The unofficial ask a Christian thread

[D7M]

By what method do you determine the difference between the voice of God, and the voice of the Devil pretending to be God?

and

Is it possible that the devout Catholic, Adolph Hitler, could be in heaven if he had truly repented prior to his death?

1. by their fruits you shall know them. If someone thinks they are hearing the voice of God telling them to commit genocide, they're probably wrong.

2. Ah, the Hitler question. Is it possible, yes. Anything is possible with God's infinite mercy. It's possible if he made a "perfect" act of contrition (which is very, very hard to do b/c it means you are perfectly repentant for your sins, not b/c of the fear of hell, but out of love of God).

It's possible, but not very likely.

[D7M]

i amcon am

a father to my children

a son to my mom

a leader/husband to my wife

God built us with the same foundation - however we lost the Holy Ghost due to sin in the garden of adam and eve. thus, we lost that portion and Jesus came back to provide us with that piece...


short answer

Ok, now I'm stumped, and very curious.

Which denomination teaches that "we lost the Holy Ghost due to the sin the garden"? I have honestly never heard that one before.

Also, the social analogy for the Trinity is weak at best. This is not a jab at you, just saying the psychological analogy, though not perfect, works better. What you described are just different aspects of a socio-cultural matrix. Transposed into Trinitarian theology, this would boil down into a type of Modalism, where instead of three persons of the trinity, you have one, who is just viewed as operating under different formalities at different times.

[amcon]

Ok, now I'm stumped, and very curious.

Which denomination teaches that "we lost the Holy Ghost due to the sin the garden"? I have honestly never heard that one before.

Also, the social analogy for the Trinity is weak at best. This is not a jab at you, just saying the psychological analogy, though not perfect, works better. What you described are just different aspects of a socio-cultural matrix. Transposed into Trinitarian theology, this would boil down into a type of Modalism, where instead of three persons of the trinity, you have one, who is just viewed as operating under different formalities at different times.

look at it this way... did God fellowship with adam and eve in the garden? did they if they died where would they have gone if they never sinned

denominations mean nothing just read the bible... i am not being sarcastic but have you read the bible the whole way through? did you study the bible or study what people said about the bible? (again not flaming you, just a open question)

the example i gave on the trinity is how i can be different people, yet the same person. that was all that was ment - a simple analogy

[GZA]

look at it this way... did God fellowship with adam and eve in the garden? did they if they died where would they have gone if they never sinned

I think you are refering to what Catholics would call "Original Sin" and our "fall from grace". "Loosing the holy ghost" isn't exactly how we'd put it so, like derek, I didn't follow what you were talking about either until I thought about it a minute.

denominations mean nothing just read the bible... i am not being sarcastic but have you read the bible the whole way through? did you study the bible or study what people said about the bible? (again not flaming you, just a open question)

I can't speak for derek but this is a charge many people attempt to level against Catholics. Most well informed Catholics would answer yes they have read the bible all the way through. A well informed Catholic would generally actually tend to think of your average Protestant as reading their bible for sure, as I'm sure you do, but with a very limited understanding of all the technicalities involved in truly grasping the meaning of the bible. For example, you claim "denominations mean nothing, just read your bible" but where does the bible make that statement? It's nowhere to be found. So your view would therefore be considered "unbiblical" (unless of course you have a verse to show me). Most people at that time didn't even know how to read and you claim Jesus' message was "go and read your bibles"? Printing presses didn't even exist and scrolls of text had to be laboriously hand written so the cost of any such "bible" (which didn't even exist at the time) which they were supposedly supposed to go read would be impossible to afford for most people. So what were the people to do? learn to read, become rich and buy a bible that they recieved from their time machine from hundreds of years in the future? Early Christianity simply didn't work like that. The Church was given authority by Jesus Christ to teach. The Bible was written by the Church for the Church using the authority it was given by Jesus.

Matt 16:18-19
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
RSV

Here Jesus is building his church and giving it the authority to teach in his name, he's not sitting around passing out bibles. As a side note, this guy Peter, whom Jesus builds his church upon... history tells us he was the first leader of the Universal Church in Rome... a Church was built upon his tomb, and today that Church (tomb included) can be found in a little known place called The Vatican. Our Pope today, he is the 265th leader of the Universal Church in Rome, directly descended from Peter (in case you didn't know, the word Catholic comes from the greek Katholikos, meaning universal). Don't believe me about Peter being the first Pope or Jesus himself founding the Catholic Church? Just read your encyclopedia, history book, or what have you... It's a historically accepted fact:

"St. Peter, of Bethsaida in Galilee, From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock .Prince of the Apostles, was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He lived first in Antioch and then in Rome for 25 years. In C.E. 64 or 67, he was martyred. St. Linus became the second pope." (National Almanac © 1996)

The office of Pope was founded on the words of Christ: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" ( Matthew xvi, 18). The attention of every historian has been attracted by the endurance of the Papacy through centuries that have seen the downfall of every other European institution that existed when the Papacy arose, and of a number of others that have originated and fallen, while it continued t flourish. The Roman Catholic offers these facts as evidence that the Church is not merely a human institution, but that it is built "upon a rock," (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume13)


"ROMAN CATHOLICISM The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD, ...the Roman church owes its existence to the life of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD" (Comptons Encyclopedia ©1995)

"Roman Catholic authority rests upon a mandate that is traced to the action of Jesus Christ himself, when he invested Peter and, through Peter, his successors with the power of the keys in the church. Christ is the invisible head of his church, and by his authority the pope is the visible head." (Encyclopedia Britannica ©1999)

"Jesus Christ has founded one only Church, the Catholic hierarchical Church, whose chief pastors are the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope," (The Early Church © 1945)

you get the idea...

What does the bible consider the pillar and foundation of the truth? The bible? or the church?

