ya'll.

mk & Bobby (and John L. if your around!)
What's the difference, then, between these two statements?

1. We do not believe that Jesus' spirit "enters" the bread. We believe that Jesus spirit BECOMES the bread.

2. Jesus is physically in the bread and wine by being there spiritually.

JLM, after the spiritual transformation of transubstantiation, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. Jesus is physically present because the matter of the Sacrament is tangible. If the Eucharist is Jesus (which we believe it is), and the Eucharist is physical (which it is, because you can touch it), then Jesus is physically present in the form of the Eucharist.

So with the first statement, yes, we say that the bread becomes Jesus. With the second, Jesus is physically present because while the bread and wine are spiritually transformed into Jesus, they remain tangible (to the senses they appear to remain bread and wine), so Jesus is physically present since the Sacrament itself is physical.

1) I would say #1 is incorrect because Jesus is present and the bread no longer exists. What does exist is Jesus being present in the appearance and taste of bread. I would not limit this to just the Spirit of Jesus ... but His entire self -- which now includes a glorified body. Body and Spirit.

2)I do not like this one either. Jesus is there in body and spirit. Body and spirit.

----
Jesus is present body, blood, soul, and divinity. The appearance of bread and wine is there but all that is just appearances. All of Jesus is there in the Eucharist -- His whole self. If we were able to see this with spiritual eyes we would be overwhelmed in awe ... but Jesus is there in a lowly humble appearance ... but He is there in His full glory.

-----
I will gladly take feedback on what I have written.

So with the first statement, yes, we say that the bread becomes Jesus. With the second, Jesus is physically present because while the bread and wine are spiritually transformed into Jesus, they remain tangible (to the senses they appear to remain bread and wine), so Jesus is physically present since the Sacrament itself is physical.

So, both statements are correct, or no?

John,
Wait...I think I've got it. I know it doesn't happen, but if I could picture myself holding the cracker in the palm of my hand...I know it's a cracker. However, after Jesus spiritually enters it, the cracker shines with an intense light from within it. Like one of those movies where some light or energy makes something shine really bright that doesn't have any light in it?. The cracker isn't just a cracker anymore. It's special. Is that kindof how it is????

JLM,

No, neither one are correct...unless of course you take into consideration that you formed the sentence as a negative...you wouldn't like any cake would you? How do you answer that? lol

See, you keep trying to make Jesus spirit enter into the bread...but it's more than that.

Think of the show bewitched. Pretend she wiggles her nose and turns herself into a loaf of bread. Now, we the audience know that anyone looking at the loaf of bread thinks it is bread, but WE KNOW that it really Samantha...she just looks like bread...see?

The bread is an illusion. It doesn't exist. Only Samantha exists. She just looks like bread. She's not trapped in the bread...She IS the bread!

JLM,

You are soooooo close. But you still keep placing Jesus IN the bread. You're not quite graspiing the idea that the bread ceases to exist, except to our senses...

I like the Samantha analogy mk

JLM,

this might freak you out, but watch this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cbGCQyP_uk

Brian,

You should watch the is video too...It's AMAZING!
Turn up the volume...

No, neither one are correct...unless of course you take into consideration that you formed the sentence as a negative...you wouldn't like any cake would you? How do you answer that? lol

mk,
Statement #1 was from your post.

Posted by: mk at March 25, 2008 8:21 PM

JLM,

Statement #1 was from your post.

I only meant that it hard to say true or false to a statement when your not sure if the negative is being taken into account...

. We do not believe that Jesus' spirit "enters" the bread. We believe that Jesus spirit BECOMES the bread.

It is true that we do not believe that Jesus' spirit "enters" the bread. It is true that we believe He BECOMES the bread.

It is not true that we believe that Jesus' spirit enters the bread.

I asked what the difference was between the statements, not if one was correct, and one was incorrect.

JLM,

Oh, my bad! lol

Did you watch the video? And did you read the Samantha/bewitched analogy?

Did it help at all?

JLM,

Ahhhh, I see what I did...I confused this post with the one you are talking about...

o with the first statement, yes, we say that the bread becomes Jesus. With the second, Jesus is physically present because while the bread and wine are spiritually transformed into Jesus, they remain tangible (to the senses they appear to remain bread and wine), so Jesus is physically present since the Sacrament itself is physical.
*
So, both statements are correct, or no?
Posted by: JLM at March 25, 2008 9:21 PM

mk,
gotcha. By John's statement, did you think that he thought both statements were correct?

btw...only watched the first 10 seconds. The music creeped me out! I get nightmares VERY easily!

The Samantha analogy I believe is similar to mine with the light.

Are you saying that Jesus becomes bread?

JLM,

It's not really similar, because you keep placing Jesus IN the bread. This is different than Jesus becoming the bread.

