The American Spectator

Alan Brooks| 12.18.09 @ 11:48AM

Luther was THE prototype for Hitler, not a prototype.

To Hell with Protestants. But they can say & do what they want-- as long as it isn't near me.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.18.09 @ 6:32PM

But Alan,
I AM right next to you...at least here on Am Spec.

You won't be able to get away with anything sleaszy.
heh!
While you are consigning us to hell...we are praying for your repentance and salvation.

Big Leo| 12.18.09 @ 7:22PM

In the opinion of a majority of my relatives, the original church is the Orthodox Church. The Catholics broke away from it in 1054.

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 5:30PM

Of course you and your relatives are wrong. The Orthodox Churches broke from Rome. Prior to the Schism, all Catholic Churches agreed that the Church of Rome was first among equals.

James Rosen| 12.18.09 @ 11:44PM

Alan can certainly say what he likes about Luther, but he would do well to remember that Protestants are largely responsible for the creation of this republic. Constitution, etc.

As for Mr. Brooks' desire to live Protestant free, I'm assuming he is residing down Mexico way ...

James| 12.19.09 @ 7:12PM

LOL, thanks religious people, for proving our points for us.

ps. "Protestants are largely responsible for the creation of this republic. Constitution, etc. "

I think you mean deists

Ryan| 12.21.09 @ 8:43AM

Nope, Protestants. There weren't many deists at the Constitutional Congress.

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 5:31PM

Exactly. And, thanks to them we are in the situation that we are bemoaning now.

Appleby| 12.18.09 @ 6:47AM

I have belonged to six different denominations before coming home to the Catholic Church. I have left four of the others due to their political POV which suddenly changed to something wildly un Christian and frequently anti-American. I left the Mormon church when I got far enough into their theology to realize it was not a religion, but a cult (and one designed by the same men who designed Islam, with Eternal Sex with a harem of women who cannot get into the top tier of Paradise unless they are yoked to a *worthy* man). And I left the Anglican/Episcopal church when they started worshipping the male sex organ and making every single homily about homosexuality.

I have come home to the Catholic Church because their theology does not change, and they give the same answer that Mama and Daddy always gave. *No* is what they would say. *Just No.* And occasionally, if there was too much whining, *I.SAID.NO.*

Yes, they have their share of hippy-dippy feel-good bongos-and-bands type congregations, but these are fading away into social clubs and at least around here the Latin Mass is growing in popularity again. This is an uncertain world and people want something to tie to that never changes. And at least in the circles in which I travel, they do not want to sit in church with our teeth clenched, waiting for the outburst of the week that will mean we have to get up and walk out.

Ryan| 12.18.09 @ 8:30AM

That's probably the best - and most reasonable - reasoning - that I've heard for joining or staying with the RCC. As grounded as I think many evangelical protestant denominations are, I'll give you the ground (rightly or wrongly) that the RCC really hasn't changed its theology significantly over an extremely long period of time.

Though I still debate the need for a Latin Mass (honestly, I think it's tied to emotion, not practicality - what's the use of a message that you cannot understand); and regret that the RCC again considers me a heretic (some of JPII's pronouncements were overturned).

Appleby| 12.18.09 @ 9:30AM

But many of us old timers CAN understand the Latin Mass, because when we went to school, Latin was taught there. ( Some of us have also sung Latin in choirs.) And some of us appreciate the fact that when the Latin Mass is allowed, wherever we go in the world, we can slip into a Catholic church and hear Mass in a language we know.

Derek Leaberry| 12.21.09 @ 1:05PM

The solemnity and the mysticism of the Latin Mass is not matched by the Novus Ordo-Bugnini Mass. But there are other reasons why the Latin Mass is superior. Where one often sees parishioners at a Novus Orod Mass chatting before and even during Mass, you have silence at a Latin Mass except for the prayers. Where you find casual, disrespectful dress at a Novus Ordo Mass, at a Latin Mass one finds the men in suits and the women in dresses or skirts and their heads covered. Where often a Novus Ordo priest's sermon will be a five minute monologue often irrelevant to worship, a Latin Mass priest will usually speak at least for fifteen minutes on something relevant to being an honorable Catholic. Latin Mass Catholics tend to have large families; at St. Athanasius in Vienna, VA many families have six, seven, eight, nine and ten children, just as God wants. Novus Ordo Catholics tend not to have families any larger than Protestants or the non-churched.

Jeannine| 12.18.09 @ 9:56AM

You're not an heretic. According to Pope Benedict XVI's 2007 Apostolic Letter, the Tridentine Latin Mass is the Extaordinary form of the Roman rite. The mass of 1970 which is in the vernacular language is the Ordinary form and which the current pope still uses will never disappear at least for the next couple of generations. I hope to be dead by then & thus I wouldn't care what rite is being used.

Ryan| 12.18.09 @ 11:59AM

Yeah, I am. I'm not RCC, I'm Protestant.

Actually going back over the pronouncement (July 10, 2007), he essentially pronounced that I can't find salvation outside of the RCC, that I don't belong to a genuine community of faith.

However, I also found elsewhere that he held some sort of view that Protestantism wasn't quite "heresy" in the classical sense. I dunno. I just still have a HUGE amount of Respect for JPII, and I also truly wish Benedict the best.

Like him or not, there is a vested interest of there being a respectable Pope, even for Protestants. We may not accede to his rule, but he DOES, in a sense, represent the rest of us to the world.

MikeBee| 12.18.09 @ 1:20PM

Actually, the RCC's stand on people of other faiths was clearly stated in its Vatican II Council. The RCC believes that God is much more than we humans can imagine Him to be. Because of this, the RCC believes that, while one can find God and elements of God's presence in various faiths, the one place where people will find the most complete manifestation of God on earth is in the RCC. So, the RCC doesn't feel that our fellow Christians in other faiths are damned, just that the most complete manifestation of God's presence is found in the RCC.
The strength in the RCC is that, unlike most other ideologies today, the RCC does NOT believe that Truth is relative. Many folks in America today believe that all Truth is relative, different for each person. The RCC holds that, while we humans are constantly discovering the Truth (hence, the RCC's embrace of Science and the Scientific method), all Truth is found in God, and in an earnest seach for Him. Once Truth is found (revealed by God), and tested to be certain (we who receive this revelation are simply human and can be wrong), it does not change with the winds of time. This is the reason that the RCC is so solid on their theological beliefs, and also that the rest of the World hates the RCC so much (how dare you hold that Truth is not relative?).

Jeannine| 12.18.09 @ 1:33PM

Ryan,
According to Catholic Church, all people are able to be saved. I suggest you get yourself a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church & read it. It will clear up any misconceptions you definitely have about about Catholicism.

Ryan| 12.18.09 @ 2:00PM

What's funny is, that's RADICALLY different from historical Catholicism, and a very modern concept. For a LONG time, the RCC held that salvation was only found through their doors.

MikeBee| 12.18.09 @ 3:42PM

Ryan,
You're right. The Second Vatican Council emphasized what the Church had always believed and held to be true, but common practice had failed in holding up. Just goes to show you that the RCC is made up of a bunch of weak people who sin sometimes. That's why we have a sacrament commonly called Confession. That's also another strength of the RCC; in time, they are able to admit their errors when they do sin and make mistakes. Self-reflection and analysis of one's life and actions is encouraged in the RCC, but not everywhere else.

Actually, I believe that the RCC, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Protestant churches, Jews, and mainstream Muslims (who are very conservative people, by the way) need to join hands together today to reject two ideologies: 1) radical Islam, and 2) atheistic communism/socialism. In today's world (see Voice of the Martyrs publications, www.vom.com), radical Islam is promulgating an extreme attack on Christians, raping their women, not allowing their men jobs, and enslaving Christians where Sharia law is established. Also, under Communism, Christians are also not allowed good jobs, not allowed to practice their faith (except in government-approved churches), and constantly harrassed for their beliefs with imprisonment, torture, rape and other crimes against humanity. The two great evils present in the world today are atheistic Communism and radical Islam. They are succeeding today partly because the great religions of the world can't come together.

victor| 12.18.09 @ 9:24PM

According to Christ himself,
John 14:6 -
"Jesus saith unto him I am the way - the truth and the life no man cometh unto the Father but by me"
Unless you repent of your sin and accept Christ, you will not be saved.
No church required.

Ann| 12.19.09 @ 8:37PM

Except that a church gives you community and the ability to see Christ reflected in others and not in the self alone, as in so much of our culture. At least for me--seeing the beauty of the "big tent" of Catholicism is restorative for me in a culture gone insane.

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 5:38PM

Where is the quote from Christ himself that says no church is required? I know of one where He talks about founding a Church.

Tim| 12.19.09 @ 1:33PM

Bendict XVI reiterated what has essentially always been taught, including by JPII. He called Protestants "sperated brethren". This means they are one with us in our faith in Christ, but separated from the Church Jesus established in His apostles. "Heretic" is a word with a bad connotations, but it simply just means someone who rejects orthodox Christianity as handed down from the Apostles and Church Fathers. So in that Protestants reject the Real Presence of Our Lord and Savior in the Eucharist, they are heretics. Catholics continue to pray for a restored unity. It is not about idle theology creating differences or ostracizing our Protestant brothers and sisters. It is about the hope that they may come to believe once again in the Real Presence of Our Lord. The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of Christ (not necessarily the Church) and we leave that whole salvation thing up to Him as to what that means for others, including non-Christians. Merry Christmas to ALL.

Margie| 12.19.09 @ 3:03PM

The Bible tells mankind all we need to know. It tells us who may be saved, and how. It says "Unless one is regenerated (from the Greek) from above, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Jn. 3:3. It tells us that "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Acts 2:21. It tells us that Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world, "so that whoever believes into Him may be saved." Jn. 3:16.
Thank God my salvation is based on Christ and not some haughty human being telling me whether or not I qualify!

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 5:39PM

No, just some haughty human being who interprets what Jesus said.