1 Tim 3:15
5 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH.
RSV

and that, my friend, is why a Catholic would dissagree with you on your opinion about not needing to follow any Church and just reading your bible on your own and figuring out what it means based on your own opnions. Jesus Christ specifially founded a Church and gave it the autority to teach his followers and specifially vouched for it's teachings "whatever you bind on earth wil be bound in heaven" "the pillar and foundation of the truth", not to mention the fact that the bible specifally warns against trying to interpret the bible for yourself if you were given no authority to do so. There are some 35,000 different types of Protestant Christianity out there all proclaiming to truly know what the bible is saying and yet they all dissagree with each other. All the while they claim the task of understanding the bible is so easy and apparent but how come, at best, only one out of 35,000 of their denominations could have possibly gotten it all right? A Catholic would choose to follow the Churches authority when it comes to understanding and interpreting the bible, because apparently it can't be that obvious and easy when there's so many differing arguing opinions among Protestants as it relates to what the bible really says, to put it another way here's what the bible has to say about it:

2 Peter 3:16-17
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
RSV

2 Peter 1:19-20
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation
RSV

So in other words, you can choose to crown yourself your own personal pope and decide for yourself what the bible says. But a Catholic would choose to listen to the man Jesus Christ specifically vouches for when it comes to correctly teaching the Word of God. Our Pope. That's why we put tradition on equal footing with Scripture, because Jesus Christ himself says BOTH are inerrant. However, I never read in the bible that he vouches for your particular interpretation of scripture (or mine for that matter), so to play it safe, I'll stick with the teachings of the Pope and the Catholic Church, the church Jesus Christ calls his own. ("build MY church") Isn't Jesus God? Isn't God perfect? So who are you to tell him that he made a mistake in choosing Catholicism as his own church? I say all these things respectfully, because I have noted that you seem pretty set against the beliefs of the Catholic Church. It made me wonder if anyone has ever bothered you to inform you as to the imense amount of evidence that you are up against if you claim you can attack it. To attack a teaching of The Church is to attack the teachings of the Pope, to attack a teaching of the Pope is to attack a teaching of Jesus Christ himself.


the example i gave on the trinity is how i can be different people, yet the same person. that was all that was ment - a simple analogy

I'm not sure if derek is planning on getting back to you... I am a fairly informed Catholic and so far have been following this conversation between you and him. Every responce he has given so far I agree with so I could tell you what he probably would have responded and he can further clarify whether my views are in accordance with the views of the Catholic Church if/when he comes back.... my responces are above in bold

[D7M]

Hey GZA,

Thanks for handling that one. nicely done.

I must've missed Amcon's last post.

But I completely agree with your post. Well put.

I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of an intra-denomination dispute, but we'll see where this goes...

[GZA]

Hey GZA,

Thanks for handling that one. nicely done.

I must've missed Amcon's last post.

But I completely agree with your post. Well put.

I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of an intra-denomination dispute, but we'll see where this goes...

Yeah, maybe I should have backed off a bit, sorry about that one :P

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

I am going to ask a zinger here. Let me know what you think:

I just listened to an interview with Dr. Bart Ehrman, a Bible scholar at the University of North Carolina. The clip is available here:

http://thedeenshow.com/gameshow.html

It is the first audio clip, numbered #28, and entitled "Misquoting Jesus: Scribes Who Altered Scripture." If you skip to 27:00, Dr. Ehrman says that there is only one single verse in the Bible that explicitly mentions the concept of the Trinity, namely:

For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1 John 5:7

Then he talks about how this verse is fabricated and was added into the Bible by a scribe. He also says that almost all Biblical scholars agree with this, and that is the reason that this verse does not appear in ANY of the recent translations of the Bibles like the New Revised Standard Version, NIV, etc. It was added by a scribe who wished to bolster the doctrine of the Trinity.

I say:

1) Does not the fact that a Christian scribe felt the need to add a verse like this to bolster the doctrine of Trinity show that there is insufficient proof in the Bible for said doctrine? You (Derek) said earlier in this thread that although the word Trinity appears nowhere in the Bible, there is "most definitely" proof for the concept. But it seems that this scribe did not at all feel this way, and this is why he added it in. In other words, if there had been enough proof for this concept, he would not have felt compelled to add it, and neither would the Christians have been so reluctant to remove it after it was found out to be false.

2) If a Christian scribe fabricated a verse about the Trinity, then why would it be a stretch for us to say that the concept of Trinity could also be a fabricated doctrine that did not appear at the time of Prophet Jesus [as]? It does very much lend credence to the idea that Christians have historically fabricated their texts to support the Trinity concept.

3) Christians often admit that the Bible has textual errors, but they argue back that the textual errors are minor and do not affect the meaning of the Bible. I would argue that this verse is not at all minor. Rather, it seems very major. After all, the scribe who added it was trying to justify a doctrine about it. It's not just a minor grammatical error...it's a purposeful addition intended to change the meaning, so much so that the first person to take it out was almost killed on charges of heresy.

Your response?

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[D7M]

good question.

I'll answer this tonight, as I will be busy nearly all day. *sigh*

Btw, you never got to one of my questions in your ask a Muslim thread

[BuffedGuy]

good question.

I'll answer this tonight, as I will be busy nearly all day. *sigh*

Btw, you never got to one of my questions in your ask a Muslim thread

Oh yeah, the one about the End of Times? OK, let me get to that now, God-Willing.