And actually, to be more correct I should be saying that the bread becomes Jesus. The priest consecrates the bread and it ceases to be bread. Instead it becomes Jesus.

Jesus doesn't become the bread.
The bread becomes Jesus.
I may have said that wrong a few times.

But now I am stating it correctly. The bread becomes, turn into, Jesus. Fully. The only thing remaining is the accident...the part that we can see. But that is an illusion.

Samanthas spirit is not in the bread. It is not a loaf of bread that "contains" samamanta. Samantha actually IS the bread. The bread IS Samanatha.

The host becomes Jesus. He doesn't possess the bread. The bread is no longer bread. It is Jesus.

I'm sorry you couldn't get through the video. It does a remarkable visual job of explaining what we are talking about. There are a number of shots of the host bleeding (some of the miracles we mentioned before). Bread doesn't bleed. But Jesus did.

Edyt:

You said, "Hahaha!! OR maybe it means that I'm an evolved creature, able to make my own decisions without wishing upon the tooth fairy for something to come true." A creature implies that you were created by a Creator. A little slip of truth there? I submit to you that you know in your heart that you were created and not a statistical accident for it out of the mouth that the heart speaks.

You said, "For example, if we lived in a society where people didn't think it was wrong to kill people, our whole species would die out. That's why animals don't engage in cannibalism. It would destroy their way of life, their ability to prolong their species, and possibly their ability to function as a pack." Excuse me, we do live in a society where people don't think is was wrong to kill people, it's called the United States, visa vi, legalized abortion. That's why this site exists to save people from the destructive affects of abortion.

You said, "I do not believe in the good/evil dichotomy because that is so black and white it's ridiculous." Really, good/evil, black/white are everywhere around us in the physical, moral, political, you name it worlds. Tell me, are you absolutely sure about this?

I understand now why you are an atheist since you are incapable of sound logic.

Hey JLM,

I just found this:

Q. I read in a Jack Chick tract that the letters IHS used on the large host stand for the ancient Egyptian pagan Gods Isis, Horus, and Seb. What does the Catholic Church say the letters stand for?

A. Let’s be clear about the Jack Chick comic book style tracts. They are extremely anti-Catholic and prejudiced. Most of what is contained in them about the Catholic faith are falsifications. It is recommended and wise to read the Catholic Catechism or a good Catholic dictionary to find answers to your questions. The letters IHS form the monogram of Jesus' Holy name, and are derived from the Greek six-letter word for Jesus. The first three letters being; Iota, Eta, Sigma. So the monogram should not be used with periods after each of the letters. Any other interpretations of these characters are incorrect and in the above case a malicious distortion of the truth. The same may be said of the Chi-Rho. It is a monogram or a Christogram, as it were, formed of the Greek letters Ch and R which are an abbreviation of the Greek word for Christ. They resemble the Roman letters X and P and are usually represented as one imposed upon the other.

http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a007.html

Your point Doug is that Christianity has held back society: "it's often religion that held knowledge back" .

Not originally, Pat, but yeah - in response to your posts that's true.
.....

My point is that it has not been a detriment, rather it has contributed greatly to the development of society on all levels.

I don't really know, there - it could be either way. In practice it's been both very good and very bad.

A creature implies that you were created by a Creator. A little slip of truth there? I submit to you that you know in your heart that you were created and not a statistical accident for it out of the mouth that the heart speaks.

I understand that you're trying to pick apart my choice of words, but the word "creature" is in common use to refer to a living being.

Excuse me, we do live in a society where people don't think is was wrong to kill people, it's called the United States, visa vi, legalized abortion. That's why this site exists to save people from the destructive affects of abortion.

Fair enough. By the way, I think you mean "vis a vis" which is French for "face to face," or in common English, "in regards to." Now that I think about, I don't think your usage of vis a vis was proper.

Anyway, perhaps killing the unborn does show a lack of feeling that it's wrong, or maybe some people who get abortions do feel it is wrong, but do it anyway "for the good of the pack." Many women who have abortions say they really want what's best for their children, and they simply cannot provide for the one, whether they have or have not had children before.

So logically speaking, my argument is still sound with the idea of what's best for the pack is what goes.

Really, good/evil, black/white are everywhere around us in the physical, moral, political, you name it worlds. Tell me, are you absolutely sure about this?

Well, that's what you say, but again, it sounds to me like you're just looking at this through tinted glasses and are incapable of seeing how your religious viewpoints are coloring the way you see the world.

I understand now why you are an atheist since you are incapable of sound logic.

Nothing about atheism implies the person is logical or not logical. Nor am I illogical simply because you cannot understand why I'm an atheist. Try again.

Doug: The complete agnostic.

