christian/catholic?
 

why do people separate the catholic faith from the rest of christianity? i thought catholics believed in Jesus, God, Mary, Joshef (sp?), Bible, etc.
i'm not trying to be a jerk, but i've been wondering about this for some time now, and i still can't seem to find any plausible answers.

catholicism is still a part of christianity.

i think the main separation was caused when the protestants (via martin Luther) left the catholic church over a number of grievances. You can read Luther's Ninety-Five Theses: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/...inetyfive.html

Today it seems that the biggest complaints that protestants have with the catholic faith is the idolization of the pope and the saints.

some of christianity is divided because some sects believe in the holy trinity and some do not.

Question: which ones do not beleive in the Holy Trinity?

The most unfortunate thing about that, and this is coming from a Catholic, is that I think a lot of people really don't understand how much importance, or lack of, Catholicism actually puts on the pope and the Saints, or the way in which the importance is placed...and I include many Catholics in this as well. I could go on a great deal about those misunderstandings but this isn't the place to do so. As a simple point of example, regarding papal infallibility, that is something that only applies under strict conditions - called speaking ex cathedra - and happens almost never. The position of the pope (meaning all popes, not any one particular) has only spoken ex cathedra once since the doctrine of papal infallibility was written up at the first Vatican Council in 1870.

On subject, there really isn't any reason Catholicism should be seperated from the rest of Christianity by any consideration. I think, really, in America it's a matter of practicality. Most of America is used to "Christianity" in reference to a protestant religion. So, Catholicism is named seperately to distinguish it from what America is used to being exposed to as far as Christianity. That's pure conjecture. Ultimately, on the important points, there's little to no difference.

Some Christian sects believe in "Arianism", which is a non-Trinitarian philosophy the propped up in the 4th century that basically states that the three entities of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are entirely seperate entities. It teaches that the Father is somehow more divine than Jesus, so it is regarded as incorrect in my own branch of Christianity, Catholicism, and in most other mainline Protestant and Orthodox churches.

Catholicism basically teaches that almost all churches that claim to be Christian are indeed Christian, with the notable exception of the LDS church. People who have been baptized into the Lutheran or Anglican churches, for example, do not need to be baptized if they wish to become Catholic. They are, by our standards, effectively already Christian.

The main problem that some Protestant sects (the ever-vocal Southern Baptist Convention and the Jack Chick-ites that it can attract are probably the most obvious example) have with us is that we accept Chuch Tradition alongside the Bible as the infallible instructions of God. With these teachings come the many problems that some Protestants have with the communion of Saints, the role of Mary, the process of entering Heaven, transubstantiation, and almost everything else that has been a point of objection.

Catholics basically believe that, although the Bible is divinely inspired, it doesn't interpret itself. The Bible is quite ambiguous at a great many points, and almost seems to contradict itself at others. No individual human being could possibly "crack" it, even if he or she lived in monastic contemplation from the age of reason until death. We barely even live for a century, at best, and there simply isn't enough time.

So, we have an organization of 1.1 billion-odd people that's been around for almost two millenia to work on it. We accept the conclusions of the magisterium, the interpreting and teaching arm of the clergy, as inspired fact. Most Protestant organizations take a more individualistic approach to interpreting the Bible.

This is a completely in-a-nutshell version of the Catholic take on it. Again, very few Christians are at each other's throats. Jesus quite explicity stated that Christians aren't to fight each other. Still, your concerns are valid, Karby. Some organizations (and people) continue to be quite vocal regarding Catholicism's position relative to other Christian sects.

I would argue that anyone who doesn't believe in the Trinity is by definition not Christian, since it is the belief in Jesus' divinity that defines a Christian.

Yes and no. I agree, in the sense that I accept it for the same reasons that the multiple councils debating the matter decided that it must be true, over many many debates. (Those reasons aren't really important here so I won't bother getting into them.) But, the belief in the Trinity and Jesus' divinity is only a core part of Christianity because of the decisions of these early councils as the church was forming. It took a few hundred years for Christianity to take the form it has today - of Jesus being somehow fully Himself but fully God, somehow fully human yet fully divine, etc. The church was really only forced to look at and come to a decision regarding these issues by people who taught things - before it was understood that they shouldn't be taught - that their instincts told them were not true. Most variations take one accepted truth of the church so far that it denies another.

Gnostics, for example, believed that "God" was the divine Creator God and that "Jesus" was the divine Redeemer God. Two God's working against each other. As has been mentioned, Arius taught - before the issue was addressed, although he continued to believe and teach this after his teachings were debated and officially rejected - that Jesus was not fully God. And then there were those later on that thought that Jesus was not fully human, so the church had to get together and debate that and come up with a response to it.

The point is, while I agree from a standpoint that the reason it is seen the way it is is because it is necessary for it to be the case in Christianity, it was not always so clear and it never will be - that's why they're called Mysteries. So, there will always be Christians who, in their effort to grasp beyond the Mystery and understand what can't be understood, take one of these viewpoints of accepting one point of the Mystery so much that they reject another.

Karby-
Here is the Christian take on it.
I do not recognize Catholicism as being Christian at all, but as being a carry-over and cross-breeding of a multitude of various ideas.
Basically, It has borrowed heavily from Juadaism, and you can see why- The Pope replacing the Hebrew Hig Priest and the Cardinals, Bishops, etc. replacing the Levites. The Vatican has replaced the Hebrew Temple, even in its design, except the Pope, who is the Vicar of Christ sits in the Messiah's chair until the Messiah returns.
As the Vicar of Christ, the Pope or High Priest, wears the Garments and makes Priestly decrees which are infallible, because every word he utters comes stright from the mouth of G*D Himself.
The Book of Hebrews in the New Testamnet states plainly that Jesus alone is now our High Priest and He alone fulfills that role in Heaven.
The decision to move the Temple from Jerusalem to Rome is questionable as well.
Mary did not ascend into heaven but remained in the care of the Apostle John until she died. She was buried and will be resurrected along with everyone else at the Judgement. The elevation of Mary, the Mother of Jesus to a place that is nearly that of an equal to one of the Trinity is in the eyes of most Christians, blasphemous. Mary did not die a virgin, but went on to have more children and more sons as well, one of whom was James, the author of the Book of James and the Patriarch of the church in Jerusalem. Remember that Mary (Miriam) was a nice Jewish girl, and the scriptures tell us that she did not know her husband until after Jesus was born. The scriptures tell us as well that she and her sons came to get Jesus one day and when He was informed the His motrher and brother were witing outside to see Him, Jesus responded: "Who is my mother? And who are my brothers? I tell you tthe truth- anyone who serves the Lord is my mother and my brothers."- Hardly a ringing endorsement for the Queen of Heaven.
There is no Biblical case whatsoever for th idea of Purgatory. It is wholly an invention and most likely one created to make money for the Cathedrals. Concerning the hereafter, Jesus stated quite plainly "It is given to a person once to die, and then comes the Judgement." This plainly says that after we die we are judged. Not sent to a phantasmal place to float until we are prayed or bought out of there. This is quite akin to the idea of Karma.
Praying to saints and statues and idolatry. As Christianity has it's very essence and roots in Judaism, and the Ten Commandments of Judaism explicitly prohibit Idilotry, Praying to statues would be a no-brainer. But for some reason, this has been over looked by the Catholic church, and most Catholic Cathedrals are loadxed with statues and idols and candles and places for people to kneel and pray at altars in front of these things. According to G*D, this is Blasphemy.
The Bible Plainly teaches that "we are saved by GRACE through FAITH, and that not of ourselves." It was this tenet that Martin Luther took great issue with and festered over. The Catholic Church maintains that you must earn salvation.
I could go on and on, but why bother. The differences between the Catholic Church and the Instruction of the Bible and the commandments of G*D are too numerous to list. Jesus commanded that we call no man Father, except our Father who is in Heaven, but every priest is called Father, and the Pope is called Our Holy Father. Was Jesus kidding? Lying? Stupid? The Universal Church is not a Christian establishment any more than the LDS church is. You will find in every cathedral and hospital and catholic establishment you go to a statue of the Messiah hanging on a cross. Forever crucified there. He is no longer there. They forget that He is RISEN! He is Risen and coming back soon and thereis a pope in His chair with a funny hat who has been amassing great wealth and not using that wealth to feed the hungry or poor or help the needy. Cathedrals of gold and silver and paintings and chalices and rukles and regulations and there will be answers demanded.

Thagrastay -- much of what you say is false, and I don't think it's appropriate for you to label it "the Christian take on it". It might be your take, or your churches take, but it's not the Christian take, because there are Christians who disagree with it. I am not a Catholic, but over the past few years I've lived with various Catholics, so I have a pretty good idea what they believe and why. So to cover your points:

So Catholicism borrowed heavily from Judaism. Isn't Christianity a Jewish religion? And the pope is hardly a high priest -- he is an apostle. And as an apostle, he has the duty to report the will of God.

Most of your points about Mary depend on matters of interpretation. It's hardly a basis to exclude Catholics from the fold of Christianity, if they hold to the orthodox doctrine, that she is "full of grace" but not divine.

Catholics do not pray to saints, or Mary for that matter. They talk to them, and ask them to intercede for them before God, much like we might ask our friends to pray for us.

The Catholic church also believes that we are saved by Grace through faith, but they do not draw the distinction between justification and sanctification that we do. We believe that once you believe, you are saved, but you need to work to become more holy. Catholics believe that salvation is a lifelong (and post-life) process, where one is not sent to heaven until one is perfect. But we do not earn our salvation.

