Llanolyn

Gregor Mendel being the the Augustinian friar known as "the father of genetics."

Before getting started, I respectfully ask that all comments remain to the point and free from insults, ranting or deriding others. I don't think that's much to ask.

This question is aimed, respectfully, at those who adhere to the reformer's doctrine of Sola Fide. That is, Faith Alone.

What is you opinion of the fate of those Catholics who died in defence of their Catholics faith?

So often I have heard Catholics be criticised for not following the doctrine, Sola Fide, of your reformers, but I have never heard anything that speaks highly of their faith. You may disagree with their beliefs, but don't you think that such faith is a good thing? Especially in the eyes of God whom they believed in wanted to remain faithful too.

What of the faith of those who gave up everything for it. For example, the many thousands in Ireland and England who were slaughtered by English Protestants. A fine example would have to be St. Thomas More, who was the second most powerful man in England, who had it all and lost it all without regret, for the sake of his faith.

I must confess, I am curious. What is your opinion of them?

"I die the king's faithful servant, but God's first." St. Thomas More

I ask this question out of curiosity. Having looked around at the crop of questions certain self professed "Christians" here ask about others, masquerading as an "inquisitive mind," but really just baiting a like minded person to repeat the answer they already implied they wanted to read.

Wouldn't it be easier to just tape yourself asking the question, answering it for yourself, and then playing it back when ever you're feeling low? It would save time in signing into Yahoo! Answers, copying the form question from your favourite website and waiting for someone to copy the form answer from the same website and pasting it as an "answer."

Think of the time saved! Plus the fact that we wouldn't have to keep reading the same ridiculous questions over and over.

Wouldn't you agree this would be a wise investment?

Before getting started, I respectfully ask that all comments remain to the point and free from insults, ranting or deriding others. I don't think that's much to ask.

Does the fact that the Epistle of James is part of The Bible create a problem for you?

One of you doctrines is "Sola Scriptura" which says that the Word of God comes in only one form, written, and it's entirety exists in The Holy Bible. The other part of this doctrines is that it is perfectly clear to any ready and needs no instruction to understand it, not from a teacher, priest, bishops, etc. This is the doctrine of Martin Luther, the founder of your many churches, as he wrote in many of his works including "On the Bondage of the Will."

Martin Luther hated the Epistle of James. He called it "The Epistle of Straw" and wanted it removed from The Holy Bible. Does this create a problem for you?

All scripture is inspired by God, and is good for reading. All Christian Bibles have "James" in it. Why didn't Luther think this was good for reading? Wasn't he able to understand it clearly? Why are there so many interpretations of what The Epistle of James is saying, especially regarding "we are not saved by faith alone?"

For that matter, doesn't the fact that Luther wasn't able to understand it indicate that maybe, some kind of instruction is needed? Or that there had to be some body of people to decide which books had to be in The Bible, before it existed?

So, does the fact that the Epistle of James is part of The Bible create a problem for you?

Before getting started, I respectfully ask that all comments remain to the point and free from insults, ranting or deriding others. I don't think that's much to ask.

Why do most Protestants (at least on here, and that I have met anyway. I don't want to make blanket statements) promote the use of the New King James Version as opposed to other versions? What is wrong with the old King James Version?

For that matter, what if you don't speak English, or it is not your first language?

First, I'd just like to respectfully request that all answers remain civil and to the point. This does lean more towards a historical question, though it does have connections to religion, but it is more about history.

Why Do People Think Constantine Compiled The Bible?

I've heard people say "Constantine did it to unite the empire" or that "he did it to make Rome look good." Do any of you know the slightest bit about the history of the Roman Empire?

Who here has heard of "The Western" and "The Eastern" empires? Can anyone here tell me who Diocletian was? Did you know that in the fourth century, the Emperor Diocletian *willingly* divided the empire into four so it could be managed properly and to limit the power each ruler had?

Yes, Constantine the Great would reunify the empire, but civil war was already on the horizon, so it was either him or Licinius. Both wanted to rule the empire, but Constantine gave the empire to his sons to jointly rule as separate parts as it was before. If his goal was to "unify the empire" he did a poor job or it. Unless you mean, by splitting it up again, after quelling a civil war.