Heh - good evening, yllas. Does this mean I don't have to keep going back to previous threads and correcting your silly and self-fruitifying silly falsehoods? We shall see.

I'm an honest agnostic. You probably don't like that, but oh well, cry me a river. [snicker]
.....

very answerof Doug is a game of plus and minus,maybe yes, maybe no, on every matter of life, except abortion. A typical outcome of adolescent morality based on object relation gains and losses and carried forward into adulthood morality

No. I'm honest, whereas you are a raving fruitcake.
.....

On abortion matters, Doug becomes a raving dogmatist, a absolutist of morals, who closed his mind with these words,;" no one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do"

Again, mere silly lies on your part. You're the best proof that Pro-Choice is the correct side, so YEAH.
......

When did you become a preaching absolutist, of the positive morality of the murder of growing human beings, Doug?/i>

Your mistake is that you picture everybody else with your failings.

I vastly enjoy my time. People like me, regardless of which side they are on in the abortion argument, generally. You fool nobody with your silly talk of "murder." Even Pro-Lifers see you as a "nutjob." Look, I could go on and on, and I've seen people like you over and over in my 12 years of arguing abortion online, but why should I, when you are by far (and there I do give you a hat-tip as being somewhat 'special') the best proof of the superiority of the Pro-Choice argument?

Just heard this on Relevant Radio... There are two paths to choose from. The path of judgment and the path of mercy. Non believers choose the path of judgment. They will reap the consequences of their choices fairly. Fairly does not always mean pleasant...it just means you get what you deserve, or what you choose.
As I said earlier, if you believe that we just die, then perhaps you will spend eternity in state like death...perpetually rotting, alone, in a coffinlike environment. If you follow Buddah, then perhaps you will live like a tree. Or a rock. If you choose the path of mercy, you will be judged less fairly. You will not get what you deserve but rather you will be given all of the things that were promised to you by God. Mercy or Justice. The choice is yours. Hal and Edyt, Erin and Doug, you have chosen justice. Which is the way you want it. No judgments from me. I'm just saying it like it is.

Ahoy MK.

"If.... perhaps.." = what is that?

The greatest justice and mercy here is being good to thinking, feeling people, - the pregnant women, rather than succombing to those who would deny their desires.

@Doug: I think it would probably best if you just ignored Yllas's ranting and raving. While I don't deny I find what you say very funny (I thoroughly enjoy the Froot Loop stuff) but...I dunno, perhaps it's better to take the high road and not sink to Yllas's level?

JLM, Hisman, Bethany,
If you are having trouble grasping the mystery of the Eucharist, I challenge you to listen to a CD titled "The Fourth Cup" by Dr. Scott Hahn. He explains the significance of the Passover to the Catholic Mass, particularly to the Eucharist. It think it would make much more sense to you after you listen to this CD.

I just listened to it again recently after about a year, and I got even more out of it than I did the first time.

The problem is I can't give you a link to order it. These CD's ar produced by Lighthouse Catholic Media, and you subscribe to get CD's each month.

However, if you are motivated to understand this, call around to some local Catholic Churches. Many churches subscribe to get multiple copies of these types of CD's to put in their church for free or a small donation.

As the disciples who walked away from Jesus in John 6 (is it called the "Bread of Life" discourse?) said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

No, because I believe in doing your best to be a fundamentally good person. Not because of religion, or karma, or death, or anything, but just because I believe in being a good person. It's not as revolutionary an idea as it sounds, honestly.
Posted by: Edyt at March 25, 2008 11:55 AM
***********

Edyt, what does being a good person mean? Why is cheating being a bad person? How do you deterine that lying make you a bad person?

No, because I believe in doing your best to be a fundamentally good person. Not because of religion, or karma, or death, or anything, but just because I believe in being a good person. It's not as revolutionary an idea as it sounds, honestly.
Posted by: Edyt at March 25, 2008 11:55 AM
***********

Edyt, what does being a good person mean? Why is cheating being a bad person? How do you determine that lying make you a bad person?

Hal,
Avoiding the tough questions?

here I am. Lurking again. What questions?

Why do you feel such a great "desire" to help others? Why do the religious and the atheist agree that cheating, lying, killing are all "bad"

Doug and Erin, could you give me your best answer to those questions?

MK, do you have a facebook? I remember checking mine at your house and it already had an email address on it, but I couldn't find you on the search.

We stand with conscience and kindred spirit. Placing our trust, our faith, and our burdens in Jesus. And in these eternal words he spoke.

Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And do not lead us into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For Thine is the kingdom
and the power
and the glory forever.
Amen.

For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Hello pip,
Did you make it to Uno's for pizza while you were in Chicago?