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 5:36PM

Funny how so many people are concerned about what somebody whose beliefs they have rejected has to say.

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 5:33PM

Yeah, Latin is such a difficult language to understand. Better to have it translated for you.

Dave| 12.20.09 @ 12:24PM

Nice defamation.
Your confidence in the stability of Catholic doctrine is as shallow as the main article.
But perhaps I am giving you too much benefit of the doubt -- smart money says you're just a liar.

Margie| 12.21.09 @ 12:23PM

The Bible is what you take issue with, then. Watch who you call a liar, because it isn't me!

GregA| 12.18.09 @ 8:06AM

What we really see here is the ability of the Enemy to attractively suggest to people that Jesus is not “…THE way and THE truth and THE life.” ( John 14:6.) It is much easier for folks to make up their own way. Sadly for those deceived, that way leads straight to Hell. Couple that with the idea that the sovereign Lord surely has turned (or will turn) His face from this baby-sacrificing country, then nothing that goes on in this country is surprising anymore.

Eric Damon| 12.18.09 @ 8:26AM

What has always disturbed me more than anything as it regards faith is ecuminism. When you have so-called Christian ministers preaching that every religion has some truth to be used by all, or that all paths lead to God, then you have a spiritual mess. As a Christian you explicity cannot believe that all relgions are equal or that there is any path to God other than Christ, because if that is truly the case then Christ was lying when he proclaimed that HE was THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE. And He had to also be lying when he said that no man can reach the Father except by Him (Jesus). What these Christian ecuminists are doing is undercutting their faith for the popularity of the the world, and stand to drag souls to Hell in the process.

Tony in Central PA| 12.18.09 @ 9:29AM

Eric, I get your point. Today, more than ever, there is the risk that ecumenism can lead to something like syncretism, an amalgamation of beliefs into an unrecognizable mess. The problem is that things being as they are, we have a large number of differing belief systems. In the interests of " getting along ", the idea of truth has often been set aside, and it's gone much too far. Truth has been cast aside to the point now that in society's conventions its worse to possibly offend somebody that to say what is true. The truth is still true, of course, and when societies lose sight of it they become rudderless. Which is what we have now.

Kelly| 12.18.09 @ 12:51PM

Quoting what you said- "As a Christian you explicitly cannot believe that all religions are equal or that there is any path to God other than Christ."

Exactly- which is why many of us aren't Christians. I find believing in things in that manner to be truly limiting. Sure, you have faith and you believe that is the ultimate truth- but for every one of you, there is another person shouting their own scripture and claiming that THAT is the real truth.

The more likely scenario is that there is no truth, or that whatever is around today is too changed to resemble what originally MIGHT have been the truth.

This is why, personally, I, like thousands of others have left Christianity. I'd rather figure things out on my own and make up my own mind than sit in the middle of a crowd of religious people all trying to convince me that THEIR way is the right way.

The step that comes next is that people always try the scare tactics- "Well, you should just believe this way, because if you don't, you might have X consequence." Or, "You should just believe in Jesus. You don't want to go to hell, do you?" They don't stop to realize- what if THEY are wrong? What consequence will they face if someone elses's religion is right?

Before I'm willing to even consider someone's claim that Christianity is the one and only ultimate truth- I ask them to seriously consider the chance that they are wrong, and that someone else might be right... or that no one is right. I'm not claiming any truth either way- I'm just asking that they take a minute to seriously think about it. Usually, people won't take this bet with me. I don't know why- perhaps they are too afraid to bring doubt or questioning into their mind. Perhaps they have convinced themselves so thoroughly that it's impossible for their mind to even contemplate the alternative.

It makes for interesting conversation when people come to my door, though.

Ryan| 12.18.09 @ 1:59PM

As a Christian (and studier of religion in general), I find that there isn't a whole lot I have to be worried about when it comes to other religions, because I meet their "good person" standard.

And isn't saying "there is no Truth" a truth claim?

Margie| 12.18.09 @ 3:55PM

Kelly,
Here is the answer to your challenge. Paul said it: "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied." 1 Cor. 15:19.
In other words, if I base my life upon the fact that Jesus Christ is who He says He is, and means every word He says, and if He is telling the truth, then I have Eternal Life to look forward to, and not Hell.
~On the other hand if I choose to reject Him I will find out later He was right.
Paul was saying yes, if I have hoped in Christ for this life only, and there's nothing to look forward to, no after Life, then yes, we are of most men to be pitied.
It is an unwise gamble that you take, don't you think?

Sam| 12.19.09 @ 1:04AM

Margie, when Kelly makes a claim based on reason, you can't respond by making a claim based on faith.
To use a political example that you'll appreciate:
If you wonder, " Why should I support Obama?," you expect me to give you reasons to support him. If I told you to " Just close your eyes and trust Mr. Obama- he knows what he's doing," you would rightfully call me crazy.

That is what you are asking of Kelly- to close her eyes and just trust the Christians and Christianity.

But your last sentence is spot on. Logically speaking, it makes sense to believe in God because it's like a wager:

If you (Margie) do believe and are right, you've won the jackpot!
If you (Margie) do believe and are wrong, you may have missed out on a few orgies, but you'll probably be just fine.
If I (Sam) don't believe in God and he doesn't exist, there's no great change in my life.
If I (Sam) don't believe in God and he does exist, then I am screwed for eternity.

So yes, betting on God might make more sense.
I did not event this theory. A smarter man than I came up with it!

Margie| 12.19.09 @ 2:25PM

Hey Sam,
Have you gotten saved yet? ..Since you do come to the conclusion that betting on God make more sense.

James| 12.19.09 @ 7:15PM

Hmmm, well islamic hell sounds a lot worst than christian hell...therefor you need to hedge your bet again and convert to islam.

Ya, pascal's wager was always stupid

toddes| 12.21.09 @ 12:39PM

No, Sam, she's not asking Kelly to "close her eyes and just trust the Christians and Christianity".

She's asking her to trust in Christ and in the promises made by the Father through his life, death and resurrection.

GregA| 12.18.09 @ 5:16PM

Dear Kelly,

I was once a follower of a religion very similar to yours. The main difference is that in MY religion, I was god and I decided what the truth was. What you believe is neither new nor enlightened. When the Apostle Paul was in Athens, not only was he struck by the number of statues of the gods, but also by the one that was an altar to “an unknown god.” Like the Athenians, many people today worship the unknown god. Many people will speak at length or write many paragraphs of how the only way is the unknown way. That is a sad, circular argument. But one thing Paul said to the Athenians about The God of the Bible was that one should “seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. For in Him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17: 27-28a)

I am a sinner and the lowest of believers, incapable of properly putting forth the love and grace of my Father. But he sent His Son to pay the price for all of our sins and to give us hope everlasting. Kelly, I pray that your quest for the Truth will someday lead you back to the arms of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Merry Christmas.

Love,

Greg

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.18.09 @ 5:39PM

Greg,
You pretty much said it all. God bless you and yours at Christmas time.

Kelly| 12.19.09 @ 10:42AM

Quoting Greg:

"That is a sad, circular argument."

You could say the same thing about Christianity, and all of your responses using scripture (Greg, Margie). All of your responses are equally circuitous. You can't defend an unproven belief system with unproven elements from that belief system. Since nothing can be proven about a deity or lack of one, or of life after death- my only conclusion is that there's no possible way to know what is the truth and what is not- so again, why believe one thing over another purely because you tell me to, or because it's written in an old book by fallible humans who may have had their own personal agendas in writing the story? Likewise, you also can not prove that these things DO NOT exist, so one can't claim in that direction either. The whole point I'm getting at is that it's all a bunch of "unprovables", so why tout one way over another? Why try to claim that one unproven idea is better than another?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I've yet to hear one reasonable explanation for why I should be Christian over Muslim, or Pagan over Buddhist, etc.

Well, I guess, I take that back a little...

I've had some discussions with Christians who asked me, "What does your heart say? God will speak to your heart." Upon introspection, I discovered that my heart was empty of any feelings of connection to something powerful- despite having "accepted Jesus as my savior" and having once been a devoted Christian. I even used to proselytize to non-Christians and memorize and repeat scripture- much like some of you have been repeating scripture here. But there was nothing. Yes, it was my belief system, and I tried to have faith, and I believed Jesus was my savior, I believed all the scripture, and yet there was still nothing inside of me. I WANTED to belief, and still nothing. Why would you keep going with something if it's not working? Why go through the motions without questioning? Why continue on a path that is leading nowhere for you? Would you continue to believe as Pagan if the Muslim religion suddenly seemed right to you? Would you continue believing as a Christian, if suddenly the Atheist viewpoint made sense to you? No, you would change. You would switch to what seemed right to you.

It took a few more years before I had the maturity to really challenge myself- "Perhaps this isn't the right way- at least not for me." I'm glad I left Christianity, because if I hadn't, I wouldn't feel the real feeling that is in my heart now. I feel a connection to something more powerful than myself now- whether you define that as a real entity or a concept of humanity and consciousness. I help my fellow man and community and try to make the world a better place. I finally feel "spiritual" as much as that is a maligned word and may not fit every context. I didn't get those feelings as a Christian. I felt dead in the water. Now I feel alive.

So what's the next argument I always get after explaining this story?

"You weren't a real Christian then! You didn't really accept Jesus!"

Before a person points fingers, maybe he/she should do some introspection first. It is possible, in my opinion, that Christianity is not a good fit for everyone- and that another religion or a lack of one may be the answer for them. I know that for Christians who see their religion as the only right truth, they simply can't believe this- it would go against the very core of their belief system. Experiences can differ from one individual to the next, however. At least take a moment to think about that. Perhaps what feels like truth to you, feels like falsity to another. Perhaps when you say the porridge is "just right" I say "it's too hot." Who is right?