And why would anyone think that The Bible was written by Constantine to make the Romans look good, when passages of the New Testament (Mark 5, Luke 8) are naming demons after the Romans? The New Testament had a *very* poor view of the Roman Empire and identified it as one of the persecuting empires (Revelations 17:10). If Constantine's goal was to make Rome look good by using The Bible, he fell short there too, wouldn't you agree?

How did this silly notion of Constantine start, and why to literate people believe it?

Before getting started, I respectfully ask that all comments remain to the point and free from insults, ranting or deriding others. I don't think that's much to ask.

Why do Protestants go to group Bible studies? This is aimed mostly at Protestant Christians.

Learning all about The Bible is a good thing so good for you for going. However, this behaviour still perplexes me because of your doctrine. Your doctrine says that everyone has the ability to discern scripture for themselves. Why do you go to others to learn? Why go in groups to learn from others?

Protestants cling to Luther’s doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" which is defined as;

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

Now you may say that "Everything you need to know is clear" but then what are you going to learn about? Something "not important?"

Then there is the fact that so many Protestants talk about how all scripture is inspired by God (this is true) and right to learn and teach from (also true). They quote The Bible (proper thing) and say "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice" (2 Timothy 3:16, but read 2 Timothy 3:17 for something else really important) which is why I am still confused. You are right in saying all scripture is good and good for teaching, but then say that even the uninstructed can discern it for themselves, and still go to lessons to do so. Why?

I don't mean to sound rude, but this practice has always perplexed me. Especially since many Protestants have derided me for saying the Bible is something that needs to be read with proper instruction.

Can someone explain this for me?

Before getting started, I respectfully ask that all comments remain to the point and free from insults, ranting or deriding others. I don't think that's much to ask.

We've all heard a million times by now the claim that The Catholic Church has somehow altered The Bible, which they created by the way, that it is "not from God" and that it was to their own ends, or some other drivel. Where is your proof? Why do I have such a hard time finding a person who makes such a claim, but can actually point to something to back up their claim?

Look at this, just one of my claims here ;

"The "catholic bible" is not a true Bible, since the "catholic" one has missing and changed verses, and then added 7 books that aren't from God." (you can follow the URL http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuGlL... )

Where is the proof of this? Actual proof, not just citations from the websites of people who say the exact same thing you do.

If you do manage to find some proof (which will be hard), how does it compare the proof that this belief is entirely false?

Before getting started, I respectfully ask that all comments remain to the point and free from insults, ranting or deriding others. I don't think that's much to ask.

Answer for me, which came first? The Church or The Bible?

If you believe the Bible came first, who made the church(es) and how?

If you believe The Church came first, who made The Bible and how?

Before getting started, I respectfully ask that all comments remain to the point and free from insults. I don't think that's much to ask.

If you don't believe as Christians do, don't feel excluded, but please don't start insulting others or bashing anyone's faith. I think that this, also, is not much to ask.

This that out of the way, onto the question.

Did Zacheus buy his salvation? Please read the following passage ;

Luke 19:8 But Zacheus standing, said to the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have wronged any man of any thing, I restore him fourfold.

9 Jesus said to him: This day is salvation come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham.

Zacheus didn't cry out about mountains of faith. He did acknowledge that he may have cheated others. Zacheus acknowledged that he lived a life of plenty and offered to share what he had with the poor, and that he would repay four times those he swindled.

Where was his profession of faith? Did he just buy is salvation? Or can we infer, that good deeds work with good faith? That good deeds must be done in good faith, and good faith is completed by good works? To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, like the two blades of a pair of scissors?

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

John 8:44 "He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

Before getting started, I respectfully ask that all comments remain to the point and free from insults. I don't think that's much to ask.

This is a follow up to my previous question "do you Pray For Others?" ( http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=An... )

To those of you that pray for others, why do you?

For many of you, there seems to be some taboo associated with asking others to pray for you. Catholics take a lot of heat for asking the saint to pray (to God) for them. As in, on their behalf.