Sure Jesus said that we should call no man father. But what do you call your Dad? He was using hyperbole, a figure of speech he uses a lot, to get across the point that we are ultimately responsible to God, not the priests.

Certainly there are abuses of wealth and power in the Catholic Church, historically and today. But that does not mean the organization as a whole is corrupt -- any religious organization, by its nature, will have its bad seeds.

From what I see the protestants do not believe that anyone other than Christ or God can hear our prayers. They also believe that any tradition that the church follows that is not expressly mentioned in the Bible is not a "correct" tradition. I was discussing this with a Catholic friend of mine recently. They asked why I do not participate in Lent. Lent as practiced by the Catholic church is a tradition that has grown over the years. It is not expressed in the Bible as necessary in order to earn salvation. In fact the denial of certain things for only a short period of time (other than fasting) is not requested in the Bible at all. This is just one of the many doctrinal differences between Catholocism and Protestantism. Coming from a Protestant background we felt almost irritated that we would be lumped together with Catholics as Christians because our beliefs differ so greatly. We were even told once by a friends priest who was visiting their home while we were there that if he could he would have us burned at the stake for our "Bible packin' Protestantism." There can be a lot of differences between the two sides of Christianity and there can be a lot of animosity.

That is certainly true; I didn't mean to indicate that my beliefs were what all protestants believe. Of course, I wish they would, but that's another debate. But most protestants don't think that every tradition needs to be from the Bible. Do you sing hymns? Are they found in the Bible or were they written much later? What language is the service in? Of course, I have difficulties, as a protestant, that belief in things not found in scripture is required, but I don't think that's enough to make Catholics heretics, as long as nothing they believe contradicts what the Bible teaches.

Wow, I don't mean to get all bent outta shape, but did you not read what I posted earlier? Almost nothing the pope says is considered infallible.

Um...Catholics don't pray to anyone but God. One may pray in front of a statue, keeping the subject of the statue in mid in their prayers, or one may ask the Saints to pray for them as well, just as one would ask a living person to pray for them, but one does not pray to Saints or hold them in any reverence similar to God whatsoever.

Anyways, these points were pretty sufficiently addressed for the most part already, and what wasn't really just comes down to interpretation, not outright denial as you'd have one believe.

Unfortunately, yeah, there can be some animosity between protestant Christians and Catholics, but I'd say that anyone who shows animosity towards either side is not, in that act, representative of a Christian but only representative of themselves. Christian life is not capable of animosity.

Ultimately, I think the most important thing is that, while there may be some things that are perceived to be "great differences," the most important things are shared by all (technically speaking, almost all) Christianity. Catholic Christians and protestant Christians alike both hold Jesus to be the son of God and his teachings to be of utmost importance.

SecretMethod70; my, recently deceased, grand-aunt was a catholic nun, and she prayed to Mary and various saints as well as God.
Presumably, like you said, she didn't hold them in reverance like she did God...but she still prayed to them.

It's a fine line, but no Catholic I know of thinks that it is the Saint that holds any power; rather that their power comes solely from God.

CSFlim, yes, I suppose we have a tendancy to call it praying in both circumstances, but as Lebell pointed out they are not considered to have any power at all. The common understanding of the word pray implies that the person is considered to hold power, so I didn't go into the fact that the word may be used by Catholics in both circumstances to avoid confusion.

There is a difference between venerating someone and worshipping them. This is why a lot of people misunderstand Catholic practice and denounce them as "Mary-worshipping heathens"

The question which began this thread ran along the lines of wanting to know the difference between Catholics and Christians.

Regardless of what contemporary Catholics may believe about his authority, that single thing which most clearly distinguishes the Catholic entity from the Christian world, and has for 1700 years, is the Papacy.
Catholics are not Christians. They make that distinction themselves.
The Pope is not an Apostle, whose succession goes all the way back to Peter, though that is as lovely a tale as that of Mary's ascension and her dying a virgin. Peter was beheaded in crucifed in Rome, by the Romans- the same Romans who now claim to run the Holy Empire using his same keys. The Pope is not AN Apostle, he is THE apostle- he is The VICAR of CHRIST.
The term VICAR means: One who acts in the place of another, with all the same authority until the first's return.
In other words, Since Jesus was G*D, and He is away for the moment, while He is away, the Pope is acting in His stead, which for the moment makes the Pope no less than G*D on earth.
to put this more in context,
This was the purpose of the Hebrew High Priest, serving in the capacity of speaking for G*D in cases where it were necessary. But with the advent of Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, that was no longer needed. The Teacher and Comforter that Jesus had promised had arrived, and now the Holy Spirit was made manifest to ALL belivers, not just a select few.

Now I'm going to change direction here and re-approach the Idol worshipping subject once again. I, too have many, many friends who are Catholics. In fact, I have married into a Catholic family, which includes nuns, Jesuits and priests as well as lay persons et al. I must confess, coming from an ignorant and rather heathen background myself, I did not understand much of the Catholic faith, but having studied Hinduism for a time, I noticed many similarities in much of their approaches to things concerning idol worship. At any rate, I had only become a Christian, perhaps 3 years before, and was studying the book of Leviticcus, when my wife asked me to accompany her to her families annual mass for her dead grand parents.
At the time, I didn't understand the political significance of this endeavor- but I digress- I paid rapt attention to what was going on, watching everything that took place, and what I saw was straight out of the book of Leviticcus. It was then that I understood- the whole transubstantiation thing- everything. This was not a Christian communion, it was a Hebrew sacrifice.

I believe by "the rest of Christianity", Karby most certainly holds the belief that Catholics are Christian. Your perspective is valued, but please don't pervert the purpose of this thread.

I don't know how to politely refute this. You're wrong. Ask a Catholic if he's Christian some time. A bus is a car, a car is not necessarily a bus. So it is with the terms "Catholic" and "Christian". This is not a difficult concept.

Do you know how frequently the pope celebrates the Sacrament of Reconciliation? Weekly. Regardless of your position on the legitimacy of the Sacraments, the pope's actions clearly illustrate that he certainly doesn't believe he's a perfect being, serving in the place of God. Nor do Catholics. The pope is a human and a sinner. He would not have needed the guidance of the Church if he were perfect, but he isn't.

You complain about adopted Hebrew concepts when you won't spell out the word "God"?

I don't see how the fact that Peter died is getting in the way of the belief that the pope is the his successor. I'm pretty sure a great majority of the people who began successions that have lasted for two thousand years are quite dead.

Perhaps the people who now maintain an organization from the city of Rome are different than the people who did so 2000 years ago? The dogs of the Roman emperors during the era of Christian persecution are not the college of Cardinals.

To say that the Catholic Institution is a wholly Christian endeavor is ridiculous. So much dogma has been added to the Word of GOD under the auspices of the latitude of interpretability that it has made a sham of the fundamentals of the foundations of the faith.
Adding the Aprocrypha was haughty enough- Hebrew books that the Hebrews themselves do not recognize as Canon- but the addition of idolotry, emporer worship, purgatory, original sin, and all the other non-biblical stautes and regulations and what you are left with is this:
The Roman Empire was not conquered. It simply became the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman emperors traded in their laurel wreths and Isis worship for Tall hats and the worship of Mary, the Queen of Heaven.
Rome is still the City of 7 hills and it's colors are purple and scarlet and the Apostle whose keys it pretends to hold and whose mantle it pretends to wear, is the very same Apostle it Crucified Upside Down in the very city of the Vatican.
You cannot serve 2 Gods.
As Joshua demanded- "Chose you this day what God you will serve! As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD!"
The Lord's name is Yeshua and He is the High Priest and King of Kings. We need no other intercessor. Look to your Bibles and see for yourselves.

Actually, the surviving sects of Judaism don't, but at the time it was added there were plenty of sects that accepted the Apocrypha.

The bold face, all capitatilized "LORD" in your quotation is in reference to the letters YHWH, commonly translated as Yahweh from the original Hebrew language. The Hebrews were too fearful to actually write out the complete name of their God, and so after many years of translation we are left with, at best, some man's educated guess.

And as for your arguement, I find it a bit pitiful to make such a bold and blatant disregard for the people of Catholic faith. I am a Christian, I grew up Pentecostal and was taught the arguements against the Catholic church that you suppose, but upon visiting a few churches myself I found that the service was very reverent and full of the Holy Spirit. To think that people who are truly pursuing a relationship with God cannot find Him around a bit of Dogma is quite absurd.

If you earnestly seek Truth - Truth will find you.

I am very aware of what the Hebrew name of God is and the reverence they show for it. The believers in within the Catholic institution are no doubt full of the Holy Spirit in spite of the Institution itself. But that is only further testamony to the Grace and glory of God.
Jesus in His days on earth, was faced with a Jewish Temple and High Priesthood filled with similar dogma and coruptness and He referred to those who were in charge and had dominion over the the Temple as a "brood of vipers," "hypocrites", and "whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones". He demanded that the Priests and priesthood of His day had so loaded down the common Jews with rules and regulations and traditions that it made them "Twice as fit for hell as they (the priests) were themselves". These were the words of the Meschiach Himself! The bottom line was, when tradition and dogma replaces the teaching and word of GOD, then the tradition and Dogma are expendable. Not the other way around. Jesus taught that "he road is wide, but the gate is narrow. Many are called, but few are chosen." It is the responsibility of the church to ensure that this is clearly understood and that as many as possible get through that gate and get chosen. Not through Dogma or man-made tradition but by the direct teachings of Meschiach.

I agree- Those who seek will find. By all means- seek on!

