RELIGION

[dacs]

---

- double post -

sorry.

[silent-kill]

everything will be proven in the moment of death. everyone's taking the risk of believing and not believing

[dacs]

first you need to define what is blind faith. who decides what is right, and what is wrong?. who are crazy, and who are not?. Its a matter of relativity. we define things on how we personally see it or how other defined it to us, how can we say if a religion is blind? when we did not put our selves on an equal footing of the other?.. we tend to have bias on things we want to believe because of some factors like fear, pressure, belonginess, assurance, and acceptance from other people.

How far would you endorse that 'matter of relativity' idea? If I kill someone because he ignored me when I say hello, then - as a matter of relativity - am I justified and not guilty of offense/crime? Just because we have biases, are we now justified in acting on our biases? Do we not know instinctively what justice is and what it demands from us? Are there no moral absolutes for you?

The Christian faith is not about definitions; in fact, it is full of mysteries - not the kabbalistic idea of mysteries but of transcendent things that could not be completely expressed in human terms. We could not even define God. We may 'know' some things about God but it would be impossible to define Him as He almost beyond our human experience.

That is why we are unique because we can "choose" everyone claims to be the truth. but the thing is they are just part of the truth but not truth it self. so, why do we tend to tell others that they are wrong, or their faith is blind?..

I personally believe in a God, a God that is not defined in a book because God is infinite, a God who create things, and destroy things. for some reasons he only knew. a supreme creator and a supreme destroyer.

I used to be a protestant, and I always judge and question on why catholics have idols, images on their church?. when it is against christian faith. and then I use to hate religion it self and all its commandments when they cant follow it them selves. but then I realize who am I? to tell them they are wrong and their faith is blind, what authority do I have, or my religion have? am I perfect? am I god it/him self?,. I return the question to you.

An agnostic ... Sorry if I have 'defined' you. It seems to me that you have many questions other than the ones you have posted. I hope I could help in your quest for answers. I would like to refer you to a website of a philosopher, a professor from Boston College. Click here.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

The fact that many individuals left the Catholic Church does not mean that they are excluded from the universal church.Â*What about the Greek Catholics?Â* Lutherans? Luther was supposed to be a reformer, not a protestant.Â* Are his claims right or wrong?Â* If they can't attack his claims, then they attacked the person.

Religion is man-made, man reaching out to his god.Â* Christianity is not.Â* It is God who reached out to man.

Luther was a reformer, not a Protestant? Oh, this is new... but I don't think so. There have been claims of his that were wrong, that's for sure. And this means such claims were not invulnerable to attacks. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, for example, are some of his claims proven to be wrong.

Christianity is a religion that is, in a sense, man-made, because the Lord Jesus Christ founded it and He was truly Man (as He was truly God at the same time). I guess you could say Christianity is Man-made because of its founder, Christ the Son of Man. Religion means to bind back. It means God binds back man to him "...in Christ, reconciling the world to himself..." as 2nd Cor 5:19 says.

[richard79]

hahayyyyyy

[dacs]

hahayyyyyy

I have to take this opportunity to thank you for opening this topic. I haven't had much fun lately - until this topic opened up. A window of opportunity has been opened for me to share and defend my Catholic faith.

Truth will set you free - if only you will allow it. I may not be able to provide a concise explaination of certain Catholic distinctives, but I could definitely point you to a webpage where a number of doctrines are explained in its historical perspective. Click here.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

hahayyyyyy

I have to take this opportunity to thank you for opening this topic. I haven't had much fun lately - until this topic opened up. A window of opportunity has been opened for me to share and defend my Catholic faith.

Truth will set you free - if only you will allow it. I may not be able to provide a concise explaination of certain Catholic distinctives, but I could definitely point you to a webpage where a number of doctrines are explained in its historical perspective. Click here.

Me too.

Oh, and thank you too, dacs. Boy, am I relieved and glad you're on Mother Church's side. 8 years, eh? That's long. That's really long! (Like how old are you, man, if you don't mind me asking? And why do I have this fear that I'm older than you...LOL!) I've only been doing catechism and apologetics stuff online on my free time from work and home for less than two years. Boy, have I got a whole lot to learn from you, pal! Like 7 and some years.

God bless you and love you all!

[monrose29]

richard79

ang imong nakita nga sayop anang mga tawhana makita pod na nimo sa uban nga religion..

bisan di pa ka mo sulti nga wala ka mag point sa mga katoliko pero klaro man ang imong gipa sabot ang mga katoliko.. kay tino-od man sad.... nga na-ay uban katoliko mo simba lang pero wala ma minaw sa wali.... ma-o na imong bo-ot pasabot.. di bahh

na-ay poy pari/pastor nga mo wali pero wala ma deliver og ma ayo ang bo-ot pasabot sa ang pulong sa gino-o..

karon ayaw i compare ang sitwasyon ddto sa uban nga religion which you think nga mas ma ayo mo mo wali ang pastor og ang gi walihan naka kuha pod sa pulong sa gino-o

kay wala baya ka maka cguro kong naminaw gyud na sila tanan.... to-od pormal sila tan awon pina himutang ang ilang pag simba compare sa katoliko nga gawas sod lang lingi ddto lingi deri.. na-a pay uban ma tulog..
nga ma-o na imong gi ingon nga mga blind... you cant blame them for doing that things.... kay na-ay katoliko pero wala mag buhat sa bulohaton og sa ka tino-od nga katoliko.. the same ra pod na sa uban nga religions... na-ay iglesia ni kristo pero wala mag buhat sa gimbahaton sa usa ka tino-od nga iglesia ni kristo

ang imo ra man gud nakita ang katong mga tawo nga wala mag paka bana or wala nag pay attention sa ilang pag simba basta kay makasimba lang... and then you compare it others...

because what we always see ang sayop man gud.. wala ta mag tan aw sa sakto....