[amcon]

I'm not sure if derek is planning on getting back to you... I am a fairly informed Catholic and so far have been following this conversation between you and him. Every responce he has given so far I agree with so I could tell you what he probably would have responded and he can further clarify whether my views are in accordance with the views of the Catholic Church if/when he comes back.... my responces are above in bold

bro i will reply just do me a favor and post that not in quotes so i can reply to it... i can only get the above in the quote feature

[amcon]

what would define fall from grace? "I think you are refering to what Catholics would call "Original Sin" and our "fall from grace". "Loosing the holy ghost" isn't exactly how we'd put it so, like derek, I didn't follow what you were talking about either until I thought about it a minute."

loss of what?

we are in the dispensation of what now? (hint = grace)

what happens when we recieve grace? (hint = holy spirit fills us?)

and fyi i am flaming catholics just helping people find God(and as you know acts of man, acts of tradition doesnt = saved by grace)

[amcon]

I can't speak for derek but this is a charge many people attempt to level against Catholics(it is a fair "charge" you would be only fooling your self if you state that catholics read their bibles - they count on the priest to do that for them and it is tought that the "layman" cant understand the bible). Most well informed Catholics would answer yes they have read the bible all the way through(define "well informed... very inaccurate statement for 98% of caths). A well informed Catholic would generally actually tend to think of your average Protestant as reading their bible for sure, as I'm sure you do, but with a very limited understanding of all the technicalities involved in truly grasping the meaning of the bible

(rediculus statement - 1 Timothy 2:4 - God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. God does not want some to understand, but others are incapable. He wants all to know the truth.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 - The Scriptures were revealed by God to teach and instruct us in righteousness and provide us to all good works.

about timothy - timothy was on of the first second-generation christians. he becane a christina not because an evangelist preached a powerful sermon, or a priest did the eurqurest(sp) and tim was impressed with the tradition... BUT because his mother and his grandmother tought him the holy scriptures when he was young boy. we all realize that teaching small children is an opportunity and a responsibility. Jesus wanted little children to come to him(mat 19: 13-15) like timothy's mother and grandmother, a long time a go, (eunice an lois) the lay man or woman need to read their bible so they can lead people to Christ.

Romans 1:16 - The gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.

Titus 1:1-3 - God manifested (make known) His word in the message which was entrusted to Paul according to God's command.

So God wants everyone to know His will, and the inspired men revealed His will so people could know it.

[Romans 16:26; Col. 1:24-29]). For example, you claim "denominations mean nothing, just read your bible" but where does the bible make that statement?(thats the point where does it say denominations mean something? maybe, in revelation of Jesus Christ? the 7 churches? not names but clearly showing 7 diff churches...) It's nowhere to be found.(just showed it to you) So your view would therefore be considered "unbiblical" (unless of course you have a verse to show me(just did - start and 1:1)). Most people at that time didn't even know how to read and you claim Jesus' message was "go and read your bibles"?(really? i think Jesus' messages what the great commandment mark 12:30) Printing presses didn't even exist and scrolls of text had to be laboriously hand written so the cost of any such "bible" (which didn't even exist at the time) which they were supposedly supposed to go read would be impossible to afford for most people. So what were the people to do? learn to read, become rich and buy a bible that they recieved from their time machine from hundreds of years in the future? Early Christianity simply didn't work like that. The Church was given authority by Jesus Christ to teach. The Bible was written by the Church(you know that the bible was inspired by God right? and written by the divine grace of God?) for the Church using the authority it was given by Jesus.(where doest the bible say that? wooo, ive got my work cut out with this...)

(brother i wonder you knowledge and your faith after you blasphomy statement - i will quote may God soften you ears to receive the message... with love... please except the Lord - 2 timothy 3: 16 - "All scripture is give by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:")

[amcon]

Matt 16:18-19
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
RSV

lets go king james not some other thing that is just a part of the bible(dont make me pull off tons of proof that what ever bible you use is not the right one- lets quote the real verse - then i will tell you the biblical meaning not what you were told by a man...)

mat 16:18 - 19
"and i say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock i will build my church; adn the gates of hell shal not prevail against it.","and i will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: adn whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

the rock upon which jesus would build his church has been identified as: (1) Jesus him self(his work of salvation by dying for us ont he cross);(2) peter(teh first great leader in the chruch at jerusalem!!!!!!!!!); (the confession of faith that peter gave and that all subsequent true believers would give, the rock refers to peter as the leader of the chruch, his function not his personality, function of faith not works... just a peter had revealed the true identiey of Christ, so Jesus is revealing peter identity and role. LATER PETER REMINDES CHRISTIANS THAT THEY ARE THE CHURCH BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS WITH (FOCUS HERE!!!) JESUS CHRIST AS THE CORNER STONE OF THE CHURCH(NOT THE POPE!!! WANNA VERS TO BACK THAT UP? OK - 1 PETER 2:4-6, all believers are joined into this chruch by faith(not works) faith in Jesus Christ as our go between to God (Jesus is God - wanna vers for that too?) the same faith that is expressed here ephesians 2:20 and 21... about the pope he is a sinner and need salvation just like the rest of us... no disrespect)



Here Jesus is building his church and giving it the authority to teach in his name, he's not sitting around passing out bibles. As a side note, this guy Peter, whom Jesus builds his church upon... history tells us he was the first leader of the Universal Church in Rome... a Church was built upon his tomb, and today that Church (tomb included) can be found in a little known place called The Vatican. Our Pope today, he is the 265th leader of the Universal Church in Rome, directly descended from Peter(please prove this with any thing in or out of the bible... that could be the craziest thing i have ever heard!!! so the polish pope was to0?) (in case you didn't know, the word Catholic comes from the greek Katholikos, meaning universal). Don't believe me about Peter being the first Pope or Jesus himself founding the Catholic Church? Just read your encyclopedia, history book, or what have you... It's a historically accepted fact:(what? who reports history? man? never rely on man only Christ... you can read that in your bible)

[BuffedGuy]

Amcon, I accidentally threw away my 3-d glasses, so I can't read all the florescent colors! Aghhh!

[amcon]

St. Peter, of Bethsaida in Galilee, From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock .Prince of the Apostles, was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He lived first in Antioch and then in Rome for 25 years. In C.E. 64 or 67, he was martyred. St. Linus became the second pope." (National Almanac © 1996)

what is that crap??? sorry i will just prove you wrong...

with all due respect you now have completly discredited your self (as well as in my last post are not a person to be talking about scripture) you are very wrong...(my appoligies if i have missed something - please provide scripture) (mods please i am not flaming: just pointing out huge false truths )

"john 1: 42 - and he brought him to Jesus. and when jesus beheld him, he said "thou art simon the son of jona: thou shalt be called cephas, which is by interpertation, a stone."

[amcon]

http://www.pacinst.com/antichri.htm (--- answer to this, i will post more about this later...