I'm dissapointed with people judging christian religions in this thread. You are not God therefore don't judge others. Who is right who is wrong... who knows. We cannot hope to fully understand God or is teachings but we can get the main ideas. These main ideas run through out all christian religions.

Mark 9:38-41 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward.

There are many translations to this verse in the bible but all of them seem to give the same message, that just because one is not in your group, as long as he is doing the lords work he will not lose his reward. Denomination is not what is important, instead it is your actions that matter. Do you accept Jesus Christ as your savior? Do you live your life based on the commandments? ect.

Every denomination has it's differences, some I agree with some I don't agree with. However, I have accepted that I cannot say if they are right or wrong for I did not write the bible, God has never told me exactly what to believe. Through time the bible has lost meaning through the hand of man either accidentially or purposly, but it has happend. Do not look at a single verse to judge the meaning of the bible, look at the big picture because that is what is important and one part of the bible that would be impossible for man to currupot.

I try to attend different churches often, I was born and raised a luthern, lately I have attended a baptist church, soon I'll attend a catholic for a while. I believe you need to listen to all the churches to know what God really wants us to do. The only thing I dislike about the catholic church is that they have closed communion which means I cannot get communion there.

Jesus tought us to love one another, so stop hating your own brothers in christ and start loving them. For we are all God's childern.

Very intelligent words Rekna. Thank you.

And, communion in the Catholic Church, while it may be "closed," is based off the honor system. Do what you feel is right, no one's going to stop you (at least not in my experiences).

It is an honor system but I try to always honor the customs of the churches I attend.

Catholics arent the only ones with closed communion though so it isn't a gripe against catholics, just closed communion in general.

If I read your above posts correctly, then I too, as a Pagan, am saved by your christ. I use different names, and word the commandments in my own way....but the "main ideas" are exactly the same.
I would even venture to say that as far as ritual and adherence to love and compassion, my faith is closer to catholisism than most christian sects can claim. Yet many christians would consider me doomed(yes they have used that word) and holding a ticket to some flaming pit.
Guess I see the catholic faith as more accepting and open minded when it comes to the individual, regardless of the dogma.
Whereas many christain faiths follow blindly one version or another of somebodys translation of a conglomeration of somebody elses translation of a group of books that were consolidated by yet another group into the guidelines for salvation.

But do you accept Jesus Christ as your savior?

That is one of the key points repeated throughout the bible.

As for catholics being more accepting that really depends on who you talk to. I know some that are and some that arent. My roommates fiance just decided to break up with him after many years because he was luthern and not catholic which meant he would go to hell according to her and her mom (so many people have misconstrued views about who goes to heaven and hell). All I can say about who goes to heaven and hell really is that I cannot know who goes and doesn't. Only God knows.

God can and will save anyone he wants to.

So....as I do not "accept" jesus the christ as my personal savior, am I going to hell in your eyes?Or am I just not in your club? This kind of issue is the reason many people cannot be a part of christianity, a true catch 22.

Not directed to me, but as a Christian, I'll answer.

Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not mine to judge.

My own belief however is that there are probably several roads to heaven.

Lebell said it, It is not my decision to judge. In know way can I know if there is a single road or multiple roads to heaven. According to the bible accepting Jesus as your savior is a way to get to heaven. Is it the only way? Only God knows.

one more thing, personally I feel Gandi is in heaven and he was not Christian.

According to the Bible, there is but One way into tHeaven and as distasteful as that may be, it is through Jesus, the Messiah. This is not something that any Christian has concocted or wanted to concoct, because every single Christian has had to wrestle with and face this very same idea. It is very clearly dilineated throughout the New testament-"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only begotten Son so that whosoever believeth in Himshould not perish but have everlasting life". That is but one example, These are not easy words at first. How does one reconcile themselves to the exclusivity of this road? At first it is difficult. Until one considers the facts and truth of the matter that sin was brough into the world on the back of one perfect man, and so it would take one perfect man to carry it out again. But there are no perfect men left. None that is, unless God Himself were willing to come down here and do it Himself. And then when one stops to consider what it would take for a person who claims to be God, to prove that He was in fact just that, then the things that come to mind would be:
He'd have to be able to:
Walk on water, command the elements, create something from nothing, feed the multitudes, heal the sick, cure the blind, raise the dead, forgive sins, establish laws and covenants, sacrifice Himself for the good of all mankind, die for all the sins that ever werer or ever would be, and be able to raise Himself from the dead.
God could do those things.
God WOULD do those things.
And He's do them for you and me. without us asking Him to.
What I have come to find out about God and this exclusive path thing is that it is not God or Christians who are the problem here. I say that because before I became a Christian I had a real problem with the whole idea. What I came to find out was that the problem was mine. It was my pride that stung me and hard.
I have heard this similar statement reported nearly unanimously among christians as well. That the one thing that prevented them from objectively looking at the idea of the savior Messiah as the only way to Heaven was that it bothered their pride.
The world has many way to do things and has many ways get things, but as far as Heaven and the Bible go, Jesus is the only way in. That is not a christian opinion, that is God's decision. God has decided that. The Christians are only trying to get as many as they possibly can through the door and into heaven.
You see, Christians are not some wonderful, band of speacial sainted worker bees set aside for glory and promotion because of their holiness and devout righteousness! Far from it!
Christians are saved! By the Grace of God through Faith in Messiah Jesus, and that isn't of ourselves.
All Christians are is Forgiven. Jesus' blood and sacrifice is what has made the difference between heaven and hell, not some great work of accomplishment or piety.
Jesus is the WAY. not the Christians.

Ironically, that's my exact point although my belief greatly differs from yours. What I hold to be true is that Jesus/God loves humanity so greatly, passionately, and unconditionally that even those who may not believe in the words of Jesus as their savior are saved by Him by having an openness in their hearts, whatever they may call it.

Tecoyah, you've basically read my points correctly. One thing that's important to make clear is that the Catholic church doesn't say that being Pagan or anything else is equally as good as being Christian, at least in the sense of exposure to God's Truth, but that what it says is that while the fullness of God's Truth isn't located in other religions, parts of His Real Truth are invariably located in all religions to some degree. Thus, God finds ways to touch everyone in varying degrees and ways so that everyone has the capability to be one with Him - whether they call Him "God" or whatever. BUT, that's not to say that accomplishing this is just as easy for someone in another religion as it is for someone in Christianity. It may be easier, and it may be more difficult, depending on the point of reference. A lot of this is addressed in some of my posts in this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=47302

Rekna: again, all points I agree with :) Personally, I believe that it's necessary that being a "certified member" of the Christian faith is not the "only way" because it is, in my opinion, the only way to avoid contradiction with other central teachings of Christianity. That's not to say though that Christianity doesn't perhaps provide the best opportunity when followed correctly. But, ultimately, the point is, how the Hell should I know? I'm not God. That's ultimately what faith is about, working with what has been revealed to you and finding your own path towards God in accordance with this.

I have a few questions for those that think Jesus is the only way.

Disclaimer: I have to say this so someone doesn't think i'm going against Jesus. I love Jesus Christ, he is my personal savior, ever since I accepted Jesus as my savoir my life has continually gotten better and it is not a coincidance.

Ok here is my question

Do babies go to hell? Most christains will answer no to this.

Do babies born into a muslim family go to hell? (What is the difference between a baby born in a christan and muslim family?)

At what age do babies need to have accepted Jesus as their personal savior in order to be saved? Or at what age are muslim babies condemed?

There are many people throughout the world that have never had a chance to learn about Jesus. They have not been exposed to his teachings, why would a perfectly good God send someone thats only fault is where he was born to hell. Afterall God decided where that person was born in the first place.

I love to point out Gandi, he is one of the most curagious and life altering person ever born. He lived a life of self sacrafice in order to bring peace and harmany to the world. He lived a christain life even though he was not christain. What faults does he have and how could a perfectly good God send him to hell after all he has done for the world?

I thought about this a lot last night and something occured to me that I had never though about before.

During mankinds darkest moments we crucified Jesus. Those that crucified him did not believe in him. They did not think that he was thier savor. They didn't even believe he was a prophet. But yet when Jesus was on the cross he prayed for them saying "Forgive them father they know not what they do". Why would Jesus pray for the forgivness of those who do not believe in him if believing in him was the only way to heaven?

We have people here who strongly disbelieved in christ but yet Jesus asked that they be forgiven. Now why would Jesus not ask the same for people who do not believe in him but live a good life?