Margie| 12.19.09 @ 1:28PM

Hi Kelly,
Coming from a place of somebody who knows about legalism, I can tell you that you've probably been looking at serving Christ through that prism... I can't know for sure, but it just seems to me (and I say seems) that maybe you've fallen into the trap of looking at Jesus through Religion instead of looking at Him personally.. you must know, having said you've been a Christian, that the Bible is where we get of view of Him.. then I'd only suggest you return to Him by the same way you've left.. prayer. Ask Him to help you start all over again in a personal relationship with Him. Remember.. the verse that says.. "Though we be faithless, He remains faithful."
Let's pray for each other, ok?
God bless you.

Ryan| 12.21.09 @ 8:51AM

I think that you partially hit the nail on the head and missed it at the same time.

Christianity isn't about "feelings." Faith and belief aren't feelings at all - they just are. I think too often, and Christians, too, still simply go with what "feels good," whether faith or anything else.

Christianity isn't about you or me or anyone else. It's about God. That's it.

And the Gospel, which you at least have the proper head-knowledge of, may change the way you see things one day. Christianity isn't about making rational arguments and convincing people - I've rarely, if ever, seen that happen. It's about God flipping the switch in your heart, as it were. He does all the work, and for some He just waits a while...and some He doesn't do it at all.

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 5:43PM

A very good condensation of the Democratic Party platform. Just because you may be wrong means I'll reject whatever you have to say and believe whatever I come up with.

Ben| 12.22.09 @ 2:28AM

You, like thousands of others, are only satisfied by creating God in your own image and by surrounding yourselves with people who will say what you want to hear, tickling your ears with "truth, what is truth?" Keep looking for and surrounding yourself with others who think like you. Give each other whole hearted approval for the compromise, for the unbelief. Join the church of self righteousness. You are now self righteous. Self righteous--you are the cause of your own righteousness, by which you hope to be justified. You are your own savior now. Good luck with that.

Kelly| 12.22.09 @ 5:24PM

Dan> Why are you bringing up politics? Aren't we having a religious discussion here?

Ben> It amuses me that you think I surround myself with like-minded people. Maybe you missed it when I mentioned that I attend a UU church. Like-minded people? Where else can you go and have a sermon about Jesus today, and a sermon about Buddha tomorrow? If anything, I would think Christian churches would be the place where you are "surrounding yourself with others who think like you." If anything, I feel like I go out of my way to surround myself with debate. I'm always questioning, asking, and studying. Why do you think I'm here? Would I be having this debate with all of you if I only chose to be around "like-minded people?"

Ryan> Some of what you have said reminds me of another current discussion I'm having with a friend. She warned me that, according to the Bible, the human heart is deceitful and not to be trusted. She claimed that the Bible was the only solid guide for by which to model your life and your decisions. Does that mean I should..

Never talk in church again?

1 Corinthians:
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

And what about the whole free will thing? I never quite got that, either. Does the Christian God give humans free will? Is it really free will? If I was holding a gun to your head and told you that you had to do what I said or else I would kill you (send you to hell)... is that really free will? Are you really making a choice in that situation?

I guess what I have hard time with is that A) There are many inconsistencies in the Bible, so why should I rely on it as my ultimate source of right/wrong-doing? B) There are other religions trying to convince me that they are the right one, which just makes me skeptical of all of them. C) Why should I be Christian out of fear? Shouldn't a person want to become Christian? What kind of Christian is the person who joins simply to "hedge their bets?"

I hate to be so confrontational, but I just haven't seen solid reasoning. I mean, yeah, I've heard the whole, "I'll pray for you" or "You'll feel Jesus calling you," etc. but what if you feel nothing at all? What if you feel no calling, no connection, no inner peace, no sense of “ah ha.” Because that's what it was like for me being Christian back then- that is the emptiness I talked about. Nothing. In fact, it kind of sucked back then, sitting in churches and Bible study, and everyone around you seemed so happy and content, they seemed to “feel something,” to get it, they were connected, and here I was, feeling empty, nothing, nada, zilch. It felt good helping other people and doing good things through church outreach, but just believing in Jesus, talking to God- nothing. Are you telling me that if the same happened to you, you wouldn't stop to think about it? You would just continue on your empty way trying to convince yourself? You'd rather follow in something that made you feel nothing, that left you empty and disconnected?

And people wonder why so many like myself are defining themselves as "spiritual." I don't think there are any convincing arguments out there for Christianity right now... at least none I've heard. Some of you will probably say, "Well, if it takes convincing, then you don't really want to be Christian anyways." Really? That's the best you've got? I mean, angels and heaven and eternal paradise sounds pretty nice if it really exists.

I'm your prime example right here, Christianity. If it's such a good religion, why am I and so many others not sold on it? I can't claim to have an answer to that, but I'd love to hear some thoughts on the matter. It really is a curious topic, even if I'm one of the people on the “other side” of the debate. (For a good book on the topic, check out “UnChristian.” It's an interesting read).

Margie| 12.22.09 @ 8:56PM

"Why should I be Christian out of fear? Shouldn't a person want to become Christian? What kind of Christian is the person who joins simply to "hedge their bets?"
A. Well, there's always the Lake of Fire. (The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Ps. 111:10.) Think of the alternative.
B. A smart one. Again, think of the alternative. We all only have 2 choices. You know them already.

Kelly| 12.30.09 @ 6:31PM

There must be a lot of disgruntled Christians out there then- who only joined out of "fear of the fire." What kind of life that must be!

Here are the 5 possibilities I see...

1) There is a God and X Religion is the only correct religion
2) There is a God, but another religion is the correct religion
3) There is some kind of God, but none of the religions are correct, and religion was simply created by humans.
4) There's more than one God and more than one correct religion
5) There is no God at all, and religion was simply created by humans.

Have you contemplated all 5 of those possibilities? Put down the holy book for a moment and really think about it. I'm not sure what you'll come up with, but have you at least thought of all those possibilities?

According to a researcher named Dr. David Barrett, who compiled data in 1983, and updated it in 2001... he calculates an estimate of 10,000 distinct religions in the world. So looking at Christianity, - it has a 1 in 10,000 chance of being correct (IF we are assuming God exists, and any one religion is correct). Furthermore, if you break down Christianity further, there are 33,830 "flavors", so you could go on further with that- is only 1 out of the 33,830 variations correct? THAT's assuming Christianity won the odds with the 1/1000 deal.

Why did one possibility seem more convincing to you than others? Why was Christianity convincing to you, and not Paganism? Why was Islam so much more convincing for you than disbelief entirely? Why did Hinduism make more sense than Judaism?

Please tell me, because I'm curious. What makes you believe what you do, and why? Is it simply because that's what you were always told to believe? Is it because that's the only faith you've been exposed to? Is it because good things started happening to you when you believed one way over another? Is it because you were afraid? Is it because you felt good believing one way? Is it because you never questioned? Explain to me your thought process and how you came to decide. What was your logic? What was your decision making process like? Don't tell me it's because the "Bible told me so" because that's circular- if you say that, then I want to know- what made you believe the Bible was telling you the truth?

Jeannine| 12.18.09 @ 8:18AM

There's something interesting about people of today. The more institutionalized education is obtained the less common sense is used by the same people who are "educated. " Any type of astrology & fortune telling has been debunked through good science. Those "Christians" who believe in reincarnation need to be catechized in their respective religions. If they were, they would trust in God & the special place He has prepared for them called Heaven. Those dopey Christians should not worry about coming back as a roach or a rock or how about a dandelion that will be crushed by my foot (accidently of course) as I walk in the fields enjoying God's creation.

Ryan| 12.18.09 @ 8:25AM

Pollmakers don't understand American Christianity, and the above results I would wager were NOT taken in among the evangelicals.

I see at least two distinct "types" of Christian in the US - one is along the old mainline churches, widely accepting of any morality and religious view; and the more conservative ones, with a stricter dogma and more stringent view of morality and scripture. I belong to the latter (reformed Baptist attending a Presbyterian-PCA church).

I think people are running away from being "religious" because of the pharisaical connotations that it imposes, and probably because it has a more strict set of expectations for the believer. If you're "spiritual," you can believe whatever you want.

Becky| 12.18.09 @ 9:16AM

Something the author missed that I think is a large part of the movement away from old time religion and toward a spiritual movement is the feminization of the church (and society) which the Catholics as noted above have resisted more than the others. As a Lutheran pastor commented on a radio show a few years back, Jesus has been portrayed as a victim in modern times. Many in the church feel sorry for Christ's suffering, when he understood (like the old time westerns) that he had a job to do and he did it. He was on a mission, not a victim.

Today's churches are filled with women and old people because, I think, the emphasis on having a relationship with God is much more feminine than masculine. As the lutheran pastor said, men work side by side, women face to face. Men are about the mission, women are about the relationships. The woman in a western is there to support the man in his mission.

And it is not just in the religious sphere than heavy feminization has changed how we think. Education, law, politics have emphasized the equivalence of women, even if it means using less qualified candidates. As much as I liked Condi Rice, she wasn't as strong a world figure as Thatcher, and so far Hillary is proving to look weak and even foolish at times. Overall, other cultures view the man as the dominant sex, and I don't know how, when you are having trouble with cultures that veiw woman and 1/2, you would send a woman to represent you and think you will be taken seriously.

If you are spiritual, you don't have to man up.

We need to knock of the PC myths about equality and in the words of our attorney general be honest about not only race, but gender ability.

A recent business blog incited anger when it said studies showed that businesses with women on their boards where less profitable. As a woman, I believe that could be true.

gearjammer| 12.18.09 @ 10:18AM

Your RCC is an open borders front group demanding we let in people who have massive families they can't afford, often out of wedlock. Then, they demand we tax our middle class into poverty to pay for it all, and call it fundamental fairness. The Church every day it seems condemns the regular American for having to much , for having it too good. And, they get greener and greener. You conservatives who denounce the Kennedy ,et al for not being true Catholics because of social issues are just as guilty on the economic and social " justice" issues. How any real conservative can be a Catholic is beyond me.