The office of Pope was founded on the words of Christ: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" ( Matthew xvi, 18). The attention of every historian has been attracted by the endurance of the Papacy through centuries that have seen the downfall of every other European institution that existed when the Papacy arose, and of a number of others that have originated and fallen, while it continued t flourish. The Roman Catholic offers these facts as evidence that the Church is not merely a human institution, but that it is built "upon a rock," (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume13)


"ROMAN CATHOLICISM The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD, ...the Roman church owes its existence to the life of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD" (Comptons Encyclopedia ©1995)

"Roman Catholic authority rests upon a mandate that is traced to the action of Jesus Christ himself, when he invested Peter and, through Peter, his successors with the power of the keys in the church. Christ is the invisible head of his church, and by his authority the pope is the visible head." (Encyclopedia Britannica ©1999)

"Jesus Christ has founded one only Church, the Catholic hierarchical Church, whose chief pastors are the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope," (The Early Church © 1945)

you get the idea...

[amcon]

this one should be fun :

the real vers:

1 tim 3: 15 - "but if i terry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth."

not of the pope, or of the just the church - it "is the church of the living God" not a denomination.

to be a chruch leader is a heavy responsiblity because church bleongs to the living God(not the pope). church leaders should not be elected because they are popular, nor shoudl they be allowed to push their way to the top. instead the should be chosen by the church becaus of their respect for truth(the word of God, not tradition - unless it is in the bible and you are jewish) both in doctrine and in their personal lives!!!

the lis of qualifaications for the chruch office show that living a blameless and pure life requries effort and self-discipline. all belivers, even if they never plan to be church leaders should strive to follow these guidelines because the are consistent with what God says is true and right. the strength to do so comes from what? a priest ? a pope? a confession? NO!!! from Christ and the Grace he allots us.

What does the bible consider the pillar and foundation of the truth? The bible? or the church? answer ^^^^^ Christ!!!

[amcon]

and that, my friend, is why a Catholic would disagree with you on your opinion about not needing to follow any Church and just reading your bible on your own and figuring out what it means based on your own opnions.(the holy spirit reveals the scriptures to us... under your system a man does... all men are sinners and as filthy as rags(and those are some filthy rags)) Jesus Christ specifially founded a Church and gave it the autority to teach his followers and specifially vouched for it's teachings "whatever you bind on earth wil be bound in heaven"(that vers refers to crown you earn on earth... do you know what the crowns are and how to earn them? you should cause that is what you will through at Jesus' feet after you are judged... hint their are seven of them) "the pillar and foundation of the truth"(again men are sinners, their for can not be full of truth except from faith in God, do you believe that only the pope can have faith?), not to mention the fact that the bible specifally warns against trying to interpret the bible for yourself if you were given no authority to do so.(give me verses) There are some 35,000 different types of Protestant Christianity out there all proclaiming to truly know what the bible is saying and yet they all dissagree with each other. All the while they claim the task of understanding the bible is so easy and apparent but how come, at best, only one out of 35,000 of their denominations could have possibly gotten it all right?(satan is strong) A Catholic would choose to follow the Churches authority when it comes to understanding and interpreting the bible, because apparently it can't be that obvious and easy when there's so many differing arguing opinions among Protestants as it relates to what the bible really says, to put it another way here's what the bible has to say about it:

2 Peter 3:16-17
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
RSV

wow, you bible is soooo offff !!! is it even christian???

1 peter 3:16 - "having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accues you good conversation in christ." meaninig - you bible in not even close!!! you man not be able to keep people from attacking you, but you can at least stop supplyin them with ammunition!!! you are sounding like mickey mouse taught you the bible... sorry if that is mean... sorry. as long as you do what is right(pray, read the bible, bible study - go to a good church) accusation will be empty adn will only ebmarrass them (not your self).

2 Peter 1:19-20
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.
RSV

did i do something in reguarding to prophecy??? or were we talking about bibles and churches... why did you quote that vers?

send me your address(kidding dont do that)so i can send you a real bible... im tired of retyping the correct verses - well, i shouldnt be this has been a very good bible study for me... (lol i guess if you read this you to !!!)
correct vrs
2 peter 1:19 "we have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereonto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in ta dark place, untill the day dawn, and the day star arise inn you harts:" you vers is not even close to that!!!

so what that says is : - ) see christ is the day sat, and when he returns(rapture), he will shine in his full glory. untill that day we have SCRIPTURE as a lamp, adn the wholy spriti to illuminate scripture for us(not man) and guide us as we seek the truth, or as we seek Jesus. for more on Christ as the day star ... see ... luke 1:78, ephesians 5:14, revelation 2:28 and 22:16 - in gen as well what was it that led moses day and night?

vrs 20 same book "knowing this first (not -First of all you must understand this), that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretatin.(not -hat no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.)." see the difference? the changes are subtle like the devil - like he was to eve in the garden subtlely tricking her to eat... eat the wrong fruit - i think you are eating the wrong fruit... (actually i know it)

[amcon]

So in other words, you can choose to crown yourself your own personal pope(no i dont want to go to hell and decide for yourself what the bible says. But a Catholic would choose to listen to the man Jesus Christ specifically vouches for when it comes to correctly teaching the Word of God(show me this in the bible... cause if you refering to an apostle i would love to meet him!!!! and dont say the pope - he is just a man - unless you can show me some doctrine?). Our Pope. That's why we put tradition on equal footing with Scripture(prove that in the bible. tradition of man = scripture), because Jesus Christ himself says BOTH are inerrant(where?). However, I never read in the bible that he vouches for your particular interpretation of scripture (or mine for that matter), so to play it safe, I'll stick with the teachings of the Pope and the Catholic Church, the church Jesus Christ calls his own. ("build MY church") Isn't Jesus God? Isn't God perfect? So who are you to tell him that he made a mistake in choosing Catholicism as his own church?(he didnt - you or the pope is adding that in there...) I say all these things respectfully, because I have noted that you seem pretty set against the beliefs of the Catholic Church(yes and no - i believe some people can get saved and go to heaven and be in the catholic church - but, as you have shown the doctrine is more pagan (tradition) than christian). It made me wonder if anyone has ever bothered you to inform you as to the imense amount of evidence that you are up against if you claim you can attack it. To attack a teaching of The Church is to attack the teachings of the Pope(yes it is and that is why with the bible i can crush it...easily... men will fail you (men = pope, pope is a sinner and needs salvation)), to attack a teaching of the Pope is to attack a teaching of Jesus Christ himself.(not even close - i will prove this tomorrow - gladly - hope you have time to check verses tomorrow cause im going to show you personally how to read the bible and God will inspire you hart(if it is not hardend) to see the truth... i will pray for both of us...)