For 12 years you have preached in public? for the murder of human beings as a decision you preach for Dougly.
Of those 12 years of propagandizing others to your personal creed of doing what you have done for your whole life, which is to willfully not create life and create nothing, and the nothingness from the murder you preach for Doug, when did you become a closed minded dogmatist, who wrote that " NO ONE has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do", Doug?
When a person writes that "NO ONE has a good argument against ABORTION", you are a absolutist, and a mind that is closed shut to yourself, and others, with dogmatic credentials to go with his absolutism.
A person of such faith in himself and his preaching is a dogmatic answer to himself and his reasoning(truly a closed circle) which begins with his faith in his belief/reason/principle/ for the death of a developing human being.
"NO ONE has a good arguement against abortion, they just think they do". Your words Dougly.
Now, I know you have problems with being a humpty dumpty mind, from not being able to understand why a agnostic is actually a absolutist, while trying to think he is not a absolute position of doubt, so here is another word which you have no idea of it's defintion, or why I used that word describing you, Doug.
Dogma; a principle(the murder/killing of developing human beings,) belief, or statement of ideas or opinion,especially one that is considered ABSOLUTELTLY TRUE. Houghton Miflin. See it yet Doug? Your statement that NO ONE has a argument against abortion.
Your a slow kind a guy Dougly, from being a closed minded absolute dogmatist for at least 12 years?, so this might take a minute and a re-reading of what I wrote about your dogmatism, and being a absolutist, for the death/murder of developing human beings.
NO ONE, NO Person, NOTHING, are conditions/expression/definitions of a absolute, DOUG. NO THING. A thing that is absolutely a No or NOTHING Doug. SEE it Doug? Something,if,maybe,can, should, are not absolutes, Dougly.
Nothing is a ABSOLUTE CONDITION, DOUG.
If you don't understand what NOthing means, Doug, have Bobby Bambino explain it to you Doug, as a mathmatical definition.

SEE it YET DOUG?????????
Your a absolute dogmatist for the death, by the WILL/forethought/intention of a human being, of developing HUMAN BEINGS, Doug.
Second, your a absolutist from being a dogmatist through your own words that wrote a absolute statement of "NO ONE has a good argument against abortion".
Think of the words you wrote to me Doug, where you stated, "that NO ONE has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do".
SEE it yet Doug?
No One has a good argument against my dogma, they just think they do. You do believe Doug, that a women has a ABSOLUTE right to abortion? No parsing Doug, since you already qualified your dogmatism with "no one has a good argument against ABORTION".
Who is the fruit loop here Dougly?
And your fructification began in your parent's box of absolute, all knowing crap, they fed you as a youth and continues to today, as a all knowing fruit LOOP(circle) of a absolute, dogmatic, abortion propagandist.
DOGMATIST, ABSOLUTIST, TULIP, those words fit you to a "T" Doug. Not to mention that you have made a lifetime decision to never bear "fruit" yourself. Which is why your sad preaching for 12 years publicly, for others to join you in your lifetime commitment to always create nothingness , is from personal reasons in Doug, first and foremost.
Your personal decision to create nothing Doug, motivates you to seek out others to join you in your personal non-fructification( a absolute) decision, and even encourage others to create nothing(a absolute) from the act of murdering their creation , which makes things NOT EXIST.
Don't like the word murder, Dougly? Try killin then Doug. Your humpty dumptyism of defintions creates a deliberate fog in your mind, Dougly, from which your fruit loop, pirate ship always sails out for women to join you.
"Your a bad pony, and I'm not going to bet on you" said the women under their breathe, to Dougly. David Mamet(brain dead liberal), knows the non-fructification of Doug begins with that House Of Games, his parent's constructed forever in Dougly's weak philosophical, theological neurons.
That's rightly Dougly, forever is a absolute.
Hmm, fruit loops, eye patch, black pirate hat. Ah, the Pirate character from the commercial of those Fruit Loops cereal. Thanks Doug, your finally "internalizing" your image of yourself as a pirate sailing the U.S.S. Abortion. Repetition always works on agnostics and eventually they being to know they are a fruit loopy pirate for abortion, from being a decision to never bear fruit himself.
Maybe Doug will get the fact that Dougly has always kept his eye on the hole in that "fruit" loop, and never the "fruit" loop itself. But, that is the reverse of optimism, when one always looks for a hole in life, since a hole is a ABSOLUTE NOTHING. Hey, exaclty what the fruit loopy pirate Dougly asked women to do in his life personally, and always in women he will personally play the fruit loop "game" in the future. Which is to keep their eye on their hole in their fruit loop, so it may bear no fruit for that absolutist,dogmatic, Captain Dougly of the pirate ship known as the U.S.S. Abortion.
P.s. Dougly Dodoubt. The "hole in the donut poem" also fits you to a "T". You lifelong Pessimist. Totally Protestant too, Dougly.

