Michael333

I find that a thorough examination of what we know to be true, such as documented historical facts and writings of people of the time of Christ and earlier, allows me to make a very informed decision (or hypothesis if you will) that there is a God. A one, true God that sent his Son named Jesus. The other choices being 'there is no God' or 'there are many Gods'. I then examine the choices: 1. There is no God: If everything of this world happend by chance, and we are all in essence, animals, then the motivation of living is of the body and of this world only. But I then ask myself, if this is the case, why do we think the way we do? Why do we reason? Why did so many people before us beleive or acknowledge that there has to be some sort of 'Super Being' that is responsible for everything around us? Take a look at most if not all civilizations acknowledged some sort of 'God' or 'Gods'. So in my opinion, and from what I reason from examining my surrondings is that there must be at least 1 God responsible for all this. 2. There are many Gods: Some beleive/beleived that there was a God of the sea and of the sky and of the land....etc. We see this is Greek mythology or in civilizations that were primarily uneducated or pagen. 3. There is one true God: From a thorough study of history, I have come to form the 'hypothesis' that there is one true God. And that this God created all in the universe. Also, looking at history, we can see that the Christian civilization is the most advanced. Now lies the next big question: "how should we choose which religion to beleive?" Looking at all the major religions, Christianity makes the most sense and is backed by a multitude of historical facts. Obviously I am not giving this question as much answer as I could as it could end up being 100+ pages. But the main idea here is to do the research, keep a close eye on reliability of sources you use (because there are a lot of bad ones!), and make an educated decision. If your decision ends up being Christianity, then your faced with a multitude of denominations. Now it seems were back to square 1: "how should we choose which denomination to beleive?" One may ask "why would God want all these different denominations, although all believing in Jesus Christ, that argue or disagree amongst themselves?" Some have very few differences while others have many differences. Which is the "right one"? I look at it like this: Everything in God's plan has a purpose, a system, a law. Look at nature. It is very systematic, well thought out, well planned, and has lasted a very long time. Looking at history, which denomination is systematic, well thought out, well planned, and has lasted a very long time? A denomination by its very definition that is universal, for all Christians. Question for the non-christians: What is your thinking on why NOT to beleive in God? I would think it would include a total disregard for all of the historical facts and documentation that prove at the very least that there was a man named Jesus who claimed to be the son of God. I am just trying to get a better insight on how you concluded that there is no God. Thanks

The Bible has not had to be revised?? We have not had to REMOVE chapters?? -- what about Luther who decided to remove the deutero-canonical books and passages because they conflicted with HIS theological theories? What books constitute the Bible? Catholics can repair to the decisions of the Church, most clearly formalized at Trent and at the fourth-century councils at Hippo and Carthage; these produced lists of books that are to be accepted as inspired on the authority of the infallible Church. Inspired books, taken together, form the Bible. (this does not mean the Catholic church just "came up" with the idea to include these books at Trent..etc. It was held from very early on that these books were inspired. The Church just formalized them at Trent..etc. to make sure they are to be taken as inspired.)

So if a book "changes my life" that means it is inspired?? I read a book the other day about how bad smoking is, causing cancer, etc.. It literally changed my life! That's power man! Yet, is it inspired?

The Koran claims to be inspired, as does the Book of Morman, as do the holy books of various Eastern religions. Even the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, claim inspiration. The mere claim of inspiration, no matter how many times, is insufficient to establish a book's bona fides.

So, if the Holy Spirit speaks, shouts, whispers, pushes, moves, and changes you, and others that you have seen the same thing, why do so many others say the exact same thing, yet interpret scripture with so many differences? Does the Holy Spirit contradict himself? Are you saying the Holy Spirit speaks to you and the others you mentioned, and not to anyone else? Everyone else are liers The Main question is "How do YOU know for certain that the Bible is inspired?" If I thought it was not, prove to me that it is. I beleive that it would make perfectly good sense that the Holy Spirit works through the Church that Christ established -- which in turn makes the Church a very good source to tell me that the Bible is inspired or not don't you think? Basically, the Holy Spirit speaks, shouts, whispers, pushes, moves and CHANGES me and all other Catholics the same way it does you - as well as being verifiable through the infallible teaching authority of the Church. In no way does the Church do this in absense of the Holy Spirit.