[amcon]

Amcon, I accidentally threw away my 3-d glasses, so I can't read all the florescent colors! Aghhh!

i like green... it is my fav color... would you prefer yellow?

[amcon]

Oh yeah, the one about the End of Times? OK, let me get to that now, God-Willing.

pm me when that is done i will love to read it... i am going to do some end times in my response to this chatholic thread...tomorrow it is going to be amazing !!!

[peachfuzz]

i apologize if this has been asked but i just found this thread.

to me christianity has always been about a relationship, not rituals. can you please explain why catholics confess to a priest and not to the lord himself and why they pray to statues and figures?

also i have always considered myself to be a christian, and a good one at that. recently however i have been questioning my faith and sort of "exploring religion" if you will. I feel i am regressing in my faith and it hurts me. as i further my education and the more i learn the harder it becomes to accept any religion. i see the hostility, hipocracy, judgement, and division it causes but also i cannot forget the times it was there for me, God was there for me.

How does the church (Christian) view this exploring? And do you have any advice for me as i find myself at a crossroads?

[amcon]

i apologize if this has been asked but i just found this thread.

to me christianity has always been about a relationship, not rituals. can you please explain why catholics confess to a priest and not to the lord himself and why they pray to statues and figures?

also i have always considered myself to be a christian, and a good one at that. recently however i have been questioning my faith and sort of "exploring religion" if you will. I feel i am regressing in my faith and it hurts me. as i further my education and the more i learn the harder it becomes to accept any religion. i see the hostility, hipocracy, judgement, and division it causes but also i cannot forget the times it was there for me, God was there for me.

How does the church (Christian) view this exploring? And do you have any advice for me as i find myself at a crossroads?

i would say that you have gotten away from reading your bible... is that right? the bible says their is one truth... Jesus - anything that brings you closer to him is correct... when i get in your shoes - i pray and read more... that always gets me closer to the Lord ...

[D7M]

I can't speak for derek but this is a charge many people attempt to level against Catholics(it is a fair "charge" you would be only fooling your self if you state that catholics read their bibles - they count on the priest to do that for them and it is tought that the "layman" cant understand the bible). Most well informed Catholics would answer yes they have read the bible all the way through(define "well informed... very inaccurate statement for 98% of caths). A well informed Catholic would generally actually tend to think of your average Protestant as reading their bible for sure, as I'm sure you do, but with a very limited understanding of all the technicalities involved in truly grasping the meaning of the bible

(rediculus statement - 1 Timothy 2:4 - God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. God does not want some to understand, but others are incapable. He wants all to know the truth.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 - The Scriptures were revealed by God to teach and instruct us in righteousness and provide us to all good works.

about timothy - timothy was on of the first second-generation christians. he becane a christina not because an evangelist preached a powerful sermon, or a priest did the eurqurest(sp) and tim was impressed with the tradition... BUT because his mother and his grandmother tought him the holy scriptures when he was young boy. we all realize that teaching small children is an opportunity and a responsibility. Jesus wanted little children to come to him(mat 19: 13-15) like timothy's mother and grandmother, a long time a go, (eunice an lois) the lay man or woman need to read their bible so they can lead people to Christ.

Romans 1:16 - The gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.

Titus 1:1-3 - God manifested (make known) His word in the message which was entrusted to Paul according to God's command.

So God wants everyone to know His will, and the inspired men revealed His will so people could know it.

[Romans 16:26; Col. 1:24-29]). For example, you claim "denominations mean nothing, just read your bible" but where does the bible make that statement?(thats the point where does it say denominations mean something? maybe, in revelation of Jesus Christ? the 7 churches? not names but clearly showing 7 diff churches...) It's nowhere to be found.(just showed it to you) So your view would therefore be considered "unbiblical" (unless of course you have a verse to show me(just did - start and 1:1)). Most people at that time didn't even know how to read and you claim Jesus' message was "go and read your bibles"?(really? i think Jesus' messages what the great commandment mark 12:30) Printing presses didn't even exist and scrolls of text had to be laboriously hand written so the cost of any such "bible" (which didn't even exist at the time) which they were supposedly supposed to go read would be impossible to afford for most people. So what were the people to do? learn to read, become rich and buy a bible that they recieved from their time machine from hundreds of years in the future? Early Christianity simply didn't work like that. The Church was given authority by Jesus Christ to teach. The Bible was written by the Church(you know that the bible was inspired by God right? and written by the divine grace of God?) for the Church using the authority it was given by Jesus.(where doest the bible say that? wooo, ive got my work cut out with this...)

(brother i wonder you knowledge and your faith after you blasphomy statement - i will quote may God soften you ears to receive the message... with love... please except the Lord - 2 timothy 3: 16 - "All scripture is give by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:")

Amcon,

to your first paragraph: It's clear you're criticizing a religion you know very little about. I'm not flaming you by any means. This seems to be the case particularly b/c I was raised Protestant, and subsequently converted to Catholicism. As a Protestant, I always criticized them, but when I actually began to study Catholicism, I realized that my criticism were actually completely unfounded. The point is that while historically, Protestants have put much more emphasis on the word (scriptures) this does not directly mean that Catholics simply "believe what the priest tells them". In a sense we do, b/c the our priests, like your pastors, have undergone serious study to be able to explain the scriptures. In all reality, our priests expounding scripture to us is no different than you accepting what your pastor says.