People often quote the New Testament and say "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus" and then say it's wrong to ask others to pray for you.

By praying for others, aren't you doing the very thing you are opposed to? Or even, dare I say it, asking other to pray for you?

Why do you pray for others?

Luke 20:38 "For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him."

Before getting started, I respectfully ask that all comments remain to the point and free from insults. I don't think that's much to ask.

Also, since it is really a simple question, can we keep it to a simple "yes or no" format?

So, do you pray for others?

Before getting started, I respectfully ask that all comments remain to the point, free from insults, and to have some kind of support. I don't think that's much to ask.

I am asking, who gave permission for neopagans to take Samhain as a holiday?

I ask this, because many adherents are not Irish, and can not claim it as part of their cultural heritage. They also do not celebrate in the way the ancient Irish did. Also because they don't observe the pantheon of the Irish. Has the discarded traditions of a people officially become fair use?

Samhain was not a "ancestral worship" day. Though there may have been overtone related to the harvest, the earliest descriptions of the holiday come from "Leabhar na hUidre." This book, written in Gaelic, describes a warrior festival in which men would burn pouches filled with the tongues of the men and animals they slew. The "Echtra Nerai" describes another test for a warrior.

Why is it now some "day of the dead?" If one was desired, couldn't a different name for the holiday be chosen?

And why are they placing it on October 31? Why are they saying that "All Hallows forced out Samhain?" Samhain is properly celebrated on the date of the new moon between autumnal equinox and the winter solstice. That was November 16 in 2009, November 6 in 2010, and will be October 26 in 2011. So now you can take a calendar and use it to find a fix date, and then claim that *someone else* usurped a holiday?

So I want to know, who said you could have the holiday? And why did you need October 31 so badly? There was already a pretty cool holiday on it. On the next day too.

( Read the "http://www.luminarium.org/mythology/ireland/cuchul... )

I would like some serious answers here, so if you're an atheist, I don't want to read any insults or other jabs at those who have faith. I get it, you don't believe in God. Whatever. Other people do. Ok? Answer if you want, but I respectfully request that you keep it to the context of the question and be respectful of the fact that others will think differently than you may.

The question is open to everyone, but please keep it to the context of the question. That means on topic and free from insults.

Often many fundamental Christians claim that Peter was not the first pope. What is this based on? The two big claims against this are ;

- Jesus was referring to himself when he referred to "The Rock" that He built The Church upon.

- The word used was "petra" meaning "pebble" and not "petros" meaning "rock."

If Jesus was referring to Himself when He spoke of "The Rock," why did the Gospel writers, along with all other early Christians, start calling Simon by the new name "Peter?" Did people forgotten that it was Simon, not Jesus, who got the name change?

As for the debate over the wording, petra or petros, many over look that Jesus actually used the Aramaic word "Kipha" which means "rock" and the Greek didn't come until later. But even if Jesus did say "pebble," wouldn't He have been saying He was building his Church on a bad foundation? Like the man who built His house on sand?

Some say that "pope" doesn't appear in The Bible. That is false because it literally means "father" and that term was used to refer to "spiritual fathers" all the time. See 1 John 2:13 "I write unto you, fathers, because you have known him, who is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one." We also have the example of Paul calling people his son(s) or children in general, indicating a "father-son" type relationship. Not literally, and of course, not the same as that of God The Father, but it is still there. See (1 Timothy 1:2 and 2 Timothy 2:1.

Then there is the idea that Peter was not placed in charge of the Church. But Jesus said to Simon "That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Jesus also said that He was giving Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven. Giving the keys was a term use to indicate stewardship, and in this case, the stewardship of The Church on Earth. That sounds a lot like a pope to me.

Then there is the fact that history, both secular and religious, for every century until now has called Simon Peter, Pope Peter I.

So really, what evidence is there to support the claims of the fundamentalists, that he was not a pope?

I would like some serious answers here, so if you're an atheist, I don't want to read any insults or other jabs at those who have faith. I get it, you don't believe in God. Whatever. Other people do. Ok? Answer if you want, but I respectfully request that you keep it to the context of the question and be respectful of the fact that others will think differently than you may.