Why should the Bible be taken as a rule of faith at all, let alone as the sole rule of faith? Why do you accept the Bible as inspired, because the Bible can be taken as a rule of faith only if it is first held to be inspired and thus inerrant. Some may say he accepts the Bible as inspired (whatever that means to him) for some

Is the Catholic who confesses his sins to a priest any better off than the non-Catholic who confesses straight to God? Yes. First, he seeks forgiveness the way Christ intended it to be sought. Second, by confessing to a priest the Catholic learns a lesson in humility, which is conveniently avoided when one confesses only through private prayer -- and how we all desire to escape humbling experiences! Third, the Catholic receives sacramental graces the non-Catholic does not get; through the sacrament of penance not only are sins forgiven, but graces are obtained. Fourth, and in some ways the most important, the Catholic is assured that his sins are forgiven; he does not have to rely on a subjective "feeling". Lastly, the Catholic can also obtain sound advice on avoiding sin in the furture, while the non-Catholic praying in private ramins uninstructed. True, Christ could have decided that sins would normally be forgiven merely through private prayer, but he knew the world would grow old before his return. With himself gone, he wanted his followers to have every possible consolation, every possible assurance, every possible help, so he instituted the sacrament through which we are reconciled to God. During his lifetime Christ sent out his followers to do his work. Just before he left this world, he gave the apostles special authority, commissioning them to make God's forgiveness present to all lands, to all people, and the whole Christian world accepted this until just a few centuries ago. If there is an "invention" here, it is not the sacrament of penance, but the notion that the priestly forgiveness of sins is not to be found in the Bible or in early Christian history. Don't merely fall back on your canned anti-Catholic answers to confession. Open your Bible, read the Scriptures, and think about it. Then post an educated answer. Lets not approach the Bible with "already-held" views and engage in verse slinging as many, such as Paul Juris, does. It gets us nowhere.

Still, some people are not convinced. One is Paul Juris, a former priest, now a fundamentalist, who has written a pamphlet on this subject - called "The forgiveness of Sins". The pamphlet is widely distributed by organizations opposed to Catholicism. The cover describes the work as "a study of John 20:23, a much misunderstood and misused portion of Scripture pertaining to the forgiveness of sins". Juris begins by mentioning "two main schools of thought", the first being the Catholic postition, the second the fundamentalist. He puts the fundamentalist position this way: "In this setting and with these words, Jesus was commissioning his disciples, in the power of the Holy Spirit, to go and preach the Gospel to every creature. Those who believed the Gospel, their sins would be forgiven. Those who refused to believe the Gospel, their sins would be retained." He correctly notes that "among Christians, it is generally agreed that regular confession of one's sins is obivously necessary to remain in good relationship with God. So the issue is not whether we should or should not confess our sins. Rather, the real issue is: How does God say that our sins are forgiven or retained?" Juris says, "Since John 20:23 can be interpreted in more than one way, it will be necessary to examine this portion of Scripture not only in its context, but also in the light of other Scriptures pertaining directly to this subject. And, since we know that God' Word never contradicts itself, what better way could we arrive at the true meaining of this verse of Scripture, than be comparing it with other Scriptures?" This sounds fine, on the surface, but this apparently reasonable approach masks what really happens next. Juris engages in verse slinging, listing as many verses as he can find that refer to God forgiving sins, in hope the sheer mass of verses will settle the question. Yet none of the verses he lists specifically interprets John 20:23, and none contradicts the Catholic interpretation. For instance, he cites verses such as these: "Be it known therefore to you, brethren, that through him [Christ] forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and in him everyone who believes is acquitted of all the things of which you could not be acquitted by the Law of Moses" (Acts 13:38-39); "And he said to them, Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned" (Mk 16:15-16) Juris says verses such as these demonstrate that "all that was left for the disciples to do was to 'go' and 'proclaim' this wonderful good news (the Gospel) to all men. This is NOT a proof; these verses, and others he lists, do not interpret John 20:23. Juris does nothing more than show the Bible says God will forgive sins, something no one doubts. The only thing he does is sidestep the evident problem in the fundamentalist interpretation of the verse. Another Point. Fundamentalist writers often ignore John 20:22-23 since it is troublesome. They shift focus, insisting there is "only one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ" (I Tim 2:5). True, but they draw an improper inference. Christ was at liberty to decide how his mediation would be applied to us. It is a question of fact. Naturally enough, the one who is offended does the forgiving. When we sin, we offend God, so it is he to whom we look for forgiveness. But he can arrange his forgiveness either personally and immediately or through an agent. Which did he declare to be the usual (though not exclusive) way to forgive sins: by direct application to him or by means of confessing to a priest? If the first, then John 20:22-23 becomes unintelligible. The words would not remotely mean what they so clearly seem to say.