Tony in Central PA| 12.18.09 @ 12:15PM

Yeah, that William F. Buckley was such a phoney !

JP| 12.18.09 @ 12:19PM

You do have a point, Gerjammer. Certain RCC bishops, like the Dems see new parishoners from south of the border. But they are wrong in assuming Mexicans are or will remain Catholic. One of the fastest growing demographic-religious subgroups are Hispanic converts. And many Protestant missionaries have no problem incorporating Our Lady of Guadaloupe into thier worship. See what I wrote about the Emergent Church below.

Bruce| 12.18.09 @ 2:23PM

I agree in principal. I personally reject ANY church/religion that claims the only way to get salvation is to follow their way. I believe in God as my Father in my own way. I was brought up Presbyterian (Scottish synod) and married a Catholic girl. At least she was until the RCC refused to marry us because "after all - he's a Protestant!" Funny that the Presbyterian Church where we WERE married had no such problems with me marrying a ... horrors ... "Catholic".

While there is much of the RCC I respect - there is also much I do not. The same can be said for almost any other organized religious group you can name. The RCC has for too long been under the spell of radical priests and nuns intent on forcing their beliefs on society as a whole - from anti-war sentiments to immigration, and beyond.

I choose NOT to follow Catholic doctrine on these ideas. I reject out of hand any attempts by the RCC to force them on me as they have and continue to try and do.

John - TMF| 12.18.09 @ 4:35PM

Odd... 22 years ago, my VERY Presbyterian wife (at the time of our marriage...) and I were married in a lovely ceremony at a Roman Catholic Church by a very nice (my wife like the man and still laments his odd sermon). She only needed to hold a Nicene Baptism, and pledge to do nothing more than have an open heart for a Christian marriage.

Her Sacrament of Matrimony was no different or less a Sacrament than mine (it is in fact the same since we share it).

She could have even had a Presbyterian Minister co-preside... and as long as a Priest was present to co-officiate, if we wanted to we could have been married in a Presbyterian Church. (Our marriage would still have been a Catholic Sacramental Marriage.)

Now.. If my wife had been Jewish (not baptized...), non-theist or atheist or holding a non-Nicene Christian baptism... then the priest would have encouraged her to find a faith life, and referred us to a civil authority to conduct a civil/secular marriage ceremony.

The "must convert" gig is obsolete... and if still pushed by some priests, in error.

My children were, after much thought and discussion baptized in the Catholic Church, and eventually, voluntarily with only prayer, love, and patience, did my wife decide on her own (she surprised the kids) to become a Catholic. She was Confirmed at Easter Sunday almost 6 years ago.

Being a practicing Catholic isn't always easy. But Christ promised us that it wouldn't be. Faith has a cost, and He repeatedly warned us that it does.

The Roman Catholic Church forces no one to do anything. It has no armies. No government in the western world claims it as an enforced state religion.

No Catholic is going to come to your door and demand your soul at the point of a sword.

Though I will pray for you. Whether you want me to or not.

Peace be with You.
John

Bruce| 12.18.09 @ 8:08PM

Thank you for the prayers - I accept prayers from any source. I have even been given Last Rites twice by priests though not catholic (I assume they were unaware at the time). It matters not.

I was married 40 years ago. At THAT time, I was told I would:
1- be required to attend classes on the RCC
2- be required to raise any offspring in the RCC
3- convert to catholicism

This I would not do. I had my own religion and my wifes desire to be married in her church (I was not a regular church-goer) was something I agreed to for her and her family. No coercion - just for love. The only coercion was from the church itself, and her parents were among the first to say we should not do something I was uncomfortable with.

If times have changed that is for the better - but back then there was no discussion desired by the church.

JP| 12.18.09 @ 9:54PM

Bruce,
Do not take it seriously, but since the Protestants reject the Holy Eucharist, Papal authority, among other things, there is no way they can authorize your marriage. Holy Communion is the source and summit of our worship. It is Christ himself, and it reject it is to reject Christ.

victor| 12.19.09 @ 12:32AM

On what do you base that on?
You cannot point to anything that Jesus said or did to bolster your claim.

JP| 12.19.09 @ 8:33PM

Mmmm, outside of orthodox Anglicans and Lutherans, no Prostentants believe in the Eucharistic celebration. When a lawfully ordained Catholic Priest celebrates the Mass and prays the prayers of transubstantiation the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divintiy of Christ. It completes what Jesus demanded in the 6th Chapter of John. Christ commands all believers to partake in his Body and Blood. Most of Christ's disciples abandoned him after Christ made this commandment formal. He repeated 3 times in order to drive his point home, and it was something all of his Apostles provided to all early Christians. To reject this is to be Protestant.

victor| 12.19.09 @ 11:11PM

Christ is likening his body to bread, which is necessary for physical health to Himself, who is necessary for our spiritual health.
He did not mean that we should eat His actual body, but eat the bread in remembrance of Him. 1 Corinthians 11:24-25
He said nothing about eating or not eating actual bread. Jesus Himself was the Bread of Life.

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 5:55PM

Not bread--Jesus. Jesus is the Bread of Life. "Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."

Pretty simple stuff. Even a fifth grader can understand it.

Tony in Central PA| 12.19.09 @ 12:04PM

John, I'm going through the process of becoming fully Catholic now. Its called RCIA ( Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults ). Mt wife's a Baptist. The only thing the Church asked of us is that we have our marriage blessed in a short ceremony. I am puzzled by your experience.

John - TMF| 12.19.09 @ 7:04PM

Tony...

My wife went through RCIA 6 years ago. She surprised the kids, since we had them baptized Catholic and she remained Protestant. It was a surprise for them at the Mass of Election.

I do not know your diocesan rules for RCIA, the process varies. Here in the Diocese of Arlington, the process takes about 6 months and the Sacraments of Baptism (for the unbaptized, or non-Nicene), Confirmation - which comes before First Communion when you are an adult (which is the Catholic equivalent of being "born again"), and First Communion were performed at the Easter Vigil Mass.

When we married, it was much the same as you - though our Sacrament didn't need "updating". We were married in the Church to begin with. We were required to attend Pre-Cana classes, and a big weekend retreat for engaged couples.

BTW... Baptists (as long as they have actually been baptized - since many wait until they are teens) share Nicene baptisms (Their faith is guided by the dogmas laid out in the Nicene Creed) Baptists do not have to be re-baptized. Vatican II fixed that issue.

So there shouldn't be anything confusing.

Welcome home :-) I will pray for you, and hope that your RCIA experience is as rich, exciting, and full of love as my wife's.

Peace...

John

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 5:48PM

Yeah, keep storing up your treasures here on Earth. The problem with Kennedy wasn't his social issues so much as was his support for abortion. At the same time, forcing somebody to pay for my health care isn't exactly a Christian virtue either.

Steve| 12.18.09 @ 11:04AM

Correction: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, please. Thank you.

McGehee| 12.18.09 @ 11:19AM

Tracing my ancestry up along the path of my surname I find an Episcopalian immigrant whose son became a Quaker to marry; a few generations later his descendants were Baptists, then Church of Christ. My father became Catholic to marry, but when I married I became a Methodist. This is a pattern going back 350 years in my family -- the men marry whom they choose, and adopt the bride's church.

Jeannine| 12.18.09 @ 1:39PM

McGehee,
What you say about your family is very true for Christianity. That was 1 of the major ways that ancient Rome and later European society was Christianized. ---the men adopting the religion of the wife.

JP| 12.18.09 @ 12:13PM

Probably the biggest development in the realm of religion these last several years is the rise of the Emergent Church. While this is just an another spin-off of various Protestant confessions, what makes this new form of Christianity different is its enthusiasm for incorporating various forms of Eastern and Catholic orthodoxy. I first ran across the followers of the Emergent Church earlier this year when some of my relatives showed me DVDs of the Grand Rapid's evangelist Rob Bell. What struck me was how easy he cherry picked theological points at will. I thought to myself how Baptists would have problems with his ideas concerning Predestination; how Catholics would have problems with his revision of the Church Fathers writings, and how most Fundementalists would question he incorporation of certain tenants of Eastern Orthodoxy. From a theological point of view it was all very illogical.

But this does make sense. The Emergent Church is filled with younger, hip, educated disaffected Christians. If your a hip Fundementalist who is attracted to the Rosary and incense, this is the church for you. If you're a Catholic who has tired of the confessional and would like some of the ol' time religion, this is the church for you. If you would like to have a U2 Praise and Worship service, come on down!. And if the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism bother you, have no fear. They will just synthesize them all!.

I shouldn't make fun, as this is a rapidly growing denomination; its parishoners are young and quite on fire. They meet in old theatres, warehouses, fields, and concert halls. And for the first time, they are drawing a significant number a Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

I'm not so sure they will have the staying power, however. For the last 2000 years, the only semetic religions to survive are Catholicism and Islam. And for the 1st time in the UK (one of the centers of Christian Orthodoxy), 2008 saw Muslim converts exceed 100,000.

Ryan| 12.18.09 @ 1:56PM

The emergent movement (a better terminology) is about as diverse as anything with a lot of different flavors. It has a LARGE problem - it's the cherry-picking. I've seen emergent leaders have very basic problems with being able to promote basic theological concepts like the Apostles' or Nicene Creed, which contain items which most Christians would agree on.

Yes, they are questioning those things which need to be questioned, but their problem is leading to a new sort of works-based, non-Jesus-centric, non-Gospel that is more of a feel-good message.

If they get away from the core message of all Scripture - man's need for a Saviour, and God meeting that need through Christ's death and resurrection - then they miss the point, even if they put up the proper front.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.18.09 @ 12:15PM

Someone help me here. I can't find the scripture where Jesus said something to the effect: "Where two or three are gathered in my name I shall be there."
Well, in the strictest sense, that scripture defined a "Church". Everything else is "tradition".

A three point sermon with a poem...is a tradition.