Further, the verses you quoted don't directly answer Gza's objections. Of course God wants all men to know him. But the Bible itself no where says that it (the Bible) is to be the sole rule of faith. In fact, it says the opposite. It clearly states (in verses I've already listed) that there is indeed an oral tradition, and St. Peter even attests how difficult Paul's letters are to understand.

Finally, since I have a back-log of posts here. I didn't see anything blasphemous about Gza's statement. What exactly did you find problematic?

[D7M]

pm me when that is done i will love to read it... i am going to do some end times in my response to this chatholic thread...tomorrow it is going to be amazing !!!

you're a dispensationalist. I already know what you're going to say.

[D7M]

Matt 16:18-19
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
RSV

lets go king james not some other thing that is just a part of the bible(dont make me pull off tons of proof that what ever bible you use is not the right one- lets quote the real verse - then i will tell you the biblical meaning not what you were told by a man...)

So the king James version was produced in what year? 1611? And there were no other scriptures in existence until then? For me, and this was part of my becoming Catholic, it was simply a historical issue. There was a universally accepted biblical cannon until the Protestant reformation. Amcon, have you ever read the "apocrypha"? Martin Luther adamantly deleted books of the Bible because they contained clear references to catholic doctrines. (for instance, II Macabees 12, clearly indicates the belief in purgatory).

So, to me, I found it horrible that the leader of a world religion would simply destroy a previously existing tradition because he (personally) didn't agree with it. Unfortunately, this has been indicative of the short history of Protestantism. If there is something you don't like, or don't agree with, remove it.

mat 16:18 - 19
"and i say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock i will build my church; adn the gates of hell shal not prevail against it.","and i will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: adn whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

the rock upon which jesus would build his church has been identified as: (1) Jesus him self(his work of salvation by dying for us ont he cross);(2) peter(teh first great leader in the chruch at jerusalem!!!!!!!!!); (the confession of faith that peter gave and that all subsequent true believers would give, the rock refers to peter as the leader of the chruch, his function not his personality, function of faith not works... just a peter had revealed the true identiey of Christ, so Jesus is revealing peter identity and role. LATER PETER REMINDES CHRISTIANS THAT THEY ARE THE CHURCH BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS WITH (FOCUS HERE!!!) JESUS CHRIST AS THE CORNER STONE OF THE CHURCH(NOT THE POPE!!! WANNA VERS TO BACK THAT UP? OK - 1 PETER 2:4-6, all believers are joined into this chruch by faith(not works) faith in Jesus Christ as our go between to God (Jesus is God - wanna vers for that too?) the same faith that is expressed here ephesians 2:20 and 21... about the pope he is a sinner and need salvation just like the rest of us... no disrespect)

Right. So here is one verse out of context.What do you make of the pastoral epistles? where there is a clear hierarchy described of bishops, priests, and deacons? Does your church have these offices? If not, then you are not in a biblical church.


Of course the Pope is a sinner and needs salvation like the rest of us. Again, it's difficult to criticize something you are not familiar with. Catholics never claim the pope is perfect.

Here Jesus is building his church and giving it the authority to teach in his name, he's not sitting around passing out bibles. As a side note, this guy Peter, whom Jesus builds his church upon... history tells us he was the first leader of the Universal Church in Rome... a Church was built upon his tomb, and today that Church (tomb included) can be found in a little known place called The Vatican. Our Pope today, he is the 265th leader of the Universal Church in Rome, directly descended from Peter(please prove this with any thing in or out of the bible... that could be the craziest thing i have ever heard!!! so the polish pope was to0?) (in case you didn't know, the word Catholic comes from the greek Katholikos, meaning universal). Don't believe me about Peter being the first Pope or Jesus himself founding the Catholic Church? Just read your encyclopedia, history book, or what have you... It's a historically accepted fact:(what? who reports history? man? never rely on man only Christ... you can read that in your bible)

But the Bible isn't a history book. That's like trying to use the bible as a science book, too. It's narrow to view the bible as containing *everything*. It only contains everything necessary for faith and morals, but not history. Gza is right. This is just historical fact.

[D7M]

and that, my friend, is why a Catholic would disagree with you on your opinion about not needing to follow any Church and just reading your bible on your own and figuring out what it means based on your own opnions.(the holy spirit reveals the scriptures to us... under your system a man does... all men are sinners and as filthy as rags(and those are some filthy rags))

Under the Catholic system, a man does not. Again, if you don't know about it, research, then critique. It is God, through the Holy Spirit, who communicates the truth to the church. We would never listen to a mere man. But we will listen to the authority of the Holy Spirit. This is why, as Gza says, not only are there so many Protestant denominations, but also, historically, there were so many early heresies.

Jesus Christ specifially founded a Church and gave it the autority to teach his followers and specifially vouched for it's teachings "whatever you bind on earth wil be bound in heaven"(that vers refers to crown you earn on earth... do you know what the crowns are and how to earn them? you should cause that is what you will through at Jesus' feet after you are judged... hint their are seven of them)

I don't see how this refers to the crown of life referred to in Revelations. How is the authority of binding and loosing on earth given to the apostles equated with a future reward to be received in heaven? What is the hermeneutical principle at work here?


"the pillar and foundation of the truth"(again men are sinners, their for can not be full of truth except from faith in God, do you believe that only the pope can have faith?), not to mention the fact that the bible specifally warns against trying to interpret the bible for yourself if you were given no authority to do so.(give me verses) There are some 35,000 different types of Protestant Christianity out there all proclaiming to truly know what the bible is saying and yet they all dissagree with each other. All the while they claim the task of understanding the bible is so easy and apparent but how come, at best, only one out of 35,000 of their denominations could have possibly gotten it all right?(satan is strong)

"satan is strong"?? That doesn't answer Gza's excellent objection. I'd like a real answer. If there is only one truth, which denomination is it? They can't all be right?

A Catholic would choose to follow the Churches authority when it comes to understanding and interpreting the bible, because apparently it can't be that obvious and easy when there's so many differing arguing opinions among Protestants as it relates to what the bible really says, to put it another way here's what the bible has to say about it:

2 Peter 3:16-17
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
RSV

wow, you bible is soooo offff !!! is it even christian???