The question is open to everyone, but please keep it to the context of the question. That means on topic and free from insults.

My question is this. Why is the doctrine of Synergism (faith together with works) so repugnant? Why do you feel that it is so damnable?

I know this is not the view of all Protestants, so please don't accuse me of making a blanket statement, but I have often heard people say that the "faith together with works" view of justification will send you to hell. Why?

I am sure we have all read posts/relies by "Chris" Or "David" or whatever the self proclaimed pastor calls himself (see an example here http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Au... I am sure we have read remarks from other people such as him who use ridiculous statements such as the "Catholic false gospel of works" and continue to say that Catholics will all go to hell. Why?

My understanding is that he Protestant doctrine of Sole Fide (faith alone) says that also long as you have faith in Jesus Christ and repent sins, you will be saved. Regardless of how bad you were, how unwilling you are to do what is right, or how unwilling you are to stop sinning or that which leads you to sin, just believe and be saved. As Luther said "Sin and sin bravely" (or as Jesus said "repent and sin no more.")

Doesn't having faith and works mean that you have faith? Why does that damn you? Does it only work if you have faith and a desire to keep sinning? Does having faith and works damn you because God doesn't want people doing His will, despite telling people how He wants us to behave? Or is it that God is angry at people who love, respect and worship Him so much, that they want to do good will unto others and do what is pleasing before God?

So again, my question is this. Why is the doctrine of Synergism (faith together with works) so repugnant? Why do you feel that it is so damnable?

I would like some serious answers here, so if you're an atheist, I don't want to read any insults or other jabs at those who have faith. I get it, you don't believe in God. Whatever. Other people do. Ok? Answer if you want, but I respectfully request that you keep it to the context of the question and be respectful of the fact that others will think differently than you may.

My question is, in what way were early Christians baptised?

Many argue that a person must be fully immersed in water for it to be valid, choosing a literal interpretation of the Greek word "baptismo" rather than focus on what is happening.

Ancient art depicts people only being knee deep in water while the baptiser pours a shell full of water onto their head. Still, other focus on the literal interpretation of the word.

This passage from Acts caught my eye ;

Acts 16:33 "And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptised, and all his house immediately."

This passage is often cited as evidence of baptism for those of all ages (which is another topic for another day), but it also begs the question. What were they baptised in? They were in an enclosed area, in the middle of the night. What river or bath ran through there? Or did Paul baptise with by pouring water?

When Peter baptised 3000 people in the river, which likely was only a foot or so deep, do you think the people would have contaminated their water supply by letting 3000 people bath in it? Or simply allow Peter to pour or sprinkle water on them?

I would like some serious answers here, so if you're an atheist, I don't want to read any insults or other jabs at those who have faith. I get it, you don't believe in God. Whatever. Other people do. Ok? Answer if you want, but I respectfully request that you keep it to the context of the question and be respectful of the fact that others will think differently than you may.

This questions is directly mostly at those who defame The Church (Catholic Church) concerning their Biblical canon with various unfounded claims. Claims such as ;

- The Church prevented the spread of The Bible

- The Church altered and added to The Bible

- The Church kept the Bible in Latin to make sure no one could read it

Again, this is mostly directly to those who make such claims, not a blanket statement for everyone. Moving on, is it embarrassing for you to make such claims when ;

- The first book printed in Europe on a printing press was The Gutenberg Bible

- Pope Pius II, reported that in Frankfurt, "a marvellous man (Gutenberg) had been promoting the Bible"

- Every existing copy of the Gutenberg Bible contains the books erroneously labelled "apocryphal," not to mention the hand written texts

- The Cyrillic alphabet was invented by The Church to promote literacy

- Still existing copies of hand written text can be found in languages such as the Old English Bible by Aelfric, Gennadievskaia Biblia in Slavonic and Biblia Alfonsina in Spanish, just to name a few

- Henry VIII (founder of Anglicanism) declared on the 12th of May, 1543 (after breaking with Catholicism), that only male gentry, male nobles, male royalty, and approved clergy were permitted to read the Bible

- The Douay-Rheims Bible was created in (then) current vernacular Modern English about 11 years before the KJV

How can you rectify your claims with all this evidence against them?