Hi yllas. Here ya go - you know you wanted it.

Parrots 1. Toucans 0. Neener neener neener.

perhaps it's better to take the high road and not sink to Yllas's level?

Rae, you're probably right, but I've always enjoyed message boards from the "high" to the "low."

We already know about the transmogrification of souls, but perhaps yllas's great purpose here is to advance the fruitification of mind and body to the point that it will be accepted as religious dogma.

Why do you feel such a great "desire" to help others? Why do the religious and the atheist agree that cheating, lying, killing are all "bad"

Truthseeker, on many issues there is great commonality of desire among people the world over, regardless of religion.

To see suffering is usually distasteful/painful to us. We don't like it. Our motivation all goes to desire (I realize you may disagree there) and we want to help others as we don't want them to suffer. Any desired action can be traced to the desire behind it.

Societies are basically groups of people with things in common and shared desires.

We do have sentience - without it we wouldn't be considering these things in the first place.

As far as a soul or spirit, I'm not sure - probably not.

You be for a killin while I be for a livin, Captain Dougly, of the pirate ship the U.S.S. Abortion.
Keep your eye on that hole in the fruit loop, and remember, always raise your eye patch before boarding your ship of fellow pirates, such as the fellow abortion pirate named Sad Eyed Sally, the three generation deep anti-Catholic bigot, you defend Captain Doug.
Ah, the bond of common murderers on a abortion vessel, where dogmatism and absolutism were the fruit of Doug's lifetime decision to make nothing, and preached for many to join his ship of pirates for abortion.
FF, joined years ago in a secret ceremony of fruit loops and seaweed. Captain Doug lifted his eye patch and smiled.

Poor Doug,
" NO ONE has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do".
A absolutist(no one) for his absolutely true(dogmatist) feelings for women using forethought and their will to kill(a Dougly Dumpty euphemism for murder) a developing human being.
It's a personal matter for ya Dougly Dumpty to have others join you in your world of absolutism and dogmatic feelings for abortion.
Fact is Dougly, your a crazy uncle who spends years upon years in a quest for others to join your psychic desire for your nothingness in your life.
How often have you told your nephews about your years and years of cruising pro life sites and trying to convert pro lifers to your personal desire for abortion? "Well that's not enough" Doug, tell um again as that chile commerical went peckerwood of the morning.
Afterall, Doug, your a dogmatic,absolutist for abortion, with no doubts on matters of abortion, which leaves you nothing to do here but see how many doubts, maybe's, could be's, you can raise in a pro lifer. Your arguments Dougly DoDoubt, are 12 years old, and actually tattered as pirate's hat after a hurricane.
Your a sad pony Doug, and no one bet on you Doug in life, where it is real.

:: laughing ::

Parrots 1. Toucans 0.

Erin,

Where in Chicago are you??????

ts,

no I didn't make it :( We tried, but it was just always out of our way..

Heather, atheism is not a lack of belief in anything. It is a strong belief that god/gods does/do not exist. Except with my belief, I don't have to constantly feel guilty and shameful, I don't have to ritualize my life, I don't have to look for signs all over the place to answer my prayers (we call them wishes, or hopes, or dreams), I don't have to stress out over every little thing I'm doing -- yes, I understand I'll make mistakes, but I'm not worrying about being condemned to hell for anything I do, nor do I feel compelled to harm other people in the name of God's wishes or force my beliefs on others so that I can "save" them. Because if you don't believe in heaven/hell, then it doesn't matter if other people do, since you don't believe anything will happen either way.

I don't believe I have a spirit or a soul, at most, I'm a piece of matter and energy functioning in the universe.

And I don't feel sad or empty, nor do I have a complete loss of "moral code" (just because it's not the Bible's moral code doesn't mean I don't have one based on common humanity and well-being). Simply put, I'm just content to exist and then die.

(Since I've become an atheist, I no longer have a fear of death. That was an interesting result)

Posted by: Edyt at March 24, 2008 11:51 PM

That's funny because, while I'm a Catholic, I feel the EXACT same way! I don't feel guilty or shameful of what I do, I don't ritualize my life (if by this you mean going to Mass on Sunday I do that because I love to go.) I don't look for signs to answer my prayers ("Thy will be done...") I don't stress out over every little thing I'm doing... (Why would anyone do that?)Yes, I know I'm going to make mistakes but I'm not worried about being condemned to hell (I have confession for my "mistakes.") I don't feel compelled to harm other people in the name of God's wishes (because God doesn't want us to harm others.) Nor do I feel I need to "force" my beliefs on others to "save" them (I simply explain my beliefs; they can take the information and do with it what they wish.) I also have no fear of death (physical) because I know what waits for me.