Babies don't go to hell. The age of accountability is 12 for males, 13 for females as it was with the Hebrews for Bar and Bat Mitzvahs. That's why we also have confirmation classes at those ages. Jesus repeatedly placed children on His knee and said that The Kingdom was reserved and made for such as these. The idea of sending babies to Hell and infant Baptism was a Catholic idea perverted from the Hebrew tradition of dedicating a child to be raised in the ways of the Temple and Laws and ways of God. Then the Bar/Bat Mitzvah which came later when the child declared in their own voice that they chose to follow the Law and God of their own desire.
By the time we all reach the age of accountability, we have sinned. Once we have sinned, we are condemned. It makes no difference whether we come from a christian, muslim, taoist, pagan, atheist or hindu home. The Lord tells us that All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. and that the wages of sin is death. We are all condemned.
God has planted within us all a conscious, wherein all of us naturally know the difference between right and wrong. That is why no matter where we go, rules are universal when it comes to stealing and killing and adultery and such. Without So much as a burning bush, we all recognize these things as being wrong and have established laws for them.
For those people who have not heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, God will jusge them according to their consciences and what they knew to be right and wrong and how they conducted their lives.
Ghandi Knew of Jesus and rejected Him outright. For all his great intentions, Ghandi was not a perfect man and died in his sins, rejecting the One man who could have saved him.
Jesus prayed for His enemies because that is what He told us to do. He came here to show us how to live and how to do what we are supposed to do. Jesus is the Son of God. God is Love. Jesus is nothing less. Jeswus loved us so much He allowed us to do that to Him.
Please understand, it was not the nails that held Him upon that cross. At any moment He could have come down from there had He wanted. He stayed up there of His own will and through sheer Love of us. You and I. When He was asking God to forgive them for they know not what they do, He was asking God to forgive you and I as well.
God tells us that our best and greatest accomplishments are like filthy rags in His eyes.
There is nothing we can do that can compare to what Has already been accomplished on the cross. We cannot earn our way into heaven. It has already been done. Gos paid for our way into Heaven with His own blood. He will accept nothing less or different. We cannot barter our way in, or beg our way in or buy our way in. The way in has already been provided. All we must do is humble ourselves before the King and accept that He has accomplished for us what we could not do oueselves, and ask Him to let us in, in Jesus Name, and He will.
This is too hard for some, because it means swallowing their pride. And it is more important to have their pride than to enter heaven in humility. But God Himself was willing to be humbled to Get us into Heaven.
Still, Hell will be filled with the arrogant.
You will find no humble among their numbers there.

There are no good lives.
All have sinned and fallen short.

In the bible does it say the age of accountability anywhere? If so where? Does the bible say that those who have not been exposed to Jesus will be judged according to character? If so where?

Do you have any idea just how arrogant that post is.....fully insulting and degrading. For you to blatantly state as fact , information that can at best be considered as second hand dictation is quite interesting in the context of the last lines of your post.
I would say you have damned youself, if you truly believe your own post.

I would just as soon people didn't "damn" each other around here.

Lord knows I heard enough of it at the abortion clinic w/o dealing with it here...

well no one should be damning anyone, especially a christian.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

How have I damned myself? By explaining what the Bible says?
Please explain how this has bothered you. to the point that you believe it has damned me?
Damned is a pretty harsh word for one who doesn't believe in this stuff to begin with. So exactly where is it I am damned to? Please explain.

I must apologise for what appears to be a misinterpretation of my intent. I was damning no one, rather bringing to your attention the arrogant nature and tone of your religious statements, when read by one who is not of your faith. When put into the context of your statement that only the humble will be given a ticket to heaven, I simply found it hipocritical that you missed the lack of humility in your general tone and judgement of non christians as having no chance of redemtion.
It may benefit those of great faith in the Christ to attempt a deeper understanding of his life and works, rather than a book written by an endless string of flawed humans.
I love the man Jesus as an example to us all...and attempt to live my life by his standards, for someone else to tell me I am going to a hell they created in their own mind is insulting and degrading. Yet it is a continous part of many "christian" faiths.
Again, my intent was not to damn you, but to explain my discomfort at the attitude you portray.

I don't understand. You claim to love the man Jesus as an example to us all and attempt to live your life by His standards.
Many claim to want to do that as well.
But you seem to disparage the part about a book written by an endless string of flawed humans- I can only assume you mean the Bible which is where you heard about Jesus to begin with,
and then the ... for someone else to tell mne I am going to a hell they created in their own mind is insulting and degrading. Yet it is a continuous part of many "christian" faiths.

In the words of C.S.Lewis- Jesus was only one of 3 things a Lunatic- along the order of someone who claimed to be a poached egg- a Liar, which would put Him along the same category as the Devil of hell or worse, or He was who He said He was. But He certainly couldn't be a nice teacher of cheery lessons and that was all. Because He claimed to be God.

Jesus preached of Hell and Damnation. Jesus Preached about who would be aloowed into the Kingdom of God and what it would take to be allowed in. Jesus Preached about Sin and Salvation. Jesus preached about Love and Death and forgiveness and the hereafter and how no one was worthy to cvome to God unless they came through Him.
Of course this is insulting stuff. Of course it stings and burns. It is supposed to. Jesus didn't come to preach things that would appeal to us and tickle our ears. He came with a two by four to get our attention because our very souls are at stake and He wants us to know He means business. He is not concerned with whether or not he hurts our feelings as long as He brings us home with Him.
It's the Enemy that wants us concerned with how we feel.

Thagrastay,

Do a google on "The Jesus Seminar" and look up what they have to say on the Gospel of John, which is the source of much of what you speak about.


(BTW, I love C.S. Lewis :D)

Yes, I agree....you don't understand. Please forgive the following statement as you will likely take it as an attack, it is not.

It is because of your adamant belief in the bible, rather than the christ, that many are turned from the christian path you attempt to proclaim. Try acting a little more open minded towards others, and perhaps they will actually listen to you.
Having strong faith is a wonderful thing, and I commend you for your strength in this regard, I cannot however, commend your lack of compassion for the minds of others.

If this heaven is peopled with such closed minds, I would be very uncomfortable there.

I know Jesus because of the Bible. I have not received a mystic vision of Him apart from it. In fact, the Bible warns specifically against this.
Jesus is My God. He is my salvation He is my Lord my Rock, My Love, the One upon whom I lean and to Whom I turn in my trouble.
I did not invent the Bible and can tell you nothing that isn't in there, nor would I. Jesus spoke from the Bible. Jesus quoted it constantly, reminding everyone to whom He spoke that the words He said were the words He heard His Father speak and He was just repeating what His father Had already said.
I do not tell you the Gospel according to Thagrastay, because that would get you nothing. And If there is ever such a book I urge you to burn it, quickly.
Tecoyah, If I had no compassion, I would not even bother to respond. I would say"Let them go their own way- I have MY salvation and have been forgiven- Let them get their own!" But Jesus says "To whom much is given, much is required". And I know how much I have been forgiven of. How then can I turn my back and say to anyone "Go get your own"? This Salvation didn't come from me! It didn't come from anything I have ever done or said! This salvation came as a free gift of the One and Only God by way of His Son, to Me and anyone, like me, who is willing to humble themselves and ask to be forgiven!
I am but one among countless many who have come before and about to come that will seek the forgiveness ans mercy of the Living God and receive it in the finished work of His Son.

I am not certain what you mean by my acting more open minded toward others means.
Tecoyah, I know what I know. If that offends you, I apologize. I am not the type to beat around the bush. I believe that the highest honor one person can pay another is just tell them the truth, and let the other do with it what they want.
If I see a person about to step out in front of a bus, I will shout a warning, not clear my throat and hope they hear me. Idf this is indiscreet, then so be it. I Love enough to offend. I learned that from Jesus. I also love enough to care and to share and help and to listen and to learn and to laugh and to hold and be . I also learned that from Jesus. And from my friends.
What may I learn from you?

Do you claim that it is impossible for someone who doesn't accept Jesus as there savior during their mortal life to make it into heaven?

Do you realize that claiming impossibilities is unbiblical?

It says in the bible many times that to God nothing is impossible. Therefore do not say you know that other people can't go to heaven if they don't accept Jesus during their mortal life. I still ask where in the bible does it say the age the people are accountable for their actions?

You speak as if you know exactly what Gods plans and intentions are. As if you know exactly who will be saved and who will not be saved. The only thing I am sure of is that I cannot know those things to which you seem to know.

I can be familiar with the teachings of the bible and have faith in their sayings. But does this mean that the bible is 100% correct in everything within it, does it mean I should take every verse of the bible litteraly? Have you read the original untranslated bible? Do you know hebrew and aramaic? Considering the original chapters of the bible do not exist I doubt this. Translations are increadibly vague many words have ambigious meanings and they can loose meaning in translation. Or even be translated just plane wrong.

Also there has been many many years where people have had opportunity to change the bible to fit their needs. Something like this could not happen today but yet it could have in the past. Parts of the bible maybe shouldn't even be in the bible.

In fact the letters written by paul were not written with the intention to be put in the bible but instead as letters to a church on how it should conduct itself. Some 50 years after Paul died they were added to the bible.

Oddly enough one of these letters contains one of the most contriversial bible versus. Paul mentions that a woman should be subordinate to her husband and is not allowed to conduct worship for it was her who was first decieved. But yet everything that Paul and Jesus taught us before this verse was equality of men and women. Yet somehow Paul does an about face and throws this out of nowhere. There have been many studies on this verse and many theologins believe this verse was not even written by Paul but instead was added after his death to help keep women oppressed.

The point is you cannot take everything in the bible litterally or as concrete fact because first through God all things are possible, if he wants something to happen it will happen. Second the bible can easily contain transcribing errors. Third the bible could have been changed intentionally by people in power (if you don't think this is possible look at man kinds track record, we were able to crucify our savior on a cross, do you think it is impossible for man to add a few words to a book?)

That is why I believe you shouldn't get caught up in the details of individual versus of the bible, instead look at the big picture of what Jesus taught us. Love everyone as yourself. For love is what Jesus stood for. This means don't judge other people because you disagree with them. Don't look at them and say your going to hell, because you are not God, you cannot know that. Instead love them for who they are. Feel free to ask them about Jesus but don't force it on them. Acceptance of Jesus is something that has to come on your own. Forcing your beliefs on others will never work. God gave mankind freewill for a reason.

I have followed much of SecretMethod70's writings, threads, musings, etc., and as a Catholic, I must say I agree whole-heartedly with most everything he has had to say. I say most because i can't possibly have read it all.