There are millions of "traditions" heh sorta like opinions and digestive tracts. Everyone has them.
Hindus have "traditions" they evidently like too.

Personally, I believe in the "priesthood of each Believer." I'm stupid enough to believe Jesus' apostle when he wrote: "There is one One God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" 1st Timothy 2:5

There were a heck of a lot of commually worshiping Christians before there ever was a building in Rome dedicated to Christian worship. Once upon a time it was a Christian "tradition" to be eaten by lions in the Roman arenas. I don't like that tradition much.

I believe the United States of America was the best thing that ever happened to the Roman Church. That Church hasn't done such a good job in countries where it is the dominant "tradition".

Just my thoughts, (though of course inspired by the Holy Spirit, and informed by a lifetime of study.)

Al Adab| 12.18.09 @ 1:28PM

Ken,
Matthew 18:20

Jeannine| 12.18.09 @ 1:49PM

Ken, Ole Boy, You need to read some books about early Christian church history by reputable historians. Start with English historians. It might help you to better understand what it was like back then & how they interpreted the bible.

And you are correct IMO when you say that USA is the best thing that has happened to the RCC.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.18.09 @ 3:15PM

Hello OLD Jeannine, heh!

Lady where have you been! Are you a fairly recent addition to our conversations here?

Simply, I am probably the most educated, informed, and historically grounded Christian you are ever likely to have an opportunity to converse with.
I honestly welcome your thoughts about any mis-statements above. You will be mistaken, but it can prove to be a splendid teaching exercise on my part.

I was extremely fortunate in being unhittable as a baseball pitcher...heh, until I tore up my shoulder.

I could throw a variety of knuckle-balls, that simply could not be hit...or even caught by my catchers. (heh,they went to the clubhouse after every game with bruises all over them .)

(Having chased that rabbit, smile) I had the opportunity to attend Baylor University on baseball scholarship. I studied counseling...which at Baylor was in the religion school. My favorite prof. was Dr. Kyle Yates. Ever heard that name?

He is the guy the Israelis came to there in Waco after world warII to help them re-construct Hebrew as a living language.
They worked every day for some two years turning "jots and tiddles" back into vowels.
Dr. Yates, (a Baptist Christian), was considered the finest Hebrew scholar on earth. (He was on the team that discovered the "Rosetta Stone" beneath Jerusalem that was the key to modern understanding of hebrew.)
Cool, huh?
Oh, in case you are not familiar with Baylor University, it is by far the largest non Catholic Christian funded religion school (college) on earth.

I do try to be modest here, but I cannot let your comment go unanswered.

I was a Senior at Baylor when they finally got around to computerizing everything (1969)

I got called down to the Dean's office for a "major decision" heh. Turned out many of my courses could be classified FIVE ways:
1. Christian studies
2. Counseling
3. English Literature
4. History
5. Comparative religion

At Baylor you could only have ONE major. I of course chose counseling.
Any questions?

Jeannine| 12.18.09 @ 5:46PM

Sorry Ken. But I'm not impressed. The reason why I even mentioned English historians (& also other Europeans) is that they have been studying about Christianity & practicing it far longer than Baylor has been in existence ---like over 1500 years.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.18.09 @ 6:57PM

Well hello back, lady

I would never want you to be impressed....but just educable. (heh is that a word?) hmmmmm... perhaps I could say..."teachable".

...Baylor carries on a history of 5,000 years...give or take. There were Christians for 312 years before The RCC was founded. How did those poor souls survive, heh?
The eastern catholic church survived for what? 600 years after Rome burned?
Nah, you are simply regurgitating what some "priest" wrote. God bless 'em, they didn't even know what germs, (bacteria), are. They also killed dissenters. Boy, now that is "loving one another as I have loved you" wasn't it?
So
I am not impressed either.
On the other hand, I have never been a sexual predator against children...as some "church fathers" have been. So I fail to be impressed with them too.
You are digging a very deep hole, lady....but keep on digging.

Jeannine| 12.18.09 @ 8:58PM

Ken,
You obviously have a deep seeded hatred derived from ignorance or from a personal event. I will pray for you & wish you a peaceful, Merry Christmas!

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.18.09 @ 9:42PM

Jeannine,
No hatred at all, I assure you. I simply cannot let stupidity and arrogance enter the discussion without admonishment to the contrary.

...See lady, when we run into each other in the kingdom, you Romans are going to be so surprised we lowly Christians are enjoying eternity with you...whether you like it or not. heh....and we got to drink the wine at communion.

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 5:59PM

"I simply cannot let stupidity and arrogance enter the discussion"--then you better excuse yourself from the discussion.

JP| 12.18.09 @ 2:12PM

Ken,
The Gospel According to Matthew wasn't written until years after Christ's death. And even then, the majority of Christians never heard of it or any of the other books of the NT for centuries. Yes, people did gather in the fields and homes of believers. However, what they did was far different than what most people do today. The reception of Holy Communion was the source of summit of early Christian "worship". What people today scoff as Tradition was all the Early Church had. And by Tradition I don't mean customs. All of the practices, beliefs, and worship was contained in what is known as Holy Tradition.

And this Holy Tradition was defined by a hierarchy that began with the Aposltes and the men they appointed. Heresey was rampant in the early Church as it is today. Just read the letters of Saint Paul. And he was responsible for only a portion of the churches that sprang up. Others, such as Barnabas, Polycarp, Leo, and Sixtus had even more problems to deal with. Everything was done via word of mouth. And debates were settled by those appointed by St Peter. This teaching authority became known as the Majesterium. And almost all early leaders of this group were eventualy martyred.

Practices such as Holy Communion, Confession, and Baptism preceeded the Bible by 400 years. To enter the Holy Priesthood Lay people had to be ordained, and not anybody could confect the Eucharist. Records of the Eucharistic celebration can be found as early 60 years after Christ's death -during the life of St John. This became known as the Mass. And as early as 60 years after Christ's death people were required to have thier confessions heard, and Masses for the Dead were also celebrated. The belief in Purgatory goes back to the Jews and was a belief held by them during the life of Christ. All of these practices and beliefs became known as Holy Tradition.

It was almost 400 years until the Bible was Cannonized. And there was nothing in the Bible that contradicted Tradition. The Bible was never intended to be a means to refute what Christ and His Apostles established. Taking one verse from Timothy or the Gospel of Mark was never meant to be used like an article from the Bill of Rights - that is to establish completely new take on a theological meaning. Not even Martin Luther wished to destroy the sacraments or lessen the devotion to Our Lady.

And the following quote betrays any knowledge of history:

"I believe the United States of America was the best thing that ever happened to the Roman Church. That Church hasn't done such a good job in countries where it is the dominant "tradition". "

This would come as a huge surprise to nations like Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, Ireland, England, Austria, Czech, Poland, and Germany. In those nations that Church was instrumental in creating thier cultures, histories, customs, arts, and everything that gave them a unique identity. The Rise of the West would never had occured without the Church. And for those who know of such things, Europe today would have succumbed to Islamic imperialism if it wasn't for the Chruch.

No, the Church has never been perfect (at least the Church Militant); but it was the Church that brought Christ to pagan Europe and eventually the world.

Al Adab| 12.18.09 @ 2:23PM

The earliest writtings (NT) are the letters. James perhaps earliest of all but Paul all date before appx. 68AD. Acts and Luke written about same time as internally it see4ms Paul, whom Luke knew, was still alive at the time.

All of which does nothing except demonstrate Christian belief and practice in the first century.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.18.09 @ 4:59PM

Well, heck, Al Adab
I was gonna' give Jeannine a couple of more cracks at me, but you stepped into the breach admirably.

now JP has decided to enter the "fray", and your point about Paul's letters and the book by James is very timely....and they (Paul and James and Luke),
WROTE VERY EARLY.
Many serious scholars attribute establishment of the early Christian Church in Rome to Paul, rather than Peter. Though, even if Peter did in fact found the "RCC" ...Paul is almost universally acknowledged as "The Apostle to the Gentiles", while Peter was still worrying about Jewish dietary laws.
If memory serves, Paul was indeed imprisoned in Rome itself wasn't he?
Now,
Having said all that, I think Paul would have had a stroke if he had even imagined his words would be engraved in "holy writ" for two thousand years. Every word he wrote seemed to indicate that he expected Jesus would be returning ...next year ...latest. heh.
Thanks Margie...
heh...I have so many verses underlined over 40 years in my personal Bible, that I have a hard time searching in it. I keep getting sidetracked by yet another thought that takes me on a ride with the Holy Spirit...off into the blue. (smile)

Margie| 12.18.09 @ 5:20PM

Ken,
I know what you mean about that sidetracked thing. That happens to me too when I look for something in the Bible.. isn't it great though?
Oh, here's a source I use online that you might enjoy too.. that is if you don't already know about it. Google Blue Letter Bible. It's great. Just type in a couple of words in a verse you're looking for, hit enter, and it'll bring up the verse. It's fantastic.
God bless.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.18.09 @ 5:46PM

Margie...
I had never heard of it..........THANK YOU!

As I get older those senior moments are such a pain.

victor| 12.18.09 @ 9:32PM

Another resource if you need one:
http://biblos.com/
This site contains many versions of the Bible, Strong's Concordance and the Inter Linear Bible, for anyone who wishes to read the Bible in the original Hebrew or Greek. and not in a language that they were not written in, in the first place, i.e. Latin.

Al Adab| 12.18.09 @ 6:19PM

Indeed Paul was imprisoned at Rome. He wrote many of the letters from there while in various stages of confinment.

His letters began to be compiled in the early second century by "Bishop" Onesimus (read Philemon for that name) who organized churches in asia minor (now Turkey) in those days.

Paul likely was executed (by beheading as cruxifiction was for non-citizens) under Nero about 68 AD. Acts and Luke were written prior to that date as Luke recounts his travels with Paul in Acts. Luke writes in the Greek historical tradition ala Herodotus, Thucidydes and is to be taken at least as autoritative as they.