[dacs]

I read the jack chick's comics and the article from Christianity today. The attack was mostly on the personal qualifications of Dr. Rivera. Interesting but still a good read though. Even jack chick was just a cartoonist zealous of his faith. Some of the comics are still available at OMF. I lost my personal copies. However, these lits are not to replace the bible.

Then why use them? Convenient tool for bashing the Catholic Church?

Richard79 : If you ever have the unfortunate experience of reading the Jack Chick materials, I pray that you would allow the Catholic side to be heard. There is a complete(?) refutation of the claims made by these materials that can be found in here at Catholic Answers website.

The fact that many individuals left the Catholic Church does not mean that they are excluded from the universal church. What about the Greek Catholics? Lutherans? Luther was supposed to be a reformer, not a protestant. Are his claims right or wrong? If they can't attack his claims, then they attacked the person.

What Greek Catholics? You mean like Filipino Catholics or American Catholics? Of course, they are all part and members of the Catholic Church. You mean Greeks who are formerly members of the Greek Orthodox Church but have reconciled with the Catholic Church? Yes, they are as much a Catholic as I am. You mean Greeks who are members of the Greek Orthodox Church who do not recognize the Pope as the supreme pontiff? No, they are not Catholics. Nevertheless, there are a lot of Catholics who adhere to Eastern Rites (i.e., Byzantine, Coptic, etc.) but they are still as Catholic as I am even though I attend the Western Rite (i.e., Latin).

Lutherans? No, they are not Catholics - although they are considered as separated brothers and sisters in Christ. Like a prodigal child, if you may. Luther is not a reformer in the truest sense of the word. He introduced a lot of novel ideas such as sola fide and sola scriptura - ideas that were never held by the early Christians. Luther, in translating the Bible, added the word alone after the word faith in Romans 3:28 - knowing that the original does not justify such translation. Luther wanted to take out the book of James because, to him, it was an 'epistle of straw'. John Calvin, the other better known 'reformer', also wanted to take out the book of Revelation. If these 'reformers' would have their way, how many books in the Bible would be left and left intact?

Religion is man-made, man reaching out to his god. Christianity is not. It is God who reached out to man.

Man may have made a type of religion - but religion itself (the innate knowledge of having a duty to a higher being, to God) is already in his heart - placed there by God. He may worship the Sun, serpents, crocodiles and other animated or inanimate objects. However erroneous his practice of religion (as how I defined the word) may be, it comes from the acknowledgement that all creation came from a creator and the fate of all creation is in the hands of the creator.

[dacs]

This would lead me to another question that i would like to ask... which part of the bible that states infancy baptism... where in fact Jesus was baptized when he was a older and now you were saying that you follow the Bible? please enlighten me!

Let us start with Genesis 17:12 - 'Throughout the ages, every male among you, when he is eight days old, shall be circumcised...' Consent does not alter the fact that all belong to God. The child is a privileged member of God's holy nation. The idea that an individual might opt out of such a remarkable blessing could not have even occurred to the Israelites.

Now, go to Exodus 13:13-14 - 'Every first-born son you must redeem. If your son should ask you later on, 'What does this mean?' you should tell him...' The fact that the child is not cognizant does not eliminate the dedication of the first-born. God's claim on the first-born is absolute – regardless of whether they realize it or not. Is God's claim on the rest of us, after Jesus' redemptive sacrifice, less strong or less valid today? On the contrary, it is stronger.

Let's go to the primary text many Protestants cite in upholding their position against infant baptism : Acts 2: 38-39 – "Peter [said] to them, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.''' They feel St. Peter was speaking doctrinally, stating that repentance is required before Baptism can be administered. And of course we all agree that infants cannot repent. But notice the very next verse of Peter's sermon: 'For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord God will call'. Clearly, the promise of Baptism – which is salvation – does not exclude children; indeed, here St. Peter expressly extends it to them. Note too that the phrase your children shows beyond question that St. Peter was not addressing the infants or the children in attendance, but the adults. And adults are required to repent of their sins when they are converted to Christ and baptized. Of course infants, who have not sinned, have no need to repent. Instead, they are welcomed into the community, and the evil one's claim on them – which results from the sin of Adam, or 'original sin' – is washed away in the purifying waters of the sacrament.

If Protestants are correct in their interpretation of Acts 2: 38-39, then 2 Thessalonians 3: 10 – '...when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat' - will be cruel for the infants. If we interpret St. Peter's directive to repent before Baptism as applying to infants (the reference here is to Acts 2:38, above), then we must apply this command of St. Paul's to them as well. For Paul – like Peter – does not specifically exclude them. Of course requiring infants to work before they are allowed to eat would mean they would starve to death, since babies are as incapable of work as they are of repentance. Yet there is absolutely no logical basis on which to exclude them from one admonition and not the other. For they are equally incapable of both.

Finally, take a look at Colossians 2:11-12 – 'In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping of the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ'. Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision. Babies were circumcised at the age of eight days. How is it possible [that] the New Testament fulfillment, Baptism, would be less saving – and apply less widely – than the Old Testament precursor?

________________________

(All entries in blue are commentaries taken from the booklet Catholic Doctrines in Scripture by Greg Oatis.)