1. What makes you- or anyone- think that you have the ability to judge for yourself whether someone is going to heaven or not? Therefore, asserting that someone MUST do x, y, and z, in order to get in to heaven, is foolish. We are human, we make mistakes, and we cannot know all.

2. It's appalling that in all this talk, it seems that everyone forgets the principle teachings of Jesus, and God through others- God loves everyone. Not SOME people, not "those who love jesus", not "only those who believe in Him", but EVERYONE. How can you say that a truly good person of any religion, belief system, or otherwise will go to hell, just because they believed in a different God? That's ludicrous.

I love God. Jesus is my savior. I pray to God on my own terms, whenever I want to- and I don't have to be in a church to do it. He hears me everywhere.

Rekna@Analog, I must say, were it not for christians like you I would likely never visit this board.I find the christ and his followers fascinating and think christianity is a wonderful religion in general. It is because of the people who "follow" his teachings, and don't simply spew biblical verse that intellectuals are accepting of this faith, and often converted.
You are a credit to your faith, and I am sure Jesus smiles down upon you, as he does on us all to some extent.
As a matter of clarification, I do accept Jesus into my spitituality, But not as the physical child of a creation entity.I try to follow his life lessons though.

Please bear in mind that I have not told anyone that they are going to hell.
The question was whether Jesus is the only way into Heaven.
According to the Bible, which Rekna says is not reliable amd shouldn't be trusted, the answer is Yes.
But further caveats I have heard in this thread are that God can always change His mind, and so, Jesus, having gone through that whole terrible scouring, beating and crucifixion and having bothered to resurrect Himself, did this conceivably for nothing, since:
A. There are other ways into Heaven
B. There are other ways into Heaven
C. There are other ways into Heaven

We could find the real reason accept the Bible may have either been changed or can't be believed, or people who quote it are harsh and rigid and unloving and not tolerant. But who knows. We could just ask God, but He is also capable of capriciously changing His mind, too.
Not a whole lot of hope, there.
And then there's that paul and the women thing.
That's enough to piss any feminist off for sure and cast doubt on the whole Bible!
I'll tell you Rekna, whatever you do, don't read Peter! Or Ephesians! or Corinthians!
And good luck to any of you who want to be called Christians but deny waht Jesus actually taught. Because as uncomforatble, or as politically incorrect as it may be, all of christianity comes from that book you guys seem to mistrust so much that a whole bunch of people have been trying for two thousand years to discredit and have yet to do.
If you want to learn more about it, but I doubt you do- you seem to comfortable in your disenfranchisement- read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh MacDowell". But be careful- it may change your worldview!

Nevermind.....this is totally pointless, and you are getting upset.
End of thread for me.

You completely missed my point about the potential for mistakes in the bible. My point was not to distrust the entire bible, but instead to look at the big picture and not individual versus. I feel sorry for you if you feel the bible is inerrant. It wasn't very long ago the Columbus was ridiculed and called unchristain for proposing the world was round, even more recent was when someone (I don't remember who) proposed the world was not the center of the Universe. As people progress through the ages we are learning more and more. If tomorrow people were to prove that evolution occured or that their was life on another planet what would happen? The same thing that has happend every time in the past. The bible gets reinterpreted, because it was interpreted incorrectly originally. Mankind is not infallable, they make mistakes. Mankind cannot know everything so we have to settle for knowing we can't know everything. But it isn't about knowing things, it is about having faith that you don't need to know, instead you need only to love.

God doesn't need to come down and knock on my door to tell me he exists. I don't need some sort of miricle. I see Gods work every day. I have faith in him and I know that whatever we find out about our past, present, and future will not alter my beliefs in God because through God NOTHING is impossible. He does not need to explain his plan to me for I only need to know I love him.

If you think that this is blasfamous then I'm sorry. My belifes come from what I have observed in the world, through the bible, through the teachings of many different churches, and through my heart.

Jesus taught love and compassion for everyone, not just those that followed him. Even while he died on the cross he prayed for the FORGIVENESS of his ENEMIES. Jesus died for the forgiveness of ALL sin. So that ALL sin COULD be forgiven (which is differen't then will be).

I love Jesus and I pray to him daily for all he has done for me and the whole world. I thank him for the tollerance that he has taught, something I wish you would learn. Jesus was not an elitest and you shouldn't be either.

Thagrastay,

You are welcome to believe I am misguided, and I am welcome to believe you are misguided.

Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

So where does this leave the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and any other religion you care to name? Just because he's your saviour doesn't make him mine. It doesn't make you right, doesn't make you wrong.

Maybe you meant "Jesus is my way?"

No, I'm pretty sure he meant THE way. Most Christians (I'm tempted to say all, but don't want to start that discussion again) believe that it is only through Jesus Christ that we are saved. Many, including myself, do not believe that explicit belief in Christ is necessarily essential -- my own point of view is that we know those who believe in Christ in this life will be saved. We don't know what happens to those who haven't heard, who have heard but rejected through no fault of their own, or if there's a chance given after death. But even though I'm not sure Thagrastay would even go as far as I do, the point is that there is only one means of salvation. Or did you expect God to be tortured to death more than once to save a bunch of rebel scum?

This is a thread about Catholicism and Christianity, is that not so?
How then does this thread then extend to the salvation aspect of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Atheists or anyone else?
The Thread is about Catholic and Christian Differences!
Look, I don't go to a Bar Mitzvah expecting to pick a fight with the Rabbi about the way he conducts his Synagogue. Why do you come to Catholic/Christain thread looking to start a conflict over the central tenet of both of these faiths? Despite what SecretMethod70 might espouse, He is not the Catholic Church and does not speak for it. in fact, his remarks that God could be either a He a She or an IT pretty much disqualify him form any serious contention in the Catholic or Christian field of serious belief. I would suggest that SecretMethod70 go back and study more and ask some serious questions since there is obviously some doubt and shaky faith there. But I digress.
The point is, According to historical, traditional CHRISTIAN teaching, and the accepted words of Jesus the Messiah Himself, there is only ONE way to get to heaven and that is through Jesus.
Anyone who is a Christian, and by that I mean a person who has made a conscious decision to follow the Messiah as their Lord, has had to search their own hearts and souls and research that aspect of the faith and face that and make that seemingly painful personal sacrifice and Choose to accept that idea and understands that to be the case- Jesus is THE way to heaven.
Where that leaves anyone else is not part of this thread.
Although, to be fair, I will say this- it leaves everyone else exactly where it left me for thirty years when I was doing my own thing- out in the cold. That may seem like a harsh thing to say, but it is the reality of the situation.
Many, many people tried to talk to me about Messiah over the course of my life and I had no interest. I dismissed them as nuts, kooks, Bible Thumpers, crazies, zealots and pains in the neck. I had my own way of seeing things and my own ideas and beliefs and that was what I wanted. I was searching for what I wanted to see and was fine doing that. I certainly didn't need any Jesus.
Until I did.
I'm grateful He was willing to take me in when I needed Him after all the times I pushed Him away. But even after all my rejection and disdain and dismissal and such, He was still there to receive me, and forgive me and save me and make me clean and make me His own.
This is available to everyone that is willing to come to Him as well. So, where does that leave the Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and Wiccans and Pagans and everyone else? Exactly where they choose to be.
Jesus says those who are not saved will not inherit the Kingdom. That's an accepted Christian teaching. That is why Christians are so grateful to have been rescued By Jesus from Hell and so eager to tell everyone else that they too can be rescued as well. But only Jesus Saves. And the choice is a personal one.
I figure that all I can do is tell a person. That is as far as I can take it. The rest is up to them.
I pray that it takes only one time, but I remember how many people over how many years it took to get the message through to me that I could really be happy, have peace and feel love. I wish that for everyone.
Anyway, please don't get upset that in a Christian/Catholic thread we discuss Christian/Catholic things.

Reference to God in terms of He/She/It is only meant to convey the fact that He is none of those and none are accurate. My point being only to express the fact that even the fact that we refer to Him as "Him" is technically incorrect. Not to say that I think God is a female or anything like that.

And, so you don't think I'm pulling things out of my ass as apparently you do, Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

Furthermore, regarding other faiths, lest you think that anything I'm saying is not in conjunction with Catholic teaching, Vatican II specifically states that while the Catholic faith contains the fullness of God's truth, other faiths do contain real truth. I can't find the specific part, however, I did come across this priest's response to a question that must have related to this in some way:

http://www.faithfirst.com/html/famil...messageID=2919

Lastly, while I never claimed to "speak for the Catholic Church," I find it particularly insulting that you would suggest that I don't know what the Catholic Church teaches considering I've gone to Catholic-run schools for all but 4 years of my life and am presently taking classes on Catholic theology at one of those Catholic-run institutions. I think the sources of my information are pretty trustworthy ;)

Yes, some things I mention are part of relatively recent movements in Catholic theology as the church continues to change as it always has - as the living being it is - but they are in no way egregiously against Catholic teaching. Remember, Thomas Aquinas, who ultimately became one of the church fathers, was originally condemned 3 times by Catholicism for his views on Catholic theology. That's not to say that the few views I hold which aren't specifically part of Catholicism (almost none of which I've even mentioned here...to the point where I wonder if there's even a point in going on about this) are my own. I don't claim to be the source of any of my views and I don't claim to be some church expert. But my views do come from highly respected Catholic priests and writers, so it's rediculous again to say that I don't know what I'm talking about with respect to Catholic teaching. I think that if Thomas Merton - a Catholic monk whom I have begun to read and respect the writings of - was so far off with what he has said, he would not have been as highly respected as he was during the time of his life and there would not be a mild push for his Sainthood. Or, for that matter, I think that if Father Andrew Greeley's writings are so far off-base with Catholic teaching, he would no longer hold the title "father" as he does. So, please, don't accuse me of essentially not knowing what I'm talking about with respect to Catholicism. And I apologize in advance for my harsh tone but, frankly, I'm highly insulted.

