₦airaland Forum

I actually do not believe that there are any collisions between what I believe as a Christian, and what I know and have learned about as a scientist. I think there's a broad perception that that's the case, and that’s what scares many scientists away from a serious consideration of faith. But, unless one chooses to make an absolutely literal interpretation of the book of Genesis and the story of creation -- which I believe is not a choice that people made even before science came along in the last century to cast some doubt upon the timing of the creation events -- other than that I am not aware of any reasons why one cannot be a completely dedicated person of faith who believes that God inspired the writings in the Bible, and also be a rigorous, intellectually completely honest scientist, who does not accept things about the natural world until they're proven.

Yes, I agree with that.

Let's talk what's most likely to happen

Why I Am A Catholic - Faith + Reason

Catholic Reason understands that faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth, and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.

Was catholic, spend couple of years in many other types of christian denominations, got into trouble and got kicked out. Only in the catholic tradition do I get support, so catholic again.

That would be my decision really. Why associate oneself with the wrong crowd. I value a certain level of culture with the people I associate.

I agree with that one. Many protestant churches are anti-intellectuals. Very strange how people can believe what they have no idea about, while damning those who actually understand what they are talking about. Actually if I found no christian church that believed in reason things out, I would be an atheist I think.

Not me

Yep. leave me out. Wish you a nice day everyone

This is where Christianity differs from Judaism and Islam in it's application. Both Judaism and Islam strees the importance of knowledge and learning very much.


You forgot me, and I am catholic. What shall we do now. Can you change it a bit nfern

Well put logical

My lady ran away because I was was Catholic. I did not understand why, so there you go. But she talked about spirits every time and I never kept my mouth shut

You can question Moses if you like. One thing is for sure, he did not part the red sea.

Allonym, I think I am authority on the matter of measurement.

The Reformation and Renaissance began the modern period. It was then that words became more important than symbol, sacrament, and mystery, probably because of the advancement of empirical science. At this point the accuracy of the message of the Bible became tied to the absolute inerrancy of the Bible to the letter.

That got them into more problems then they solved.

Who was Christ?

1)A cultural and social revolutionary who disregarded the conventions of polite society.
2)Broke the religious laws regularly.
3)Associated with the "wrong crowd.
4)Challenged the emptiness and superficiality of societies traditions and beliefs.
5)Christ was crucified, at least partly, for being a modernist and an ethical relativist.
6)If Christ came to live among us now, fundamentalists would have him crucified again, not because they hate Christ, but because they would not recognize him.

Is not a far fetched idea though.

There are many things we can learn from the Bible if one uses it sometimes though.

Accurate in the sense of how much it is away from the original – 4 or 5.

Was talking about new testament

About 1500 years. Anyway, the Bible is not supposed to be error free, but it is supposed to be accurate.

The Bible has been subjected to attacks to disprove its accuracy.
(1) Questioning the existence of the Hittite kingdom.
(2) Questioning existence of Solomon and David.
Archaeologists confirmed Bible accuracy in these areas. Non-Christians then started to climb up the ladder and question existence of Moses and Abraham too. While they argue that Christians presuppose the inerrancy of the Bible, are they not doing the same in their presupposition that everything in the Bible is in err unless proven?

For me, protestantinism chucked out things they did not like. Those part were always considered part of the bible.

Look at the initial discussion, long time ago. I am sane don't worry

What might come as a shock to many modern-day Christians, the early Church also placed more emphasis on the message of scripture over actual words on pages. The early Church was not so much concerned with the words, but rather with what the text tells us about Jesus and the Christian faith.

Not really.

1. Which non-Christians go to Heaven, if any? Situations to consider:
a. Universalism: God loves everybody and saves everybody, whether they cooperate with Him or not.
Objection 1: Then why evangelize?
Objection 2: If God gave people the freedom to reject Him, why would he take it away again? If He planned to take it away, it isn’t really freedom.
b. People who cannot hear or respond to the Gospel.

2. Those who knew God but died in Old Testament times.
They are saved by Christ, same as us. Noah, Abraham, etc., are Christ’s firstfruits. The whole Epistle to the Hebrews is about this.

3. Those who die as infants or are severely mentally deficient.
The Bible says little or nothing, but most Protestants believe that such people are not fully accountable for sin, and hence are not separated from God in the first place.
Catholics believe they are not punished for sin and go to heaven.

4. Those to whom the Gospel is never preached, or who, due to prior prejudice or misinformation, are unable to understand it when they hear it. Be careful what you say about this case.

"God wouldn’t punish them for rejecting Christ" – no, He never punishes you for rejecting Christ. He punishes you for your own sins, not the sins you have not had the opportunity to commit, and that’s quite enough!

"God will save everybody who has no opportunity to choose whether to accept Christ" – well, then, let’s arrange for Christianity to die out, so then nobody will hear the Gospel and everybody will be saved!
See also the next 2 cases.

5. Those who live a life of good works while practicing some other religion (or none).
Remember that good works alone do not save you, but are necessary for salvation. Enough said. But see the next case:

6. Those who seek God’s mercy while practicing some other religion (or none).
This is the interesting case. Two clear Biblical teachings:
a. Salvation is made possible by the death of Christ on the cross. Apart from Christ and what he did, there is no salvation. (Acts 4:12, John 14:6; Lk 10:22)
b. Non-Christians can, at least in principle, perceive God’s righteousness and their need for His mercy. (Romans 1:18-20, 2:14-16; Acts 17:28)
Whatever we conclude will need to be faithful to both of these teachings.

My opinion is the following (and you are welcome to disagree):

a. It is possible for a non-Christian to realize his need for God’s mercy and seek it.
(Note: Although I think this is possible, I do not think it happens routinely. Missionaries report finding occasional cases of it.)

b. In my opinion, God will not turn away people who seek His mercy, even if their understanding of Him is vague and they lack historical knowledge of Christ. (Some of God’s people in the Old Testament knew little about Him and His works; one example appears to be Melchisedek.)

c. We should never rely on Christ to save people who have not heard the Gospel. We have our marching orders.

d. The Bible gives no statistics on how many people go to Hell. It does, however, clearly teach that it is possible to do so, and that evangelism is urgently needed.

I run as close to universalism as I can – which is not very close, because I’m constrained by the Bible.

The Lesson of the Rich Young Ruler

How good are you? Christianity teaches as other religions do to improve ones self to be accepted by God.
In Mk.10:17-22 We find a rich man running to Jesus and kneels asking him “Good teacher (Rabbi) what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? To call Jesus good meant a moral perfection in Judaism, not just being a caring kindhearted person.

Jesus sees he is sincere in his pursuit and loved him, that he was observant of the law and was a righteous man. He then said to him, If you want to be perfect, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.
Perfect here means if you want to be complete, mature. SO in addition to doing good and living a just and righteous life one needs to accept god to be truly perfect, to be at best. So he gave him a harder task than others. That's how one can grow. It does not mean good works do not matter. Jesus was always doing good works and that's a fact.

Bluxx knows nothing about evolution

Your smile didn't work. Sorry

The same

Thay are equal but not the same

I see a lot of prejudice coming up