I would like some serious answers here, so if you're an atheist, I don't want to read any insults or other jabs at those who have faith. I get it, you don't believe in God. Whatever. Other people do. Ok? Answer if you want, but I respectfully request that you keep it to the context of the question and be respectful of the fact that others will think differently than you may.

The question is open to everyone, but please keep it to the context of the question. That means on topic and free from insults.

In 1980, the martyrs Thomas More and John Fisher, were both names saints in the Anglican Communion. I ask was this not hypocritical for these two reasons ;

1) that Anglicanism do not believe in saints

2) that both of these men were martyred for their opposition to King Henry VIII and his formation of the Anglican schism (read below)

Henry had both men martyred for their opposition, and this was before it was "Reformed" and became Protestant. Thomas More and Jon Fisher not only clung to the ideals of The Catholic Church, which Anglicanism rejects, but these men also rejected the "First Period Anglican Schism" which is something the Anglican Church of today also rejects. Let’s not forget their stance on Protestantism, which they too rejected.

Article 22 of the "39 Articles of Faith" rejects the notion of saints. Yet, not only does the Anglican Church accept all pre-schism Catholic saints, it named two more. Taken from the long list of Catholics who died for their faith, at the hands of Anglicans.

Does this adding of Thomas More and John Fisher to the Anglican calendar of Saints seem not only unnecessary but also hypocritical?

I would like some serious answers here, so if you're an atheist, I don't want to read any insults or other jabs at those who have faith. I get it, you don't believe in God. Whatever. Other people do. Ok? Answer if you want, but I respectfully request that you keep it to the context of the question and be respectful of the fact that others will think differently than you may.

The question is open to everyone, but please keep it to the context of the question. That means on topic and free from insults.

Moving on, let us address the accusation that the Catholic Church altered The Bible, and that it also prevents/forbids people from reading it.

It has been said that The Church has added to and/or subtracted from The Bible (more commonly said is the former rather than the latter) to suit its own ends. Then these same people say that The Church forbids people from reading The Bible, has taken steps to make sure that people don't and left The Bible in Latin to make sure of it. Don't these arguments cancel each other out?

Despite the fact that all evidence points to the fact that these arguments are blatant fabrications without a shred of evidence, there is no logic to them what so ever.

Why would The Church translate The Bible into Latin (hence the Latin Vulgate which means "common Latin" since it was a "common language") when Greek fell out of common use, when it would have been easier to leave it as is? For that matter, why did it get translated into French, Saxon, English, Spanish, and various Slavic languages (the Cyrillic alphabet had to be *invented* for this purpose), etc, if their intent was for no one to read it?

If no one was to read it, why was it required to "add and/or "subtract" pages from The Bible? Why add/subtract to a book that you do not follow and don't let anyone read? For the benefits of those who are in on the gig? That argument makes no sense, again, despite all evidence pointing to the argument being a lie in the first place and that only reformers like Martin Luther have altered The Bible.

Why did The Church employ people to make so many copies of The Bible, in local languages and current vernacular, if no one was to read them? Why did The Church put quotes from The Bible in The Missal? Why are Bible quotes in its hymns? Why are there Bible quotes on the walls of Churches? Why are there Bible quotes on stain glass, ornate and designed to be *looked at*? Why are there Bible quotes in The Catholic Catechism as citations for Catholic doctrine for those who want to ask questions?

I'm just curious. How can these contradictions be rectified with each other? I already know that they can not be rectified with historical fact.

St.Patrick's Day is not about Ireland (not that I opposed to a little pride in my Irish heritage).

St.Patrick's Day is not about drinking.

St.Patrick is not about wearing green or other gaudy Irish stereotypes.

St.Patrick's Day is about St.Patrick and other Irish missionaries (both to and from the Emerald Isle) and the propagation of the Catholic faith.

Who here remembers that?