Kristen, I feel the same way you do.

Why do you feel such a great "desire" to help others? Why do the religious and the atheist agree that cheating, lying, killing are all "bad"
Posted by: truthseeker at March 26, 2008 12:33 AM

Well, I'm a good person. I like helping others. It's a nice thing to do. Cheating, lying and killing are "bad." Those things don't help others, they hurt others. I'm an atheist, not a psychopath.

These are not tough questions. They don't imply the existance of a magic man (or woman) in the sky.

Hal, you say you're a good person? Good people are remorseful over their wrong actions.

Amen Kristen!

I agree Heather, I have committed my share of "wrong actions," and I have remorse for those things I did that hurt others. I have no remorse for the abortions, which I assume was your point.

Hal, that should have been first on your list.

MK, I'm in Arlington Heights.

Erin,

You're so close to me!!!! I'm just down 2 suburbs on Northwest Hwy. Next to you is Des Plaines and the next one is Park Ridge.

How long will you be there? I'm leaving town until Sunday...will you still be here?

Ah, sadly I'm only here until Friday! I came up to take care of them over my spring break, cook for them and the like. My grandfather isn't doing well and I wanted to come up before Christmas- I don't know if he'll still be here then.

JLM, I may have caused a bit of confusion when I said that the Eucharist is physically bread. What I meant to say is that to the senses, the Eucharist appears to be physically bread.

To understand the Eucharist you must first understand the concept that we Catholics believe in, that during the Last Supper, Christ held himself in his own hands. The bread which he broke and gave to his Apostles became his body. While to the senses of the Apostles, this first Eucharist was still bread, the reality was that it was actually Christ's body.

When Jesus took the bread at the Last Supper, he said, "This is my body". He didn't say "I am in this bread". So if those words are to be interpreted as we Catholics interpret them, they mean that the bread becomes Jesus, not that Jesus is in the bread.

As I said, it's not an easy concept to grasp. That's exactly why the Orthodox don't even try to explain it.

Ohhhhhh Erin,

I'm so bummed! You're soo soo sooooo close. I would love to have bought you breakfast (or lunch, PIP ;) and officially initiated you into the club.

I've eaten with Rae, Jill, Danny, Pip and Jeff...I really wish you could have joined the list.

Will you be back in Chicago soon????

I'll be in Chicago on Friday, mk.

Hal,
Your subjecive response about being a "good" person did not answer my question to you. "Why" do you treat others "nicely" and why do you avoid hurting others even though lying and cheating and kiling could bring you personal gain? Could you try and answer it again?

Doug,
I understand what you are saying when you describe a commonality of desire among people the world. But my question to you is this:
"Why" do you have the desire to use your own personal time, money, to relieve the burdens of others?

Hal,
Your subjecive response about being a "good" person did not answer my question to you. "Why" do you treat others "nicely" and why do you avoid hurting others even though lying and cheating and kiling could bring you personal gain? Could you try and answer it again?

Doug,
I understand what you are saying when you describe a commonality of desire among people the world. But my question to you is this:
"Why" do you have the desire to use your own personal time, money, and effort to relieve the burdens of others?

truthseeker- I have a good answer for that: Evolution. The more a species evolves, the better adapted it comes to provide the longest and healthiest life. Not killing your own species, social groups, and some type of moral code becomes more and more obvious in more highly adapted species, like apes. So, the reason that most people's brains tell them to do good things is because evolution tells them so. You know that dopamine is released when performing charity works? They did a study on it. So chemically, doing good things makes you feel good! Evolution is brilliant, no?

(Doug at March 26, 2008 7:11 AM)

:: laughing ::

Parrots 1. Toucans 0.

****

Doug,

Are you still going round and round with Yllas? When I first noticed her she was an anti-Protestant Nazi (and I said as much) but she's an emotional vampire, obsessing and fantasizing about details of other peoples' lives, primarily yours, right now.

You know what they say about feeding trolls.

Ah,
this pap gang is another fawning, mind puppet of Doug. Whatever daddy says Pap gang does.
Doug is a typical oxymoron agnostic(absolutist and dogmatic abortion propagandist though) who a failed to stay in his families Protestant religion.
Now, take it like the puppet you are Pap gang, and don't reply to this post about you,.
Otherwise your making a fool out of yourself, by not following your advise one post above.
Kinda like Doug, makes a fool outa himself, by being a person who cruises pro life site with a mind as dead as a puppet's concerning abortion.
Doug, 12 years of blowing like a hurricane for abortion, and stranding himself with anti-catholic bigots, puppets in tow named Pap gang, go around come around religionist/philosophers such as FF.
Doug, "no one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do".
A legend in his own absolutist dogmatic mind.