This is the problem with denominations in general. They all disagree on a few points and each think that their views are 100% correct. My view is this, i cannot be 100% correct and neither can any of those denominations. So instead take the parts that all of them agree on and you have a good start to how to worship God.

1. Aquinas was never condemned by the Catholic Church -- it was some local organization, perhaps a council at Paris, maybe the University of Paris, maybe the bishop of Paris, I can't remember which. Just a minor point, for the sake of nitpicking.

2. While it is true that all Christians hold that God is neither male nor female, and most Christian hold that he is neither masculine or feminine, rather he transcends all of these categories, nevertheless a couple points need to be made. First of all, the merely linguistic one that he/she/it is awfully cumbersome, and merely using 'it' would, according to the conventions of the english language, imply that God was not a person. Secondly, and I'm not sure what the Catholic church teaches, my denomination teaches that it is most right and fitting to refer to God as masculine, since this is how scripture universally refers to scripture -- in the passages where feminine imagery appears, it is always used in a simile, never a metaphor, and whenever he is referred to directly, it is as masculine. One example -- when Christ teaches us how to pray, it is to "Our Father".

3. While the Catholic church (and any church with any merit, for that matter) holds that there are some truths in other religions, this does not refute the fact that the Catholic church teaches that there is no salvation outside of Christ. That is, the central truth of salvation, that the path to salvation is through Christ, is one only found in the Christian faith. So while we can find wisdom in other faiths, wisdom that may have been disregarded to some extent by the Christian tradition, there is only salvation through Christ.

One final point, I am undoubtedly going to Hell according to some posters here, as I hold a different interpretation than you do. But, I must say it will be quite refreshing.....to be free of this judgement of ignorance.
If the christ truly wanted you to condemn me for my understanding of his life, Why would you follow such a cruel and closed minded individual?
-------------bye---------------------------------------------------------------

I wouldn't take it personally.

My own experience is that individuals who feel the need to "defend" their faith this strongly are generally the ones with weak faith.

Just remember, Jesus didn't need "defending" on the cross. The lesson being that Truth will always ring out.

I was born/baptized Catholic. I have sense abandoned it, but Catholic schooling made sure I understood it.

My wife is some Protestants sect, Church of Christ or something like that.

Is it wrong of me to refer to Catholicism as the 'true' church to her? :)

This whole debate reminds me of the "Life of Brian". I'll let you guess the scene.

Yes, for the most part I agree. It must be said though, for the sake of my own clarity, that I'm not trying to tell anyone they're wrong in their belief but only to point out that perhaps they are wrong in their understanding of another belief.



No problem, I guess I wasn't clear before. I didn't mean that he was condemned by the Catholic Church - how could he have been when nothing he said was heretical but merely a different way looking at things - but he was condemned by Catholics. Ultimately, my point being that Catholic interpretation of theology is constantly being reassessed and just because something is not expressly accepted does not mean it is incorrect. In Catholic theology, the truth changes in order to remain the same. There is a recognition that all things exists not only in space but also time and that there is a historical context to everything. Vatican II was a major force in beginning this change in thought.

Quote:

2. While it is true that all Christians hold that God is neither male nor female, and most Christian hold that he is neither masculine or feminine, rather he transcends all of these categories, nevertheless a couple points need to be made. First of all, the merely linguistic one that he/she/it is awfully cumbersome, and merely using 'it' would, according to the conventions of the english language, imply that God was not a person. Secondly, and I'm not sure what the Catholic church teaches, my denomination teaches that it is most right and fitting to refer to God as masculine, since this is how scripture universally refers to scripture -- in the passages where feminine imagery appears, it is always used in a simile, never a metaphor, and whenever he is referred to directly, it is as masculine. One example -- when Christ teaches us how to pray, it is to "Our Father".

*Sigh* This is really being given far more attention than it deserves. I have referred to God in a way beyond "He" only, perhaps, twice on this forum. And the only reason I did so when I did was because I happened to be talking about at that very moment human conceptions as a barrier to understanding God. I don't disagree with anything you have said here and I only merely meant to point out the need to detach oneself from the conventional meanings of words such as He in relation to God, for even though we refer to Him as "He," he is NOT a "He" and CANNOT be a "He" no more than He can be a "She" or an "It." My very point was the inadequacy of ANY of these words to describe God because He is beyond all of them, not to say that we should start referring to Him as "Her" or "It."

Quote:

3. While the Catholic church (and any church with any merit, for that matter) holds that there are some truths in other religions, this does not refute the fact that the Catholic church teaches that there is no salvation outside of Christ. That is, the central truth of salvation, that the path to salvation is through Christ, is one only found in the Christian faith. So while we can find wisdom in other faiths, wisdom that may have been disregarded to some extent by the Christian tradition, there is only salvation through Christ.

Salvation is through Christ for the Catholic Church, yes, but that is not to say that the Catholic Church holds to be true that one must be expressly Christian. For the sake of quoting a few quick sources:

http://oldforum.catholic.org/discuss...tml?1077442358

http://www.catholic.com/library/Salv...the_Church.asp

This one is too long to quote, but the general idea is that anyone who realizes that the Catholic Church is the True Church and rejects it commits a grave injustice to themself and cannot be united with God. I think that makes total sense obviously as it's basically like someone who knows 2+2=4 and still says it equals 5. So, the question that must be asked of this is how does one know who is AWARE of the Catholic church's role and who is not. My point being that common sense and sociological knowledge dictates that most people, having been raised some other religion their entire life, do not specifically REJECT Catholicism but are turned off to it by no fault of their own through the circumstances of their upbringing. These people, because of the real truth present in most world religions, are still capable of oneness with God because there is something of the Holy Spirit in all of us guiding us to do what is conscienable. Someone who rejects this inclination is obviously still seperating themself from God, Christian or otherwise. So, perhaps I wasn't clear with things I said earlier, but I never meant to say and have never believed as a Catholic that a non-Christian is "just as well off" as a Christian or Catholic but that, due the the circumstances of one's upbringing many people do not come to realize the truth of the Church and that God does not let this prevent them from unity with Him. That's precisely why there is the Holy Spirit in all of us so that even those who are raised muslim or as theistic Buddhists or as any variety of other religions can still feel in themself a draw towards the Good even if they do not have a full exposure to the truth. That's not to say that one should not work to introduce them to Christianity, but only that their acceptance of Christianity is only a matter of "life or death" in the eternal sense when they are aware of Christianity's supremacy and choose to reject it out of pride. I don't think that describes the majority of people.

Lastly, scroll down to the bottom if you follow the link, http://www.stmonica.cc/papers/cathheav.htm

My point in all this is not to say that I am right and someone else is wrong, but only to point out that, although apparently some people find this hard to believe, Catholics do not believe that non-Catholics or non-Christians for that matter go to Hell by default. Perhaps Thagrastay is right...perhaps they do...I can't know. Believe what you will - that's a right which we all have - but to say that you KNOW one thing to be true and another to be false goes beyond what we are capable as humans. I don't know what happened to Ghandi for instance, but I can infer it based on the clues of Jesus teaching and the guidance of the church in interpretation of that teaching. But, to KNOW, only God is capable of that and, really, it's none of my business anyway.

A Stand! You've taken a stand! Congratulations!

tecoyah-
Jesus does not want us to condemn you at all. We are not capable of that. Just as we a re not capable of sitting in Judgement of any other human being. Only He who holds the keys to Death and Hades is capable of that, and That is Jesus Himself.
If anyone is to be condemned and judged, it is because they have decided to be. Salvation is available to any who are willing to receive it. If you choose not to have it, then it is entirely your choice.
I fervently hope you choose life.
I have found that people don't choose Jesus because they haven't gotten to know Him yet. And the only way to get to know Him, is to ask Him about Himself. It can't hurt. Peopole do stranger things.
Be well, Be safe, Be at peace

Regarding God's gender: Just to be clear, I didn't think it was a major point of your post, but I was just nitpicking again.

Not to belabor the point, but I don't think the Catholic church is as charitable as you make them out to be. If they were, what would be the point of saying that salvation is only through the Catholic Church, even if one doesn't need to explicitly be a member of the church? On your reading, all one needs to do is seek God honestly and try to follow his will, since it's doubtful there are many people who believe that the Catholic Church is the one true church and do not belong to it.

My own belief, which I don't think is too far from what the Catholic Church believes though with different emphases, is the following. We know that all those who hear the good news of Jesus Christ and respond to it by accepting him as Lord are saved. We know that all those who hear the good news and reject it are damned. What we don't know are the two following things:

1. What happens to those who don't hear the good news. God is completely just, so would not be acting wrongly in condemning them to hell. God is not required to save anyone. But God is also completely merciful, so it would not be beyond comprehension if, in the same way he takes my feeble strivings towards Christ and attributes them to me as righteousness, to take those strivings of those who haven't heard the good news and attribute them as righteousness.

2. We don't know what 'hear' means in this context. In the literal sense, of course, it refers to those who died before the coming of Christ, or before they were able to hear the good news. But it could easily also refer to those who, for various reasons, weren't in a position to hear the gospel in a metaphorical sense, people who were driven away from the church by the evildoing of persons who claim to be members of the Church, for example. We don't know.