Because that was commanded and instituted by Christ himself. How do you explain the scripture passages that speaks of "...all that you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and all that you loose on earth is loosed in heaven"?? This is clearly showing that Christ passed on this authority to man, namely the Apostles and the successors of the Apostles, that is, the bishops. If the apostles and disciples believed that Christ instituted a priesthood that included the power to forgive sins in his stead, we would expect the successors of the apostles and Christians of later years to act as though such power was legitimately and habitually exercised. On the other hand, if the priestly forgiveness of sins was what fundamentalists term it, an "invention", and if it was something foisted on the young Church be ecclesiastical or political leaders, we would expect to find records of protest. In fact, in early Christian writings we find no sign of protests concerning priestly forgiveness of sins. Quite the contrary. We find confession to a priest was accepted as consistent witht the original deposit of faith. Note that the power given to the apostles by Christ was two-fold: to forgive sins or to hold them bound, which means to retain them unforgiven. Several things follow from this. First, the apostles could not know what sins to forgive, what not to forgive, unless they were first told the sins by the sinner. This implies confession. Second, their authority was not merely to proclaim that God had already forgiven sins or that he would forgive sins if there were proper repentance. Such interpretations do not account for the distinction between forgiving and retaining -- nor do they acocunt for the importance given to the utterance in John 20:22-23. If God has already forgiven all a man's sins or will forgive them all, past and future, on a single act of repentance, then it makes little sense to tell the apostles they have been given the power to "retain" sins, since forgiveness would be an all-or-nothing thing and nothing could be "retained". If forgiveness can be partial, how is one to tell which sins have been forgiven, which not, in the absence of a priestly decision? One cannot very well rely on gut feelings. No, the biblical passages make sense, hang together, only if the apostles and their successors were given a real authority. So how does these scripture passages hold up to "go straight to the source"? Where in scripture does it say to only confess to Christ himself? If that was the case, the above scripture passages and the ones I quoted earlier make no sense. Maybe Christ was just teasing the apostles to make them think they had power or something??.

Kat, during his life Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman taken in adultery (Jn 8:I-II). He exercised this power as MAN, "to convince you that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins while he is one earth" (Mk 2:10). Since he would not always be with the Church visibly, Christ gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout time, would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He gave his power to the apostles, and it was necessarily a communicable power, one that could be passed on to their successors since, obviously, the apostles would not always be on earth either. "He breathed on them, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit; when you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven, when you hold them bound, they are held bound" (Jn 20:22-23). Christ told the apostles to follow his example: "As the Father sent me, so am I sending you" (Jn 20:21). What he did, they were to do. "I promise you, all that you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and all that you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 18:18). Keep in mind that the priest does not forgive sins, he absolves them. Hope this helps.

Very well put Timbo!