Pap Taylor Gang: When I first noticed her she was an anti-Protestant Nazi (and I said as much) but she's an emotional vampire, obsessing and fantasizing about details of other peoples' lives, primarily yours, right now.

Indeed, and Zeke commented on yllas too, quite lucidly, in fact. (You're not Rae, are you? : )

There may be some of the "protesting too much" in yllas here, and consciously or unconsciously a vicarious thrill on her part reading about real people. Anyway, she's been leaving other people alone, so that's a plus.
......

You know what they say about feeding trolls.

Yeah.

Truthseeker, excellent questions and line of thought.

I thinik Erin has a good point about brain chemistry. (Erin, I love the way your mind works.) In fact, I saw a thing on TV yesterday about "training one's brain to be more empathetic."

http://tinyurl.com/2bs5uj

"Why" do you have the desire to use your own personal time, money, and effort to relieve the burdens of others?

Within that "great commonality" among all people is the fact that we're almost all "wired" the same way in some respects. I see the premise here as that we're separate consciousnesses, with freedom of action (whether or not we actually have free will).

I see it as a mixture of nature and nurture - we are born with tendencies, as in the production of brain chemicals and our response to them , and we also pick up behaviors from our parents, teachers, peers, etc. Those that are not and do not - those are the few "anti-social" people, for real.

It's quite variable, too. The last time I stopped along the road to help somebody it was because it was a woman with little kids and a flat tire. Most times I just drive right by. The other extreme is seeing two guys about 20 years old who've had a minor wreck, both with 'Fast and Furious'-type cars, who zoomed past me a couple minutes before, racing each other. And if they passed me you know they were hauling butt.

There they are with dented fenders, standing with their cars, yelling at each other. I didn't feel sorry for them or empathetic, more like, "You @$#%@^&# stupid @*#&^%>?! - now you made traffic slow down to gawk at your stupidity..."

I'd say that just seeing certain things is enough to get an empathetic response, in general. Hook most people up to an EEG machine, and show them a toddler toddling out into traffic, for example, and their brains will show certain responses and they'll want to grab the kid and take him or her to safety.

To relate that to the abortion issue, I do feel things when seeing pictures of aborted fetuses at 20 weeks, 25 weeks, etc. There is an "Aww...." factor for me, and I think it's sad.

By itself, I'd rather it not happen. I'm pro-choice because I have empathy for the pregnant woman. When it comes to identifying with the feelings of others, the pregnant woman is undeniably one, while for the unborn it's certainly still a question after a point in gestation, and early enough in gestation there are no feelings there to have empathy with.

"No one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do".

yllas, I was going to ignore you, but anyway - you've gotten at least one more response out of me.

In 12 years of arguing abortion I've seen that there will always be defeated clowns like you who are intent on merely expressing bitterness and hatred, really self-hatred at the core.

You or somebody else asked a question, and I gave an honest answer. No, I do not think anybody has a good enough argument against abortion (to make it illegal earlier than viability). If I did, I would not be Pro-Choice, after all.

The best argument, in my opinion, is for allowing the pregnant woman to make her choice, either way. This is not guaranteeing that she won't suffer. There is often no way to avoid suffering, there, regardless of which way she goes. It's also not saying that in the end she won't regret a choice (again, either way) - there are no such guarantees. It is still best, by far, to allow people their freedom, rather than take it away on the grounds that some will make choices that they later regret.

When we talk about restricting people's freedom, I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation - something we all or pretty much all can agree upon, me included.

Erin, I only wish the dopamine were "that" good. Unfortunately charity is a "recessive" trait according to Darwin's theory of evolution which is really all about survival of the fittest. Charity makes one vulnerable so that trait would not get passed on through evolution and natural selection.

Doug, your point about parental and societal factors is well taken. But it is enforceable laws and a credible possibilility of retribution from the ones we offend that keeps many from behaving like savages. Without enforceable laws to govern our behaviours, people will would take advantage of one anotherto satisfy our carnal deires would be the order of the day.

I submit to you both that there is something else that makes people willingly treat one another charitably even at a cost to ourselves. That source of mercy and love is the Holy Spirit.

