Claims Against the Catholic Church

[temmemarie]

I’m a Roman Catholic, but, I’ve been researching and pondering a lot lately whether I’m in the True Church or not. I’ve been reading Protestant things, and there are a few things that have really got me questioning the Church’s authority. I don’t know if this is right or wrong, and I would appreciate anyone who would give their opinions on the following claims:

1.) I’ve heard Catholics claim that the Church was given power to loose and to bind, and to forgive and retain sins from the verses, “Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven”, and “Whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven, whoever’s sins you retain are retained.” I think what Catholics take these verses to mean is that whatever the Church binds or looses on Earth, God will then bind or looses in Heaven, and, similarly, whoever’s sins a preist forgives through confession, God will then forgive as well.

However, I’ve read an overwhelming number of articles stating that these are misleading translations, and that the grammatical structure of these verses indicates something else, so that these verses would best be translated: “Whatever you bind on Earth will have already been bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will have already been loosed in Heaven”, and “Whoever’s sins you forgive will have already been forgiven, and whoever’s sins you retain will have already been retained.” Many say this verse means that the Apostles should only bind or loose what was already bound or loosed by God. Also, the Apostles should declare who’s sins were or were not already forgiven by God based on God’s terms or forgiveness. I’ve seen Biblical scholars point this out, and I’ve also seen many Bible translations translate this verse similarly.

Perhaps there isn’t much of a conflict with the binding and loosing one, but doesn’t the Catholic Church beleive that the forgiving sins verse gives it the power to forgive sins in Confession? In the case of Confession, the person is forgiven by God as the preist forgives them (right?), so doesn’t that conflict with the translation that whoever’s sins the Apostles forgave (or claimed to be forgiven by God) would have already been forgiven by God?

2.) I’ve seen a few Bible quotes used to prove that Peter was not the fist Pope. These quotes are used to show that the Apostles did not acknowledge that Jesus had given Peter any special authority.

“And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.” -Galatians 2:11-12
The argument here is: If Paul recognized that Peter had been appointed as Head of the Church, he wouldn’t have opposed him, which would be very disrespectful to do to the Pope.

“Then an argument broke out among [the Apostles] about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. [Jesus] said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are adressed as ‘Benefactors’; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.” -Luke 22:24-26
Argument: Why were they arguing over who was the greatest? If Peter has special authority, isn’t it kind of obvious that he’s the greatest? The bishops wouldn’t argue if they were better than the Pope or not, would they?

3.) Finally, the Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics can go to Heaven, but this seems to contradict that:
“It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Apparently, this is from the Council of Florence, the 17th Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church and is dogmatic. Some people have said this just means that if you KNOW that the Catholic Church is the True Church and you STILL refuse to join it, you won’t go to Heaven. But who would do that? Also “[remaining] in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” seems doesn’t seem to include well-meaning Protestants.

Thank you a million times. I am very, very sorry this is so long.

 

[robwar]

You need to stop reading Protestant stuff that is getting you confused and questioning your faith. CAF currently has a book out about Church authority. Likewise there are a number of books out by converts such as “By whose authority” (author escapes me) Another good one is “Pope Fiction” by Patrick Madrid, any of Scott Hahn’s books. another good resource would be the Coming Home network. You need to read things that support your faith and need to read from adult converts that have dealt with these issues and many more. This is why it is never wise to read Protestant books etc which will end up confusing you if you are not solidly grounded in your faith. There is so much great Catholic books out there, it would take a lifetime and still that’s not enough to read and study.
peace

 

[JonathonofOhio]

In addition to the above, read what the early church fathers taught…they can be found in book format or on newadvent.org. Also keep in mind when reading Protestant materials that they too are claiming authority by saying their interpretations trump over 1500 years of church history. By what authority? Their doctrines of “scripture alone” and “faith alone” are based on proof texting scripture, doctrines that didn’t even exist until after 1500 years of church history, during which time neither doctrine was ever taught.

 

[The_Reginator]

I’ll add a brief comment to what robwar has stated.

Reading your post temmemarie I was struck by the fact that you were disturbed by those who rely on scripture alone. The Church that Jesus established decided what should or should not be included in the bible. The Catholic Church has the full deposit of faith … the bible does not have that. We cannot find Truth by trying to interpret Scripture without Tradition.

Be very wary of listening to these ideas. There is no authority behind them, just the musings of men in search of the Truth, the Truth found in the very Church they attack.

 

[Auntie_A]

On the issue of leadership in the Church, let’s start with Jesus: Jesus was the leader yet he washed the feet of his disciples to show them how important their humility would be.

