velvet

I very much respect those who wish to be skeptical of scripture and ask how Christians deal with contradictions in the Bible. But I would hope for a little respect in that you recognize that Christianity is not ignorant of these claims of contradictions. I would hope that those of you who write those questions would at least phrase them in a sense of recognition that we have an answer, though you may not like it, to all the contradictions that can be offered. I'm not saying stop questioning, but make it more of a curious question rather than one that speaks implicitly as if you have finally 'caught us.' For a couple thousand years we have heard all of those which you can offer. Christians will be happy to offer an explanation, but it doesn't foster discussion if one just asserts it rudely. What's your thoughts?

Should give credit to whomever he copies anti-christian remarks from. Or do some have an opinion that Jim actually reads through the Bible to find all these passages. I for one do not and would wish that he give sources.

cause if it was I would have to say that lalas is in no position to comment on a player that is leagues above his own skills (literally).

I've heard it all to often, but the assertions are launched by those who broke away from the Christian Church and defined man-made doctrines that were never accepted previously. Then they claim themselves Christian, and their origins to not be Christian. Your proofs are unfounded against the Catholic Church because it relies on your man-made interpretation of the Bible. Catholics may not be Protestants, but they are most definately Christians. I want your proofs. However, I recognize with will get a lot of Jack Chick style accusations that either are fabrications or that just don't mesh with what you claim Christianity to be as defined by a few guys just a few hundred years ago. But proofs that the Catholic Church is not Christian.

Einstein's got a point. What do you think?

MY LORD GOD, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think that I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you. And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road though I may know nothing about it. Therefore will I trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. I will not fear, for you are ever with me, and you will never leave me to face my perils alone. -Merton

If Atheists do not hold to a higher power then what makes an oath binding for them? What do they swear to. I will speak the Hippocratic Oath soon enough and wonder what holds the Athiests in my class to the promises contained within. What power does an oath hold in the minds of Athiests?

Please, no irreverant answers. I ask in curiosity and not with an antagonistic heart.

I am Catholic and sincerely trying to understand Protest Reformed logic in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or the assertion that the Bible Alone is the rule of faith. As a Catholic I see the formation of the Bible to have been conducted by the Holy Spirit working through the Magisterium (Pope and Bishops) to decide what is Canon according to Apostolic Tradition - that is the tradition of Christ's teaching. Of course the Bible is the Word of God and is edifying, but I don't see where it says explicity it is soley the rule of faith. As well, implicity it does not say that, but rather it is part of Christ's Word to us along with the traditions Paul tells us to adhere to (Apostolic tradition not traditions of men) and the authority given by Christ to His apostles. It was the latter two that worked in unison with Scripture to present a Canon. Please provide an answer according to the Reformed Theology on the topic. And also comment on the assertion that 'Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men'

Anyone use Invisibleshield? Isn't it plain old 3M Paint Film? Anyone just use that? Looking for something good to protect my pda screen and InvisibleShield seems to be the best deal. Feedback of any kind, please.

Anyone use Invisibleshield? Isn't it plain old 3M Paint Film? Anyone just use that? Looking for something good to protect my pda screen and InvisibleShield seems to be the best deal. Feedback of any kind, please.

Why is it that questions and answers need to be short in the Religion/Spirituality page otherwise people won't read them? Isn't that unfortunate since these questions are so in depth?

(short answers ONLY please!!!!!!!!!) ha

Assupmtion 1: There has been no conclusive evidence that the theory of evolution is completely true. Evolutionists will even tell you that there are holes and that is why it is only a theory. The model surely provides some usefulness in application, but it is admittedly not rock solid. Until we come up with something better, this is the best we've got from the perspective of Science.

Queston: If you cannot explain the areas of evolution that are unexplainable by the science community at large, then is this not putting your faith into something? Are you not making a leap of logic? A leap of faith that this is true? Doesn't this place you on par with the religious so far as faith goes? How can you continue to say your faith in science is more qualified than religious faith in God?

Does this not apply to everything encompassed by science, and not just evolution? Can you admit that your faith is in science and that is open to the same scrutiny as faith in God? no slander please

All too often I see Atheists claim that Christianity is not logical and the Christian is either too stubborn or not intellectual enough to recognize 'truth'. I have studied science for years. Evolution: it doesn't hold up. It is merely the best model we have at the moment, but has too many holes to be complete. This is what my world-renowned secular professors taught. However, I see Atheists use science as trump card in the arguement against God when for all I can see their science background is limited to High School and trash articles in Time magazine. They don't realize religion is ad hoc to the science world. I have a BS in Biology, earning my MD and read all I can get my hands on. I am Catholic and would love to prove that I am not deluded, ignorant, or stupid for my beliefs. I have a sneaking suspicion that every Atheist response I have read so far has been written by people who have not even studied the Christian argument. Read Athanasius,Augustine,Aquinas then respond

I was baffled when I read that some Christians believe that we become angels when we die! This is not a Christian teaching and am wondering how many Christians out there believe it to be true. Please give reasons, theological preferably.

And why does it say that the Church is the pillar of truth?