Doug,
Which leaves you with the fact that your a closed minded, absolutist, dogmatic for abortion.
Motivation; the common love between you and women, who have through abortion taken their creation and annihilated their creation by their will, and you having created nothing by your will.
You have willed yourself to not create life Doug, and planned not to create life, because your a pessimist from your parent's evil god and religion. One might say, that if Doug had been born in the U.S.S.R. you would have never thought outside your parent's religion of communism. Quite a conventional person this Doug, a predictable outcome, and a good stooge is a stooge who thinks he is discovering himself, when in fact, he is repeating the religion of his conventioanl parent's religion, whether communism or god inventions with evil intentions, pre-destined.
Such a sad case of a person being a fanatical,absolutist dogmatic preacher for the creation of nothingness, that his psychic needs drive him to post for 12 years, with no ability to understand his motivation is personal first and foremost. You really are sad person cruising pro life message boards,
playing a character, and erecting a personality in a confidence game played by Doug. Old Dougly, may I give you my confidence(stories of the grand Doug from his young lion dayz, with pics too), while we play a game of question and answer with a closed minded, absolutist dogmatic, for killing via abortion. And this "hate thyself game", is really your life Doug, deep, long, years wide, and strongly hateful, from being a person who never "reproduced himself", from his will power of hating thyself overiding his most basic principle of pain and pleasure. You attracted like women(sad eyed Sally, to that hillarious philospher of the weak mind, named FF, or Laura, bah blah) and still do on this board Dougly. Try again Doug.



Since vampires have been mentioned by one of your sock puppets, named Gang o' Pap, one must see who is the vampire of life since your fellow matey's "suck the life out of women". Even a weak mind such as yours Doug, can get that analogy between pro abortionist and vampires. Which includes you Doug.
I like you Dougly, you used your intellect and failed to keep the religion of your parent's that has been described as absolutist, dogmatism for that God that murders in advance of the murder, and now have become a absolutist, dogmatic for the murder(whoops, insert a Dougly Dumpty word, killing) of life in the womb of a women. Nothing changed, Doug just thinks he has.

Yllas, why would I not reply to a post?

Admittedly, you almost never post anything of any worth, and your constant lunatic ranting and raving has shown you for what you are. That people like you gravitate to the anti-choice side is just further proof of the rightness of the pro-choice argument.

You think I'm one of "Doug's gang"? LOL All people on earth are my gang, and there's almost nobody who won't quickly see that you're just a nut. Doug has at least replied to you, and there is no lack of good discussion on Jill Stanek's blog. Who replies to you, other than people noting your insanity?

Pap, abortion is "people choosing to kill their own children." To me that qualifies as the ultimate insanity.

Truthseeker,

I believe that you feel that way. Certainly, nobody is saying that you "should" have an abortion.

The difference in the unborn from born children may not make much of a difference to you, but it does to many people.

Pap, Scientifically it is the same baby at any stage of developement wether the baby is inside or outside the womb. The only difference is that one is stripped of his/her potential by their mother's choice to kill them. Sensibly the qualities of the value of the babies life is really no less cause it is living in the mothe's womb. I fail to see the ratioale behind somebody stating otherwise. Perhaps you could expound upon that for me so I can understand the logic of the "many" and explain to me, other than location, what is the difference?

Truthseeker,

It's the same organism, but "baby" or not is in the eye of the beholder. Likewise, the "qualities of the value" are too. I agree that being in the womb won't necessarily make a difference, and many pregnancies are wanted very, very much, to be sure. No doubt some pregnancies are wanted more than some other people want their born kids, in fact. It's an individual thing on a case-by-case basis.

The unborn being inside the body of a woman makes a big difference to me. If not, then they'd be considered by themselves.

There is also the matter of where our empathy lies - more with the unborn or more with the woman. Empathy is identifying with the feelings of, having sympathy for, etc., and while at a point in gestation it's arguable if feelings are there or not in the unborn, early enough in gestation it's really not, and thus it's more people putting their own feelings above those of pregnant women when they oppose abortion at those times in gestation. If there is no caring on the part of the unborn, then I think it's natural to have empathy for the woman, rather than the unborn. The woman is unquestionably a thinking, feeling person.

your (Yllas's) constant lunatic ranting and raving has shown you for what you are.

Posted by: Pap Taylor Gang at March 28, 2008 11:42 AM

_____

Yllas is definitely coo-coo for Cocoapuffs

(LOL)

Doug,
The unborn being inside the body of a woman makes a big difference to me. If not, then they'd be considered by themselves."
******

Doug,
I understand that your "feelings" about the baby change based upon wether or not the baby is still inside the womb. But lets keep your "feelings out of it for a moment. It is really a very simple fact I am looking for you to acknowledge. The baby (or organism if you prefer) is NO different wether they are inside the womb or outside the womb. PERIOD. Do you realize that location does "NOT" make any "real" change to the baby, it only changes your feelings about the baby? Then instead of trying to tell me all about your feelings, how bout just agreeing with a simple logical fact, there is no difference except for the babies location/habitat. If you see a difference (other than a difference in your feelings about the baby), then I would like you to explain the difference to me in scientific terms.

Truthseeker, aside from things like breathing air, etc. - things which aren't at issue, then yes, unborn or born baby = no difference, physically.