In the end, the safest thing is to say that we know how one may be saved. We don't know what happens to anyone else, and we are told not to judge. I take the words of Paul very seriously: "I do not even judge myself." I don't know whether or not I will be saved -- how can I judge anyone else?

Again, I'm not sure how close this is to the Catholic position. I'll ask my theologian roommate next time I see him, since I trust his knowledge about this sort of thing.

The church as people, no, the church as an idea, concept, set of beliefs, whatever you want to call it, yes.

The point is that the Catholic Church believes - and this is explicitly stated in the Vatican II documents - that it is the universal church meaning that it is the church of even those who do not believe in it. So, even those who do not believe in it are capable of being saved THROUGH it so long as they do not knowlingly reject it as the Truth. I don't think I need to point out that all three sources I cited in my previous post - which was almost my entire post in the first place - are either specifically from Catholic priests or from Catholic affiliated groups. Not to mention that a large portion of my knowledge of Catholicism comes from a doctorate holding Catholic theologian who has written multiple books on the subject and is the director of the university ministry program at the largest Catholic university in the US. My point is not to get into a "my source is bigger than your source" debate, but only to point out that these aren't things that I just thought up one day. Furthermore, let's not forget that there are priests and theologians in Catholicism who either explicitly or implicitly reject some of Vatican II's message. Yet, I can and have cited multiple priests (they're not too hard to find on general topics such as this), Catholic monks - one of which some people in the church would like to see Sainted, and Catholic theologians on the topic. I don't know how much more I have to do here. And as you can see, these are not new ideas. You'll notice the original copyright date on the last quotation in my previous post is 1938. Change - and the church is always changing in some regard - takes place slowly, and concerning these issues it is still in progress. There are many Catholic theologians who would equate the present transitions in theology with the previous 3 major transitions in Catholic history: the time immediately after Jesus life, Augustine, and then Aquinas.

EDIT: It must be said though that there is a fundamental point of yours that I couldn't agree more with and that's really the ultimate point here. We DON'T know anything regarding the salvation of anyone else, especially since we don't even know it for ourselves. And that's precisely why I find it extremely arrogant to say that non-Christians cannot be united with God. The Catholic Church teaches they can (note, can, not necessarily are) but ultimately the point is that only God can know.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thagrastay
[B]tecoyah-
Jesus does not want us to condemn you at all. We are not capable of that. Just as we a re not capable of sitting in Judgement of any other human being. Only He who holds the keys to Death and Hades is capable of that, and That is Jesus Himself.


Okay....one last attempt. Do you not see the hypocracy in the above quote.

"Jesus does not want us to condemn you at all", This to me is a beautiful statement and I honestly believe it to be true.

"just as we are not capable of sitting in judgement of any other"
Also well put and following the life of the christ.

"only he who holds the keys is capable of that"
I fully agree.


You then go on to judge an enormous portion of the population to hell by stating your understanding of the way to salvation. I firmly believe I am living my life in the way christ would have hoped, love and understanding as my tools for growth, yet YOU have judged me a "failed christian" because I interpret the scriptures in a way YOU dont approve of.
It is because of this mindset that I am not a christian by your own standards.I dont go to your church because there are people like you there, not because I dont love christ.
I very much hope you can understand the reason for this reply. I would not attempt to change the depth of faith you possess, as you obviously require it. perhaps a bit of redirection in understanding could be of benefit though.

Regardless, we will undoubtedly disagree in this realm, so be it.When all is said and done, I hope we can be more open in heaven.

What church is it I attend?
I have judged no one. I have stated what Jesus has said. I am quoting Jesus. Deal with it.
IU don't consider you a "failed Christian", tecoyah- you have already said that you are not a christian. I do not consider you in any sort of religious category at all. I see you as a Child of God. I see you as a "Yet", truth be told. You have not fully come into your inheritence YET. And if you decide to, you will. If not, you won't. But I'm hoping you'll keep an open mind and at least check it out.
IMHO, too many people throw the baby out with the bathwater. They get all hung up on CHURCH and the silliness that accompanies it and walk away from it. But in doing so, they walk away from Jesu, too because they haven't seperated the two.
The Church is supposed to be the BODY of Christ. Christ is not the Body of the Church. The mistake many people make is they have the tail wagging the dog.
tecoyah- your walk with Christ- which is a title, by the way, not a name- is cool. I hope you choose to expand that. Christ's true Title is Meschiach- or Messiah, if you prefer. And His name is Yeshua- Jesus in the Greek. If you get to the place where you feel close enough to call Him by those, go ahead.
I bear you no ill will. I don't know you.
It sounds to me that you are mad at Christians because you have been offended by them- put on the spot- insulted, condemned. I don't condemn. I am a man of unclean lips and sins too numerous to list. Who am I to throw stones?
I do not consider myself a Christian. I don't like the conotations that comes with that title. I consider myself a Messianist: A follower of the Messiah, and student of His word. I believe what the Bible says is true and correct- the Old Testament conceals the New Testament and the New Testament reveals the Old Testament- that Jesus is who He said He was, did what He said He did and that His promises are true.
I am also a recovering Alcoholic, and I consider AA to be much closer to the model of the original 1st century church than the behemoth of traditions they have today.
I believe there is a middle ground in this communication and it is just establishing a common language. There is no need to abandon all hope here. You are a Child of the Mosdt High God of Heaven and Earth. He has moved Mountains and Galaxies and everyuthing in between so that reconciliation between mankind and Himself is now possible.
Jesus said: "I came so that you would have life, and life more abundantly." That's the Bible I follow. That's the Messiah I follow.
But He also said that the road is wide, but the gate is narrow.

Secret Method -- I think we actually agree, it's just that our emphases are somewhat different. I was discussing this with roommates and a friend last night, and that's the conclusion we came to. A Calvinist upbringing will affect one! Just for the record, the group was four graduate students at the most important Catholic university in the US (Go Fighting Irish! ;)), two of whom are theology students (there's a very thin line between a ninth year theology student and a PhD, mostly consisting of three letters). The joys of source comparison...

asaris...heh, I think that's probably likely perhaps. I've found that a lot of times two people who essentially agree can "get into it" over the medium of the internet due to the lack of real-time communication and lack of non-verbal communication tainting the understanding of the words one uses. Cool to hear you're at Notre Dame - although I think "most important" is too subjective a title to lay on anything ;) Perhaps part of the difference in emphasis lies in the order which runs our respective universities. DePaul is Vincentian, although I don't know what Notre Dame is run by. However, I've always found it interesting whenever I went further north in the city and visit Loyola University - which is Jesuit - how completely different the religious environment is there. The two schools are rooted in the same belief system, yet there's such a drastic difference. So, perhaps something similar is the source of difference here. Anyway...yeah :)

I think a lot of times people can take the statement that one must first and foremost seek God and try to do what is right in His view and that what religion you partake in is, in many ways, secondary to that, as saying that it's "easy" to be united with God. But, truth be told, it means just the opposite. The fact is many (most?) Christians don't truly seek God, and most PEOPLE don't truly seek God. That's not to say that I'm on some pedestal - I don't know if I'd say I'm much better off than the average person in the world. We all have our vices. So, to say that one needn't NECESSARILY (meaning, it's not an end all or be all, but also meaning that it does help) be a part of Catholicism or a Christian religion for that matter isn't saying it's EASY by any means. It can be much more difficult outside of Christianity for many people, and that's precisely why we do have the gift of this religion to assist us. But, all it is saying is that it's POSSIBLE (but not necessarily probable).

Agreed. And Notre Dame is Holy Cross, IIRC.

<--- Regis University - Jesuits...

That explains so much, then. I understand lot more than I did before, now.
Good night.

<-- Georgetown University - Jesuits... :)

Although we're slowly becoming less and less Catholic as an institution, which saddens me, even though I'm not Christian.

For the record, a Father that I spoke with here about this subject concurred that the Church does not condemn all non-Christians to hell.

Thagastay, three quick questions. What is your view on creation? On the Harrowing of Hell? On the inerrancy of the bible?

And would just like to agree with tecoyah that you have done a awesome job (by your standards) of sealing your own damnation.

Here's what i have learned as a Catholic (and Christian) in my 42 years of life: 12 years of parochial school, four years at a Catholic university, and the last 10 years as a senior high school youth minister...

1. Jesus was a swell guy.
2. We should all love and take care of each other as much as possible.
3. Bible-schmible.
4. After death...it's anybody's guess.

This thread has been great fun and very interesting to read. Thanks to all of you who put so much effort and feeling into your thoughts.

This thread gave me a thought.

Bible-worship seems alot like Idolotry, or placing another God before God.

Probably an overly inflamatory comment, I apologize for any conflict that results. But, I think it is sufficiently important to place into circulation.

And thanks, this thread had some interesting theology.

Actually, That is a fascinating point......

When looked at for what it really is, Someone who follows scripture above what is in the soul, would be following a false God. I can only imagine the debates this subject is likely to start, should get interesting.

Actually, That is an erroneous point......

if everyone listened to their "soul" (i'm not even sure what exactly you mean by this), and everyone has a soul... then everyone would be following their own voice of God. that sounds a whole lot more like idolatry than all in Christendom looking to the scriptures for divine wisdom and truth.

you're taking an issue that resides in a Christian framework and applying your pagan worldview to it. building a strawman from your view of scripture's role and super-imposing it on Christian doctrine.