1 peter 3:16 - "having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accues you good conversation in christ." meaninig - you bible in not even close!!! you man not be able to keep people from attacking you, but you can at least stop supplyin them with ammunition!!! you are sounding like mickey mouse taught you the bible... sorry if that is mean... sorry. as long as you do what is right(pray, read the bible, bible study - go to a good church) accusation will be empty adn will only ebmarrass them (not your self).

You read the wrong verse, Amcon. Read the correct reference, II Peter 3;16, and then respond.

2 Peter 1:19-20
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.
RSV

did i do something in reguarding to prophecy??? or were we talking about bibles and churches... why did you quote that vers?

send me your address(kidding dont do that)so i can send you a real bible... im tired of retyping the correct verses - well, i shouldnt be this has been a very good bible study for me... (lol i guess if you read this you to !!!)
correct vrs
2 peter 1:19 "we have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereonto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in ta dark place, untill the day dawn, and the day star arise inn you harts:" you vers is not even close to that!!!

so what that says is : - ) see christ is the day sat, and when he returns(rapture), he will shine in his full glory. untill that day we have SCRIPTURE as a lamp, adn the wholy spriti to illuminate scripture for us(not man) and guide us as we seek the truth, or as we seek Jesus. for more on Christ as the day star ... see ... luke 1:78, ephesians 5:14, revelation 2:28 and 22:16 - in gen as well what was it that led moses day and night?

vrs 20 same book "knowing this first (not -First of all you must understand this), that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretatin.(not -hat no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.)." see the difference? the changes are subtle like the devil - like he was to eve in the garden subtlely tricking her to eat... eat the wrong fruit - i think you are eating the wrong fruit... (actually i know it)

This last part still doesn't get the heart of the issue. If scripture is understood by private interpretation, why are there so many different conflicting interpretations?

[D7M]

So in other words, you can choose to crown yourself your own personal pope(no i dont want to go to hell and decide for yourself what the bible says. But a Catholic would choose to listen to the man Jesus Christ specifically vouches for when it comes to correctly teaching the Word of God(show me this in the bible... cause if you refering to an apostle i would love to meet him!!!! and dont say the pope - he is just a man - unless you can show me some doctrine?). Our Pope. That's why we put tradition on equal footing with Scripture(prove that in the bible. tradition of man = scripture), because Jesus Christ himself says BOTH are inerrant(where?). However, I never read in the bible that he vouches for your particular interpretation of scripture (or mine for that matter), so to play it safe, I'll stick with the teachings of the Pope and the Catholic Church, the church Jesus Christ calls his own. ("build MY church") Isn't Jesus God? Isn't God perfect? So who are you to tell him that he made a mistake in choosing Catholicism as his own church?(he didnt - you or the pope is adding that in there...) I say all these things respectfully, because I have noted that you seem pretty set against the beliefs of the Catholic Church(yes and no - i believe some people can get saved and go to heaven and be in the catholic church - but, as you have shown the doctrine is more pagan (tradition) than christian). It made me wonder if anyone has ever bothered you to inform you as to the imense amount of evidence that you are up against if you claim you can attack it. To attack a teaching of The Church is to attack the teachings of the Pope(yes it is and that is why with the bible i can crush it...easily... men will fail you (men = pope, pope is a sinner and needs salvation)), to attack a teaching of the Pope is to attack a teaching of Jesus Christ himself.(not even close - i will prove this tomorrow - gladly - hope you have time to check verses tomorrow cause im going to show you personally how to read the bible and God will inspire you hart(if it is not hardend) to see the truth... i will pray for both of us...)

Here are a few verses which clearly show the existence of an oral tradition. These are only off the top of my head, I will hunt more down,

1. 1 Cor.11:23 “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; Here Paul states he is presenting in writing what he had previously taught them in person, that which I also delivered unto you.”

2. 2 Thess. 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

[D7M]

i like green... it is my fav color... would you prefer yellow?

no, just keep black, I can't read it either.

[D7M]

i apologize if this has been asked but i just found this thread.

to me christianity has always been about a relationship, not rituals. can you please explain why catholics confess to a priest and not to the lord himself and why they pray to statues and figures?

also i have always considered myself to be a christian, and a good one at that. recently however i have been questioning my faith and sort of "exploring religion" if you will. I feel i am regressing in my faith and it hurts me. as i further my education and the more i learn the harder it becomes to accept any religion. i see the hostility, hipocracy, judgement, and division it causes but also i cannot forget the times it was there for me, God was there for me.

How does the church (Christian) view this exploring? And do you have any advice for me as i find myself at a crossroads?

I think you're in a really good place. You won't grow (spiritually or intellectually) if you don't question things. Everyone questions these things, most people don't *attend* to it. So, my advice would be to explore. Learn. Ask the tough questions. And pray.

In terms of the internal contradictions within a religion, well, yes, they will always be there, because we are sinful. They will be there in *any* religion. But this cannot be your criteria for truth.

Don't listen to people who tell you not to explore. It won't help you in any sense, spiritually, emotionally or intellectually.

Christianity is about a relationship. Catholics use rituals to express this relationship. It is a natural part of any religion. Some ritual is involved. Even in non-ritual type religions (say, Protestantism), there is still a ritual: opening prayer, hymns, sermon, closing prayer. Further, since human are not simply spirit, but are hylomorphism of body/soul, we require physicality to raise our minds and hearts to a spiritual place. If we were pure spirits, we wouldn't need beautiful works of art, or prayer, or rituals, we would simply "be connected" to the divine. Sadly, that isn't the case.

In terms of confession to a priest, this requires a few things. the Biblical reference for this is John 20:23, "whoever sins you forgive they are forgiven, whoever sins you retain, they are retained." These are the words of Christ spoken to the Apostles after his resurrection. Notice right before he speaks these words, he "breathes on them the Holy Spirit". This is the second (of two times) He does this. (indicating it's uniqueness). Now, it's clear if the apostles are given the power to forgive sins, they must first hear them (auricular). how else could they forgive sins if they didn't know what they are? Just go around telling people randomly that they are forgiven.