We are left with this. The tomb was empty, The writers believed it. James claimed to have seen Him post mortem and all of it within 30 years of the event. How each of us chooses to deal with those facts decides our fate.

God bless you all ( Ken, Margie et al) and Merry Christmas.

Margie| 12.18.09 @ 7:12PM

Ken, Al Adab, everyone~
Have you ever heard of the book named Martyr's Mirror? It is a very large book with accounts of even the Apostles being martyred. It goes from the time of Christ to 1660 A.D.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.18.09 @ 7:13PM

Al Adab......you are taking all the fun out of this with facts...(big grin).

Oh...but please recall...Paul was a Roman citizen, not a slave, and only subject to a citizen's execution.

Bottom line...I truly believe I met Jesus...via the Holy Spirit...in 1965. I must be crazy and certifiably so. heh.
...Those jihadists have nothing on me...and I am a much better shot (smile). I have also learned to duck...and not dress according to semtec fashions.

PS: you may have to listen to this song several times to "get it". It is worth it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

JP| 12.18.09 @ 8:02PM

Most Protestants use only the NT for thier history of the early church. Yet, there was much more going on all over the Roman Empire concerning the early Church, and Peter's council was sought out from evangelists located in North Africa, Asia Minor, what today is Spain, as well as Italy. Rome and Paul never had the kind of tussle that many Protestants attribute. Peter was acknowledge as the leader from the very beginning. His relationship to Paul was in many respects like John Paul II and then Cdl Ratzinger. But it was Peter who from the first was acknowleged as the lead (read the Church Fathers). After Peter, the Christians chose Leo and Sixtus as thier leader (or referred to as Bishop). This continuity is so strong that every Priest today can trace his ordination back to Peter (and ultimately Christ).

JP| 12.18.09 @ 9:49PM

The Church didn't have any of these documents. Try taking a grad course in Patristics. There are plenty of writings that predate what we consider NT scripture. The works of the early Church Fathers are well recorded as well as the Didache. This is the beginning of what we call Holy Tradition. The works of hundreds and then thousands of religious that became ordained from the Orginal 12 Disciples has been an established fact from the beginning. The Catholic Church always followed The Man (Christ), and not the Book. This is a huge distinction. Catholics have an uninterrupted continuity that goes back to the Last Supper.

victor| 12.19.09 @ 1:11AM

Except that the "last supper" was a Seder.
That means that your tradition is based on Jewish tradition.

JP| 12.19.09 @ 8:26PM

Of course it is! Try reading or listen to the Eucharistic celebreations. The Catholic priesthood has a continuity going back to Melchizedeck. Look at the rubrics of a Latin High Mass and you cannot miss it. The Church's Eucharistic celebration closely mirror's ancient Hebrew services.

victor| 12.19.09 @ 10:46PM

"The Church's Eucharistic celebration closely mirror's ancient Hebrew services."
What services would those be?
When did the Hebrews celebrate Christ as the Son of God?
What services did they follow Christ's admonition in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25:
"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 you as often as you drink it in remembrance of me"
Are you saying that when the Jews broke bread, and by the way, was it leavened or unleavened bread, they were doing it in remembrance of Christ Jesus?

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 6:03PM

"What services would those be?"

Those services would be all of the bloody sacrifices performed by the Jews in the temple.

Margie| 12.18.09 @ 4:05PM

I'll help. It's Mt. 18:20~
"For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

JP| 12.18.09 @ 8:04PM

That is until one decides the other 2 are heretics. There are over 33,000 Protestant denominations - this number grows every year.

Margie| 12.18.09 @ 8:35PM

I'm happy to say that I am not a part of any denomination, but am a partaker in Christ. Born of the Spirit, as in John 3:3, saved by Grave, through Faith, and it was not my own doing, but a gift from God. (Eph. 2:8, Rms. 3:24). In Him there is no stumbling.

Margie| 12.18.09 @ 8:37PM

*by Grace.

JP| 12.18.09 @ 9:43PM

And Judas, who ate with Christ, prayed with Him, and saw his miracles and saving grace ultimately rejected Him. Judas's life served as a warning that it isn't enough to have Faith. One must also reject one's own pride and accept the authority of Christ and those who Christ ordained to carry out his mission. According to St John the Evangelist, Judas's apostasy began with Holy Communion (See John Chapter 6). But it wasn't only Judas, but a whole host of disciples who rejected Christ when he said they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Christ reinforced this decree 3 times. The Deposit of Faith as Christ passed on to St Peter and the other 11 disciples has a continuity of over 2000 years. It has stood the test of time and remains in the Catholic Church today. You may change you ideas of what it is to be Christian, but I cannot. Believe you me there are times that I would love to bolt from the discipline of confession, sacramental pennance, and entire host of prohibitions that Christ established for His Church. But, who am I to rebel? If it was good enough for the 1st Century believers it is good enough for me. Besides, these rules and Traditions were established by Christ and his Apostles. These beliefs sprang from Christ and not a Book. Protestants worship a Book; Catholics worship The Man.

Margie| 12.18.09 @ 10:03PM

We'll let Christ be the Judge of me, now won't we?

Margie| 12.18.09 @ 10:50PM

JP,
Please. I cannot possibly judge you in your relationship with Jesus. And I don't presume to judge anyone according to their Religion. Jesus tells me that as a Christian though, to test the spirits to see whether they are of God. (1 Jn. 4:1).
I find that your judgmental spirit isn't right. If you believe in Jesus then let why can't we unite in Him?

toddes| 12.21.09 @ 12:56PM

It seems to me you worship tradition.

Margie| 12.18.09 @ 4:12PM

Count me in. I'm stupid enough to believe 1 Tim. 2:5 too!

Frank Hannon| 12.18.09 @ 12:20PM

"...giants like Augustine and Luther and Wesley."

Um, pardon me, Mr. Orlet, but one of these is NOT like the others!

To be specific, that would be St. Augustine, who, despite his years of wandering in the self seeking wilderness, finally returned to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ Himself. ...matter of fact, I'd even suggest that it was fellas such as Messrs. Luther and Wesley who kicked off the downward spiral that's led us to where we are today!

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.18.09 @ 12:54PM

Well gosh, Frank.
Aren't you the tolerant one?

Actually, no. You are not. You are simply as ignorant as the Roman church would have you be.
Serf!

Ryan| 12.18.09 @ 1:51PM

Actually, you wouldn't have Luther (a former Augustinian monk), Calvin, or much of Protestantism if it weren't for Augustine. He essentially laid the groundwork for much behind the Reformation.

If the RCC had actually gone the way of Augustine (rather than Jerome and others), there may not have been a NEED for a Reformation.

Jeannine| 12.18.09 @ 1:56PM

Actually Frank, the Reformation was the best thing that has ever happened to the Church up until that time. (We wouldn't have the Council of Trent for 1 thing.) I also suggest you read some reputable history books about the events leading up to it. I did & it "blew me away."

victor| 12.18.09 @ 9:37PM

Actually William Tyndale was the best "thing" to happen. Until he translated the Bible into English from the original Greek, no one could read the Bible unless they could read Latin. And then anyone could read the Word of God, which lead to men such as John Wesley who traveled the countryside preaching Christ.

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 6:05PM

The best thing that happened to the RCC from the beginning to now is that Jesus said that He would be with it until the end of time.

Margie| 12.21.09 @ 8:09PM

He said "and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." Mt. 28:20.
There's no RCC in that.

victor| 12.19.09 @ 11:37PM

"Luther and Wesley who kicked off the downward spiral that's led us to where we are today!"
Downward spiral? Oh yeah, the one where we lowly Christians can read God's word without going through a gatekeeper from a "church".
We can read what God said without benefit of "church" teachings.
As a matter of fact William Tyndale was martyred for doing that very thing:
putting God's word into English so that any man could read them.
That is why the "church" kept the Bible in Latin.
So that only certain people could read it.
And certain people could tell us what God really "said" and what He really "meant"

Tim| 12.18.09 @ 12:33PM

"...16 percent of Americans fear the "evil eye."

CBS?

Al Adab| 12.18.09 @ 6:40PM

...and 33% of Democrats believe that 9-11 was organized by the Bush administration.
Your point?

Oldefarte| 12.18.09 @ 12:36PM

In addition to the gradual reduction of church attendance, my [born/raised/schooled] Catholic Church destructed itself from within due to its priests not living up to their vowed promices to God. This has resulted in the secularized paganization of America from the liberal left, who only believe in a one true church of a partisaned central/federal government. College professors brainwash our children from the public classrooms, while Hollywood prostitutes does so with their movies, TV shows and actor-activities, forcing idolization of uninhibited sexual activity, homosexuality, defaming Christian religions, glorifying violence/crime,etc. With parents economically struggling to work several jobs, while leaving their unattended children to the brainwashing of the above, the downsizing of church attendance is a natural consequence [along with the increase in immorality that follows]!!!!!

Margie| 12.18.09 @ 2:31PM

I only know what God through Christ has done for me. He rescued my life from the pit. He drew my soul up from the miry bog and set my foot upon a rock. (Ps. 40:2) He saved me by His Grace, through Faith (Eph. 2:8). By His Mercy only can I live and and with His kindness can I continue. If it weren't for Jesus where would I be?
No Religion saved me, and none will get me to Heaven. Only Jesus by His Love, Mercy and Grace.

Al Adab| 12.18.09 @ 2:46PM

Thank you Margie. All the rest is vanity.

Margie| 12.18.09 @ 3:42PM

Al Adab,
Have you read any of John Bunyan's writings, like Pilgrim's Progress? All his other writings are really wonderful too. Another lowly sinner saved from himself by the Grace of God!