But the Catholic Church has been forced to accept science because of the Galileo Galilei "incident". Either they started to accept science or they covered themselves with ridicule. I mean, they actually claimed the Earth was standing still and when shown proof of the contrary they tried to kill the truth in favor of their preconceptions Note what they say now: "ok scientists are right but we have always been right and will be right forever no matter what scientists say; we made a lot of assumptions about tons of things without having a shred of evidence but even if everything we say will be shown wrong we will still be right" They will keep retreating forever as science pushes them back. First it was Adam and Eve made directly by God, then they accepted evolution and said it still is the way God made us. How far back can you push God before he becomes irrelevant? This statement shows that you need to do a little research OF YOUR OWN and get your facts straight on the "Galileo incident" as you put it. This would be a lengthy discussion in itself. I say "research of your own" because if you actually have done historical research, and not been guided by others' anti-christian, one-sided opinions, for the mere purpose of "patronizing", then you just might have a different view on things. Also, please share with us the sources you are claim to be quoting from. You fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo

(Lepaca) Theory of Evolution... "they explain processes (evolution, photosintesis) or analyze the natural behaviour of certain entities (gravity etc). NOTE: Christians should not "propose to throw out evolution". I think there is some major mis-communication in this discussion regarding how Christians view Science, evolution, etc. We are not proposing to throw it out, we just have a different view regarding evolution. I am Catholic so here is a bit of info that I go by: What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief. Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5). The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6). Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man

I look forward to seeing the smiling faces on my family. Even on my death bed I can see myself looking at them happy as can be, content in them knowing I did them justice the whole way. My family LOVES me to peices. They recognize me as a "good crazy." My sense of humor is remarkable I'm told. I don't use the word "believe." I still have my mom left. She knows that I think I'll never see my Dad again. I loved him so much and will miss him. I guess it'd be nice to think I'd get to see him again sure. That's one of many belated gifts your religions gives you after you die where you can't test it now. To this world, that's all inconsequential. Have you ever been depressed? I'm sure you were at least deeply saddend by the loss of your Father. What gives you hope to carry on? I mean, if we just cease to exist then why do we care about anything? "My memory might live on and that's what I live for". -- but memories only last so long, big deal. I'm sure you don't mean that is ALL you live for. What do you mean by your Mom "knows that I think I'll never see my Dad again"? Love is very powerful. Love is not material. You can't touch it, taste it, measure it. How is it that a material thing such as our brains can produce a non-material thing such as love? Don't ask me! "Even on my death bed I can see myself looking at them happy as can be, content in them knowing I did them justice the whole way. " -- Again, SO WHAT? That is, if you are just going to cease to exist. Why love someone soo much like your mother and father, and be obedient to them if we are all just going to cease to exist at some point in time??? What have we accomplished? NOTHING! Do you see my point? A murderer may say "who cares if I kill a bunch of people, we're all going to "cease to exist" at some point anyway, and what consequences do I have?" NONE by what you are saying! From what I can see from viewing many forums about religion vs. no-religion, is that the arguments go around and around, and nothing gets accomplished. I can't make you believe anything, and I am not trying to. That is why we have free will. To make our own desicions and hope for the best. Mine just happens to be that - God IS love, and all who live in God, live in love. The meaning of life for me is that the purpose we are on this earth is to prepare ourselves for the eternal life in God. The choices we make in this life will have to be answered for in the next. God sent his only son Jesus to die on the cross so that us humans could be raised up on the last day as he was. To "open the gates of heaven". THAT is what gives me HOPE. The hope also to see my family and friends again in the eternal life to come. For without Charity, Hope, and Love, what is the point in living? I pray that your Father is already there, hoping to see you again. Even if you believe he is not, I think I would take my chances that he is. What would it hurt to have a little faith?

Before we go any further with this 'discussion', I would like to know a few things about Lepaca and Daniel Dennett and also Troyboy . What do you believe happens to you when you die? What do you look forward to as you get older and closer to death? Do you believe you will see your parents ever again after they die? We are all going to die sometime. That goes without saying. I would like to "sit down" and talk about what you truly believe the 'meaning of life' is for you. Why do we humans (intelligent beings, separate from the rest of the animals) even exist? Can you truly say that we are here due to Cells that, over billions of years, happened to form into humans, due to evolution/"natural selection", that are capable of Reason, Ideas, Thought processes, etc? What happend to the rest of the animals? Did they just happen to not get "selected" by nature for this? Basically, I don't want to know what theories you have read about or what you have heard/opinions from someone else. What do YOU feel, in your hearts, about the questions above is right?