You are assuming that the scriptures (and thus the interpretation of god contained within) are the "true" essence of God. What if this god actually IS so arrrogant as to forbid the worship of any other interpretation of its persona, and the interpretation in the books is in error. Would this God then condemn all who follow the books to hell.
If we take this to the logical conclusion, the vast majority of humans are in for a heated afterlife, including most christians. There are far too many different takes on the "Word of God" for us feeble minded humans to pick the one that is "real". And as there are hundreds of sects within any one branch of any one religion, they are all worshipping a different version of God.
As far as the Pagan world view, you are correct, that is why they call it a worldview. It taints every aspect of my life. But as it is the path I have chosen at this point in my growth, it is the only way I can honestly question the world around me, that is not to say I cannot "understand" the views of others, and evolve my own worldview through personal growth.

That sounds like a whole lot of tap-dancing to me.

Please , show us the enormity of your experience in this matter, as Mine is obviously quite lacking. And although tap dancing is an interesting way to put my statements, perhaps you could be more exact, that I may understand your meaning.

tecoyah, all (worthwhile) religion has some assumptions to make. Religion involves a lot of assumption based on what appears to be likely. As such, in the Christian perspective, it appears to be likely that the Bible is something whose creation was guided by the Holy Spirit in its writers. Now, that doesn't explain HOW one should read the Bible - to what degree of literalism and interpretation - but for a Christian it DOES explain how to view the Bible.

The Bible is not worshipped as a God, but rather, it contains God. Specifically, God's Word. So, yes, it is held with a high degree of reverence. People don't bow down to the Bible though. The Bible is not hung in churches alongside the cross. And the cross is only a symbol even - albeit a powerful one. So, if the cross is merely a symbol of what Christians believe, and it is hung in multiple places is many churches, then it would stand to reason that if the Bible itself were worshipped, it too would be hung at least as much as the cross if it were more than just a symbol of God. Instead, it is simply something that we believe gives insight into Who God is. Now, one could say "well, you don't KNOW that that's God's Word." No, we don't know in the describable sense that one knows 2+2=4, but likewise, we don't KNOW that Einstein's theory of relativity is fact. That's why it's called a theory still and not a law. We still do a ton of work based off of it, because much of what we observe points to this theory being at least mostly true. Likewise, Christians "know" that the Bible is God's Word because much of what we feel and observe points to this being true. The different between Christians simply lies in how we interpret this Word.

Just as an example, I recently learned of something called the Two Books - the outlook that God has revealed himself in two books - nature and the Bible: general revelation and special revelation respectively. With this view, it is impossible for the two to contradict each other, so one must learn to re-evaluate the way in which the Bible is interpreted. Then of course there are those who interpret the Bible in a much more stringent, literal sense. Both, however, recognize the importance of the Bible as at least one of the primary ways in which God is revealed to us. The fact that there is no material proof of this being the case is hardly any reason to not believe what one feels, or else we may as well simply abandon all faith since for all we know Satanism is the correct one. Faith is not based on what one knows in the material sense, but rather in the spiritual sense. And, in that sense, Christians know that the Bible is the Word of God.

Thank you for the clarification, that makes alot of sense. Still my point was that platypus stated everyone listening to thier soul was worshipping an Idol, and due to the personal interpretation each of us place into the bible we are indeed doing the same thing. While I am quite familiar with the way in which chritians in general practice the faith (having been one for decades), I was bringing up the differences we all have in what "God" is to each of us.
As an example (rather overused and silly), I could never expect my wife to be subservient to myself, yet it is scripture that I do so. Thus I choose to interpret this aspect of the book as one mans addition to "the word", and not as the word of God. In doing so I have changed the book to fit my needs and personality, which has given God a different flaver to me than to someone who takes literally all scripture.
Taken in context this means I am not worshipping the same God as platypus, and am therefore following a false god in his eyes. It would actually make for as many Gods as there are believers, and as many idols as well.

Because Christianity is made up like every other world religion and its followers can't agree on anything thus the many sects and splinter groups.

I think the ability for us to individually interpret the bible is a gift in disguise. Those seeking to have a grasp of just how BIG God is can look in Isaiah 6 and see " I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple."

When the bible is looked at in its entirety, myself and many friends I know view the bible as what they literally are in the New Testament- letters written to us through those appointed by God, with instructions, as well as a history and message for finding the ultimate fulfillment in life, for eternity. Yes, there are cases where verses contradict each other, but taking a string of words out of context is a very dangerous exercise, as it removes the reason those verses were uttered. For example, when you go back and look at some specific cases, you will see historical lifestyle issues that maybe no longer are an issue in our society are being addressed in those passges. The woman by the well who was of different ancestry than Jesus can be expanded into showing compassion to all of those who are different than us.

They seem the same to me but catholic's have saints/christians dont.
christian's are not as old fashioned as catholic's cause christians are more laid back in my opinion ever seen seventh heaven right there is example of a christian,

catholicism
 

sorry if i spelled that wrong. anyways, my question is why does it seem that people consider catholicism to be different than christianity? it seems like if you check out a personals site or whatever, it lists christianity and catholicism seperatly. but i know catholics consider themselves christian... so i don't get it...

This issue's a stinker.

We Catholics consider ourselves Christian. Most Protestant Christians agree, although they show varying degrees of suspicion towards the concepts of big-t Tradition, the infallible interpretation of scripture by the Magisterium, church hierarchy, and all that. Most Catholics, conversely, view with disbelief the mostly Protestant claim that everyone can derive God's will from the Bible alone.

In practice, most serious Catholics follow the instruction they receive from their religious teachers over any interpretation of scripture that they themselves have come up with. The Bible is nebulous, the Catechism is straightforward. A lot of Protestants think that this is the dead wrong way to go about it and we must find for ourselves the answers and conclusions readily offered by Catholic doctrine. I can certainly understand that concern.

Some Protestant Christians, though, believe that Catholic teaching is so far removed from the message of Jesus that it can't be considered Christianity. Protestant churches that call themselves "Bible" or "Fundamentalist" are more likely to hold this position.

This once was a very pertinent political issue. The populace had to be convinced that their monarch, Catholic or Protestant, had the approval of God and the divine right of rulership. Protestant and Catholic rulers each had to undermine the legitimacy of their rivals as best they could...if the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon as described in Revelations and the Pope was the antichrist, then the blessing of the Church was damnation. Conversely, if the Catholic Church was actually founded by Jesus Christ and the process of apostolic succession ensures that the Pope can speak with the authority of St. Peter and that Catholic clergy are the only people on earth who can legitimately perform sacraments, then you may as well have not been a Christian if you weren't Catholic.

It isn't such a life and death issue now, and people on either side have a tough time thinking that their merciful, benevolent God could possibly reject his worshippers because they were in the wrong camp. Even in the past 15 or so years, Catholic and Lutheran leadership have come together and tied up several split hairs with joint declarations on the nature of salvation and such.

I was raised in the Catholic church, and I don't ever remember this being an issue.

I remember being approached by a religious pamphleteer back in college. He asked me if I was Christian. I said, "I'm Catholic." He said, "Is that Christian?" He had never heard of Catholicism. I was confused. I wanted to say, "You do realize that your religion likely splintered off Catholicism some time during the 16th century." (Or splintered off another group that splintered off Catholicism...)

I thought the biggest difference was that in the Christian faith, No man is more holy in the eyes of God, then the next. They are all equal.

In the Catholic faith. The are different level of holiness you can achieve. Even to the level of being the holiest man on earth (IE: the pope)

Or is that Roman Catholics?

Catholic usually means Roman Catholic (though I try to always use Roman Catholic to avoid confusion). There are certainly differences in doctrine between the protestant churches, the RCC, and the Orthodox church, but most people these days would consider RCCers to be Christian. However, it's by no means a dead issue, and so even people who do consider RCCers Christian, if they've been raised in a more conservative sect, they might still have the linguistic habit of dividing the Church into Christians and Catholics.

Protestant and Catholic is a better distinction than Catholic and Christian...

Catholics are Christians just as all the Protestant sects are as well...

My family is Catholic and my father went to a Baptist graduate school. One of the classes he was required to take was religion classes (Baptist of course). His instructor constantly went on on the Catholic Church, saying they aren't Christians and whatnot. Evenually my Dad told him off. He ended up getting a D in the course.

It's funny how they forget that.

Although I wouldn't call myself Catholic anymore (or anything else for that matter), the one thing I think the Church got right was that they don't look at the Bible as literal truth. Instead, they see it as parables that give you guidance in life. I guess that's why Catholics are less likely to have problems with evolution.

kutulu -
I think you got it right. I would call myself Catholic, but probably not as strict-down-the-line. Like many American Catholics, I have some issues with Church doctrine with regards to the modern world.

ANYWAY, I went to Catholic school for K-7 and high school, and found all of my experience remarkably progressive. I was raised in the SF bay area, which may have also affected my experience, but just the same, Catholicism for me was always remarkably accepting (considering). I'm not going to defend the Catholic Church on a lot of the BIG ISSUES, but I think that they are a good organization that is in a very difficult situation. They are attempting to bridge many generations and cultures, and are suffering in it. They are also obviously suffering from the misdeeds of a portion of their clergy (both the people who acted and those who concealed). But I am reluctant to give up on them. I think they have shown they can grow (Vatican 2), and I'd like to see that.

Getting back to the original point, if you think about the word "Christian," it seems to me that the definition is "one who believes in Christ." Of course what that means is pretty wide open. :-)

Phew.. I talk too much

"Catholic" means universal.

If you want to be specific, refer to "Roman" Catholics, because as an Episcopalean, I weekly proclaim that I am a member of "one, catholic faith".