Al Adab| 12.18.09 @ 3:52PM

Oh yes and John Newton and Wilberforce and others. In fact on my desk as we "speak" is MacCulloch's "The Reformation". Frankly, I find Ratzinger one of the top theologians of the day. I read. *ty*

Tom| 12.18.09 @ 4:07PM

True Margie. I believe that one that has heard the word (read the Bible, and was taught) and believes, confessed, repented and was baptized will be saved thru Jesus Christ our Savior. My person belief is that while there are differant demoninations the real church is Jesus Christ and only thru Him can we be saved. The word of God is the Bible and the proof of Jesus is the New Testament.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.18.09 @ 5:53PM

Tom, thanks!

One thought you might enjoy: Your everlasting life with Christ...has already begun.

I was born again some 40 years ago. I'm already "saved". Not my goodness.but His grace.
Merry Christmas!

ken (Old Texican)| 12.18.09 @ 6:03PM

Tom,
I don't know all the neat little computer tricks so I had to conclude my post before going and copying/pasting this link.
...My Christmas card to you and your loved ones...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeALTHQQAWo

Don| 12.18.09 @ 5:22PM

It is awesome that people today are leaving behind old dogma for spiritual truth. Good News for Modern Man!

don
fromnowtozen

Victor| 12.18.09 @ 9:06PM

Are you saying that your karma ran over their dogma?

Margie| 12.18.09 @ 5:32PM

Tom,
Greetings! ..."for 'In Him we live and move and have our being..'" Acts 17:28.

Yosemeti Sam| 12.19.09 @ 12:27AM

" ... Americans remain one of (the) most religious people on earth ...."

In countenancing!

In toleration of ongoing heinous crimes
against humanity - under their noses!

Oh - the facets of humanity!

Some 50 million, now, have not been accorded
the luxury of adopting a religion - let alone enjoying a life.

"... According to a recent Pew poll, about 10 percent of believing Americans no longer call themselves religious, but spiritual...."

Semantical mumbo jumbo!

Christian-Judeo religion embodies sacred beliefs. Sacred beliefs are intuitively ipso facto Spiritual. Inseparable - not part of a menu.

" ... Even Billy Graham has come around to this view, and now says don't worry, hell isn't a scary, real place after all, it's just the absence of God's presence ...."

Ah, revisionist evangelism!

I guess the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
will be just some dudes out for a ride - too?

Indeed, paraphrasing - broad is the road to
perdition and narrow is the 'path' to eternal
life. Notwithstanding a multitude of churches/
religions acting as traffic cops.

Margie| 12.19.09 @ 2:54PM

It just goes to show how truly fallen we are.. and how we can't save ourselves.
"Apart from Me, you can do nothing." Jn. 15:5

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.19.09 @ 10:54AM

JP,
I honestly appreciate your awareness of history, and your perspectives as a practicing Roman Church descendant.

I also do believe there is an essential "hiccup" if you will, in the thinking of Roman Church tradition.

You seem to parrot the words "the Man, and not the Book" I have debated with Roman members for over 40 years. On each occasion the Roman member would ultimately fall back on the apostolic succession idea.

It is a wonderful idea, sir, and worthy of deep respect.
However, the "hiccup" seems to come into play when Roman Church members fail to grasp that there were more disciples than Peter...ie: there were SEVERAL parallel traditions beginning at the very same time..beginning that first Easter morning when Disciples began encountering the risen Christ.

My readings and studies lead me to believe that until that morning...Jesus' disciples (the 11) didn't quite understand. Until meeting Jesus ressurected, they still had a format in their mind of following a "prophet"...a wonderful preacher.

That day...and the days following the "light-bulbs" began clicking on bright in their minds and hearts as Jesus conversed with them.
So,
I am led to say that our relationship to the Man-The Christ, in these days is wholly due to the Office of the Holy Spirit...The Comforter...Jesus promised, and informed by the "re-lighted" memories those disciples as the entire paradigm shifted in their minds.
Those former interactions with Jesus prior to his death and ressurection must have been discussed among them and contemplated by each of them for the remainder of their lives.

Bottom line, there were a lot more "Church fathers" than the Roman Church fathers, regardless of what you think and have been taught for a lifetime.
Paul's writings, and the writings and collected recollections of the other apostles, (New Testament), are just as valid as any of the writings and recollections of Peter.

So, in my best understanding is that the major difference in perspective between we Baptists (who are not Protestants), and the Roman Church members, is that we Baptists believe our connection with "The Man Jesus Christ" is provided by a direct intervention of the Holy Spirit in "real-time", during our own lives.
Best regards

Margie| 12.19.09 @ 1:31PM

Beautifully spoken, Ken.
"Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 15:57.

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 6:13PM

The RCC believes that each apostolic tradition is valid. The RCC permits every Catholic to attend any Orthodox Liturgy (alas, the reverse can not be said to be true).

And, by definition, all Orthodox Churches are part of the Universal (CATHOLIC) Church. In fact, calling it the RCC is just another Protestant invention to make themselves valid because they are also "Churches"--albeit not Roman. The RCC doesn't refer to itself as the "Roman Catholic Church".

Baptists are, by definition, Protestants because they protest against the authority of the Pope. There are a more differences between the Catholic Church and Baptists than the intercession of the Holy Spirit between the individual and Jesus.

Tom Anderson| 12.19.09 @ 1:12PM

The argument that we must respect "tradition" as such, respect it *merely* because it is a "tradition," means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, *merely* because other men have chosen them--with the necessary implication of: who are *we* to change them?

Does anyone here recognize this as an afront to a man's self-esteem? Does anyone recognize the profound contempt in this article and argument for man's nature?

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 6:16PM

First, stop worrying about your self esteem. You should humble yourself. Humble people aren't concerned about their self esteem.

JP| 12.19.09 @ 8:23PM

", in my best understanding is that the major difference in perspective between we Baptists (who are not Protestants), and the Roman Church members, is that we Baptists believe our connection with "The Man Jesus Christ" is provided by a direct intervention of the Holy Spirit in "real-time", during our own lives"

I find this a strange statement as the Baptists sect could not have come about without Luther's "protest". And for 2000 years the Catholics have believed in the eternral "Body", Blood, Soul, and Divinity" of Christ. We believe that Christ -that is God incarnate is present with every Mass said in every Catholic Church. Not even Luther wished to destroy this sacrament.

The physical taking of Christ is a gift that Our Savior bestowed to Mankind. The rejection of Christ the Man is a hallmark of Protestantism, of which the Baptist are a part of. The Eucharist is the source and summit of Catholic worship. You can destroy the anicent churches, bascillicas, steal the ancient treasures, and again force Catholics to celebrate the Eucharistic Celebration in hidden homes, fields, and warehouses. But, like those "strange followers of Christ" of the 1st Century, all we need is the Mass. No heroic sermons, melodramtic meeting of believers, nor emotional singing of Psalms or songs can replace the Holy Communion. As long as there is one ordained Priest the Church will survive as it has these last 2000 years.

Ryan| 12.21.09 @ 9:06AM

Here's the problem.

It's your argument that rejecting the RCC Eucharist is the same rejecting "Christ the Man."

How can it be said that I reject Christ when I seek His face and will every day of my life? How can it be said that I search my heart for sin, confess Him with my mouth, and believe in my heart (Rom. 10:9-10) for my salvation? Where did Christ state - or scripture - that it is through my physical act I am made righteous with God?

That is my argument and complaint here. It is probably unresolvable with your dogmatic view of the RCC, and it is such as you that went to war over it in times past under a Papacy that was interested more in maintaining its power than who took up their cross and followed Christ.

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 6:17PM

Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Ryan| 12.22.09 @ 9:00AM

Context.

Christ was speaking metaphorically. He was comparing Himself to the temporal manna out of Heaven (the section you quoted is meaningless without the rest of John 6) - most pointedly verse 63: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

Gazinya| 12.20.09 @ 12:35AM

"Everyday preach the Gospel and when necessary, use words." I can see why most people don't like to hang with all this intelligencia.

jd| 12.20.09 @ 10:12AM

JP,

I commend your efforts on enlightening those, esp. Margie and Ken, who think they have found the way, but who really have wandered from the True faith. God bless and Merry Christmas.

Margie| 12.20.09 @ 11:39AM

Since Jesus said (not the pope) that he IS the Way (Jn. 14:6) that would mean that yes, I found Him. But truly, He found me!
God bless you, jd. I hope one day you and JP et al will one day humble yourselves before God and according to John 3:3 come to know the Way Himself.
"Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, if one is not generated from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God."
Until then you nor JP et al have not the authority, the power, or the right to judge anyone else's salvation using un-Biblical doctrine.

Edward| 12.20.09 @ 5:22PM

The RCC may be administered by human beings, all sinners and fully flawed, including the Pope, when acting as a man and not speaking with ex cathedra authority in his office as pope. But understand that the RCC itself is not of human origin; since Christ himself created it, which He in fact did, then it's origins are mystical. The RCC was created for us and is beyond human attack; it exists in a divine place. It is through His Church and its sacraments that we may receive the gift of God's grace. And I am grateful beyond words for that gift. God desires ONE flock for the One Shepard. God Bless You All.

jd| 12.20.09 @ 5:41PM

Whether it's politics or matters of faith, Margie, your posts always tinge on defensiveness. I guess it's all right for YOU to pass judgments but when somebody points out doctrinal errors on your part regarding the Catholic faith (of which you really are ignorant of) your automatic reflex is to cite a Biblical passage and get defensive. The Catholic Church is the ONE true church established by Jesus. He proclaimed Peter, meaning rock, to build his church. As a previous poster noted, Pope Benedict has a direct lineage to Peter and, hence, to Jesus Christ himself. The most important part of the Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist, when the body and blood of Christ is truly present. To disregard the importance of that and to dismiss the history of the RCC directly to Jesus himself, is not Christianlike at all.

Margie| 12.20.09 @ 8:32PM

But little old jd can pull the hate card can't she? (above) Hypocrite!
Liar! I haven't judged anyone but in fact you and your Catholic friends are pronouncing judgment upon Christians here.
Lots of luck to you because you are in a dangerous place with your attitude, and will certainly need it when you meet your Maker.

Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 12.20.09 @ 9:21PM

If Jesus Christ is truly The Way, The Truth, & The Life as Christ himself said He was & one believes this to be so whether it be me, Margie, JP, jd, or whoever else, why does one's denomination, or being Prorestant or Catholic even matter? I will purposely leave out whether or not I am Catholic or Protestant & say I believe everything Jesus Christ proclaimed Himself to be & know I am saved & will spend eternity with Him. Is there anyone here who feels they have the right to judge whether or not I am saved based on what I have revealed about myself & my beliefs? Please stop arguing based on denominations & whether or not one is Catholic or Protestant & praise God for the gift of salvation through the resurrection of His one & only son Jesus Christ! Judgement is for the Lord only!

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 6:21PM

Let's all put our faith in Democracy then. Catholics are free to agree or disagree with the Pope on the merits of global warming/climate change.

Margie| 12.20.09 @ 10:25PM

The big lie put forth here from Catholics is that if you aren't Catholic, you must be Protestant. Not so.
That is the same type of tactic that the Left uses.

Being a Christian has nothing to do with being part of a Religion. According to the Bible it means you are a follower of Christ.

Man has created Religions and there are thousands yet the Bible says all one must do to be saved is believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord, confess it with your lips. (Rmns. 10:9&10;.)

With Jesus it is about a relationship with Him, not about following a man made doctrine. The Bible is the source to find out everything you need to know about Him.

Trust Jesus, not man.. who is fallable.. even Jesus said he trusted NO man, for He knew what was in man. (Jn. 2:25).
~But you CAN trust Him, and what He says, and it is all in the Bible.

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 6:22PM

Where in the Bible does it define what a Christian is? The Bible says more than all one must do to be saved is believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord...

Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Margie| 12.21.09 @ 8:04PM

Well Dan,
What is a Christian? Read your Bible.
If you take that to mean literally then then I suppose that'll make you a cannibal. That's up to you.
What utter nonsense!
I suppose you'd better get yourself a cross to carry around as well because He also said to "Take up your cross."
He said to do this "in remembrance of Him."
I suppose if you want to try and take the book of Revelation strictly literally you'd have a pretty hard time as well.
You have to use common sense.

Margie| 12.21.09 @ 11:50AM

There is no stability in any Religion. But there is stability in Christ.

Religion is man's ideas on how to get to God.
Read what He says:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD." Is. 55:8

Christ is God's only Way.
As it is written:
"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." Jn. 14:6

"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Gal. 5:1.

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 6:24PM

Protestantism offers nothing more than if I feel it must be true than it must be true. Through some miracle of the modern age, I can divine for myself what Jesus was saying.

shoey| 12.20.09 @ 11:45PM

what i am saying is; it doesn't matter whether you chose to dwell on the rock or in the ocean all that matters is that you accept the burden of reponsiblity that is alotted to each of us. That doesn't mean you are a one-person Morality Patrol, it is much harder than that. The burden is to set an example for others to follow and then have the wisdom and love to let them follow or not.

shoey| 12.20.09 @ 11:48PM

and the strength to go on setting that example even if no one follows.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.09 @ 10:13AM

Kenneth,
Shoey,
...a splendid coda to this conversation. Thank you both.
You know, the Roman Church has a Bible too. I just wish Roman members would read it more.

Dan| 12.21.09 @ 6:25PM

At a minimum, every Sunday. Thanks for your interest in what I do.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.09 @ 6:52PM

Dan,
Please quote for us YOUR St. John chapter 3 verse 16.
Oh? What? (smile)

send internet fax| 1.2.10 @ 12:54PM

Exactly- which is why many of us aren't Christians. I find believing in things in that manner to be truly limiting. Sure, you have faith and you believe that is the ultimate truth- but for every one of you, there is another person shouting their own scripture and claiming that THAT is the real truth.

The more likely scenario is that there is no truth, or that whatever is around today is too changed to resemble what originally MIGHT have been the truth.

top voip service| 1.2.10 @ 12:58PM

This would come as a huge surprise to nations like Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, Ireland, England, Austria, Czech, Poland, and Germany. In those nations that Church was instrumental in creating thier cultures, histories, customs, arts, and everything that gave them a unique identity. The Rise of the West would never had occured without the Church. And for those who know of such things, Europe today would have succumbed to Islamic imperialism if it wasn't for the Chruch.

voip service plan| 1.3.10 @ 11:59AM

The more likely scenario is that there is no truth, or that whatever is around today is too changed to resemble what originally MIGHT have been the truth.

This is why, personally, I, like thousands of others have left Christianity. I'd rather figure things out on my own and make up my own mind than sit in the middle of a crowd of religious people all trying to convince me that THEIR way is the right way.

coolpete| 1.4.10 @ 1:30AM

And Judas, who ate with Christ, prayed with Him, and saw his miracles and saving grace ultimately rejected Him.

free blogs

alyssa| 1.6.10 @ 7:52AM

Of course you and your relatives are wrong. The Orthodox Churches broke from Rome. Prior to the Schism, all Catholic Churches agreed that the Church of Rome was first among equals.
driver update

alyssa| 1.7.10 @ 11:52PM

Catholicism when administered by honest ppl of true faith would amount to a benevolent theocracy the benefits of which would be unity and stablity, but as the current state of that church is a testiment to, ppl are not always honest or practioners of true faith any power structure attracts the worst elements of humankind.
best internet fax

coolpete| 1.10.10 @ 6:33AM

I choose NOT to follow Catholic doctrine on these ideas. I reject out of hand any attempts by the RCC to force them on me as they have and continue to try and do.

dog behavior training

coolpete| 1.11.10 @ 2:10PM

Bottom line...I truly believe I met Jesus...via the Holy Spirit...in 1965. I must be crazy and certifiably so. heh.

dog behavior training

alyssa| 1.11.10 @ 11:10PM

I left the Mormon church when I got far enough into their theology to realize it was not a religion, but a cult (and one designed by the same men who designed Islam, with Eternal Sex with a harem of women who cannot get into the top tier
of Paradise unless they are yoked to a *worthy* man).
reseller host

tress| 1.14.10 @ 5:56AM

Contemporary Americans, it appears, have no problem hopping from one denomination to another, marrying a spouse of another faith, or shopping around for a church or a preacher more to one's liking.
try voip

edi| 1.15.10 @ 1:34AM

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

edi

coolpete| 1.22.10 @ 11:30AM

Let's all put our faith in Democracy then. Catholics are free to agree or disagree with the Pope on the merits of global warming/climate change.

Algarve Portugal

mattb| 1.25.10 @ 11:55AM

It used to be just that easy to generalize about Americans and religion...sadly, that is no longer the case.

Dream Interpretation

Dream Dictionary

hotel| 1.27.10 @ 11:45AM

CREATING life in the primordial soup may have been easier than we thought. Two essential elements of RNA have finally been made from scratch, under conditions similar to those that likely prevailed during the dawn of life.

Steven's Point Hotels

coolpete| 2.2.10 @ 12:54PM

If they get away from the core message of all Scripture - man's need for a Saviour, and God meeting that need through Christ's death and resurrection - then they miss the point, even if they put up the proper front.

Prestamos

darkvince| 2.8.10 @ 7:46AM

The eastern catholic church survived for what? 600 years after Rome burned?
Nah, you are simply regurgitating what some "priest" wrote. God bless 'em, they didn't even know what germs, (bacteria), are. They also killed dissenters.

Windows 7 Drivers

kaersten Ramelow| 2.10.10 @ 6:33AM

It may entail membership in groups like the American Ethical Union, Universal Unitarianism, or the Universal Pantheist Society. i dont think so.

ramfou| 2.10.10 @ 7:59AM

Fire and brimstone may have worked fine when Calvinism held a monopoly, but today's churches are likely to maintain that God has mellowed, that he's gotten with the program.

alyssa| 2.14.10 @ 1:07PM

Alan can certainly say what he likes about Luther, but he would do well to remember that Protestants are largely responsible for the creation of this republic. Constitution, etc. Army Surplus

alyssa| 2.21.10 @ 12:50AM

Of course you and your relatives are wrong. The Orthodox Churches broke from Rome. Prior to the Schism, all Catholic Churches agreed that the Church of Rome was first among equals. youtube mp3

Snow Shovel| 2.28.10 @ 10:26PM

I think religion is something very personal. It's about your OWN faith. It's about what YOU feel.

snow shovel

karen| 4.2.10 @ 3:35AM

For men always fit the occasion if there is any doubt about what a man should wear. Sometimes an invitation is not very specific about the www.herveleger-outlet.com
; or it’s a place you are not familiar with so you don’t know what the dress code for the venue is likely to be. www.us-chaneloutlet.comIt’s very embarrassing to be asked to put on something more suitable or to ‘up’ one’s dress standards before being allowed to enter a restaurant or nightclub.

ash| 4.23.10 @ 1:10PM

"http://www.globalblogcommenting.com">Blog commenting service

sara| 4.23.10 @ 1:14PM

http://www.paperguillotinecutter.com/">Guillotine Paper Cutter

ash| 4.23.10 @ 1:15PM

http://www.globalblogcommenting.com

james100| 12.7.10 @ 5:46AM

Fire and brimstone may have worked fine when Calvinism held a monopoly, but today's churches are likely to maintain that God has mellowed, that he's gotten with the program.642-165

Louis Vttion handbags| 12.9.10 @ 12:46AM

he countenance of North Face Jackets Perdana Menteri pGFP saudara, dan teknologi inovatif While greater than the North Face the Dalaia tersusun jubah Outdoor kasut sepasang Dan, Polartec, LLC pemaju of Dan, Dan, North Face UK Akan pengeluar Polartec pemasar laid to my charge to be North Face mens given to Hari untuk mengetahui pengaruh Parfum: North Face Jacket Kishtwar ufti of Dan Tahun pada North Face Clothing.