The other thing this requires is an understanding of the sacramental priesthood. Through the sacrament of holy orders, catholics believe that the person of the priest is given a special gift to act "in the person of Christ" (in persona Cristi). As such, when we confess to a priest, we don't actually think we are confessing to a mere man (who obviously has no power to forgive sins), but a person acting in the power of Christ (who does have the power to forgive sins.

I will answer your next question in another post, as this one may be getting long.

[WOLFCRAFT]

Were there any T-Rexs on Noah's ark?

[amcon]

Amcon,

to your first paragraph: It's clear you're criticizing a religion you know very little about. I'm not flaming you by any means. This seems to be the case particularly b/c I was raised Protestant, and subsequently converted to Catholicism. As a Protestant, I always criticized them, but when I actually began to study Catholicism, I realized that my criticism were actually completely unfounded. The point is that while historically, Protestants have put much more emphasis on the word (scriptures) this does not directly mean that Catholics simply "believe what the priest tells them". In a sense we do, b/c the our priests, like your pastors, have undergone serious study to be able to explain the scriptures. In all reality, our priests expounding scripture to us is no different than you accepting what your pastor says.

#1 - you were protestant before ? what was the denomination?

#2 - yes i put emphasis on the Word of God... not the bible, faith in God our Lord not the bible...

#3 - i study the bible... to learn about the Word - however my faith is in Christ

i have studied caths extensively... ask my polish in laws, they are both saved and still roman catholic. because they no longer have faith in a man (the pope or a priest, but faith in Christ - they also dont pray to any one else but the Father, or pratice in idol worship any more (example: black madona)) i will use dark green for buffed - he lost his three d glasses

Further, the verses you quoted don't directly answer Gza's objections. Of course God wants all men to know him.(---question answered then) But the Bible itself no where says that it (the Bible) is to be the sole rule of faith(correct and now we agree!! faith must be applied to Jesus, the perfect bible tells God word). In fact, it says the opposite. It clearly states (in verses I've already listed) that there is indeed an oral tradition,(prove it- no it doesnt unless you are bound by the law I.E. jewish) and St. Peter even attests how difficult Paul's letters are to understand.(vers please)

Finally, since I have a back-log of posts here. I didn't see anything blasphemous about Gza's statement. What exactly did you find problematic?

in dark green

[amcon]

no, just keep black, I can't read it either.

if you have trouble reading it use three d glasses... kidding - sorry about that, if you highlight it with you mouse and curser it will be eaiser to read

[amcon]

Were there any T-Rexs on Noah's ark?

no good question though i always wondered about those guys... so this is the best answer i can give... i am not well versed in this area, however - in Genisis the first book of the bible, God tell adam to go out and repopulate the earth... why repopulate it? why not just populate it? well, becuase, maybe - and we dont have strong evidance pointing this out - the earth must have been populated prior to the creation period (where God spoke the world in to excistance) so it is thought that dinos lived pre-adomite (if you google that you will get some very cool facts to back it up ) another person who i would recommend for the answer here is doctor dino him self kennth hovind - hard to find his website cause of all the haters out there but he has a very solid version that he backs up with science... it is also thought that deamonds came from that time period as well... nephelems that were displaced from there bodies and now want any body they can find... you might have one go look in the mirror and start praising Jesus Christ and see what happens...lol

[amcon]

derek why is the priest called father?

[amcon]

what would define fall from grace? "I think you are refering to what Catholics would call "Original Sin" and our "fall from grace". "Loosing the holy ghost" isn't exactly how we'd put it so, like derek, I didn't follow what you were talking about either until I thought about it a minute."

loss of what?

derek do you have answers to this? i ask respectfully


we are in the dispensation of what now? (hint = grace)

what happens when we recieve grace? (hint = holy spirit fills us?)

and fyi i am flaming catholics just helping people find God(and as you know acts of man, acts of tradition doesnt = saved by grace)

[amcon]

i apologize if this has been asked but i just found this thread.

to me christianity has always been about a relationship, not rituals. can you please explain why catholics confess to a priest and not to the lord himself and why they pray to statues and figures?

also i have always considered myself to be a christian, and a good one at that. recently however i have been questioning my faith and sort of "exploring religion" if you will. I feel i am regressing in my faith and it hurts me. as i further my education and the more i learn the harder it becomes to accept any religion. i see the hostility, hipocracy, judgement, and division it causes but also i cannot forget the times it was there for me, God was there for me.

How does the church (Christian) view this exploring? And do you have any advice for me as i find myself at a crossroads?

great post how bout answering this one as well... just a reminder

[amcon]

The Bible was written by the Church(you know that the bible was inspired by God right? and written by the divine grace of God?) for the Church using the authority it was given by Jesus.(where doest the bible say that? wooo, ive got my work cut out with this...)

(brother i wonder you knowledge and your faith after you blasphemy statement - i will quote may God soften you ears to receive the message... with love... please except the Lord - 2 timothy 3: 16 - "All scripture is give by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:")

blasphemy = God did not devinly write the bible - you are saying that some one else did and that takes credit away from the Lord. another Blasphemy is the pope saying he should be prayed to not Christ... john was very clear, john was sent to make way for the Christ - and people didnt believe john, didnt matter he did Gods work(works by faith - faith came first the works) John role was to be humble and take no credit for the Christ - john even said " the one that come after me is greater than me and is prefered over me, i am not worthy to even loosed his latcheths, or even be his slave" sorry, i was ranting on and on...

derek - have you ever excepted Jesus Christ as your Lord an saviour?

[fit4ever]

It's unwise to attempt to disect the love that has been shed upon us. Because that discounts it all. People all too often attempt to seek reasons why someone or something hasn't gone in their favor. But yet, they fail to revisit the times that they probably weren't worthy of the greatness that they received in the past.

[BuffedGuy]

I'm pretty thankful that a Shi'ite didn't enter my thread. Otherwise, it would devolve in the same way.