He states to Peter as He names him: “Upon this rock I will build this Church.” This was not a perfect person yet it is clear that he was appointed by Jesus.

Now how does opposition from Paul about Peter create any question about Peter as leader? These were Christians, not fascists. Argument and discussions were nurtured. Groups need a leader AND groups allow dissent.

On the issue of ANY Protestant church’s criticisms, where is THEIR burden of proof? Every little splinter church has their issues, but where is that magic point where, they believe, the Catholic Church went wrong and the Protestant’s beliefs suddenly appeared? Was it when Henry VIII lived? In the 1800’s? Last year? Where is their authority for the various attacks against a traditional Catholic viewpoint? Protestantism was built on the egos of a few powerful men who wanted more power. Did Jesus appoint them? And as a result, more groups splintered off of that Protestant rebellion with more opposition. And that opposition is not in union with the other splintered Protestant groups.

What is served by these questions you have? To build up faith or take it down? Does the Protestant, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, Fundamentalist or any other denomination have truth as their goal? or membership? or destruction?

Does criticism by many groups indicate weakness? Do you believe these questions/critiques are new? Has no one asked these questions before? Have you ever questioned your faith? doubted? gone to study more so you could understand Catholicism more fully and lessen your doubts?

The Catholic Church has a long history of truth seeking, even in the midst of human imperfections. Most of the critiques thrown at Catholicism are usually based on wrong impressions, bad translations, and the constant paradox of requesting: “Scripture only”, when even scripture asks us to honor traditions.

We have always had answers to these questions. Are you truly searching?

Read Keating’s book on Catholicism and fundamentalism.

 

[Nita]

temmemarie:
You’ve combined 2 things in your first item, so I’m going to separate the two topics.
Regarding forgiving sins:

1.)…“Whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven, whoever’s sins you retain are retained.” I think what Catholics take these verses to mean is that…whoever’s sins a preist forgives through confession, God will then forgive as well.

John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
The words of Jesus are quite clear. Read each verse slowly and ponder it. Jesus is “sending” them - and sending them in the same way as He was sent by the Father. He “breathes”(infuses if you will) on them the Holy Spirit to empower them before giving them the command to hear our confessions of sin and speak the words of absolution.
(The terms binding and loosing are not used at this time.)

However, I’ve read an overwhelming number of articles stating that these are misleading translations, and that the grammatical structure of these verses indicates something else, so that these verses would best be translated: …Whoever’s sins you forgive will have already been forgiven, and whoever’s sins you retain will have already been retained."

It’s really the same thing.
If you had good instruction in the Catholic faith then you know repentance is required in order for our sins to be forgiven. We know going into the confessional that if we just tell the priest our sins but are not at all sorry for them and have no intention of even trying to quit committing that sin/s, then we are not forgiven - even if the priest says the words of absolution.

We know it is Jesus/God who forgives us our sins when we confess and repent of them. Therefore when we hear the words of absolution from the priest we know He is speaking for Jesus; it is Jesus who is forgiving our sins.

Also, the Apostles should declare who’s sins were or were not already forgiven by God based on God’s terms or forgiveness. I’ve seen Biblical scholars point this out, and I’ve also seen many Bible translations translate this verse similarly.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Do you mean they should announce publicly who was forgiven and who was not forgiven?

…doesn’t the Catholic Church beleive that the forgiving sins verse gives it the power to forgive sins in Confession?

Only God can forgive sins.

The Catholic Church believes that when Jesus spoke those words He was giving priests the power to speak on His behalf - so the penitent can audibly hear the words of forgiveness Jesus is bestowing on them…
God instituted the sacraments for our benefit – so there would be tangible means for us to know when we are receiving invisible graces/benefits.
God is the one who decided to make us both physical and spiritual (rather than just pure spirits like the angels). He knows we cannot detect immaterial, invisible interactions and gifts. And so He instituted the sacraments to accompany the bestowal of His grace. (Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Confession…) To administer these Sacraments requires a human person and thus Jesus chose humans to carry out that mission.

In the case of Confession, the person is forgiven by God as the preist forgives them (right?), so doesn’t that conflict with the translation that whoever’s sins the Apostles forgave (or claimed to be forgiven by God) would have already been forgiven by God?

The priest speaks the words of absolution, but the actual forgiveness is God’s.
“Whose sins you shall forgive” – (that is, "whose sins you,the priest, speak the words of forgiveness/absolution for)
“they are forgiven” – (it is God who is assuring the priest that upon the priest so doing, - He, God, has/is/had forgiven them.)

Regarding binding and loosing

However, I’ve read an overwhelming number of articles stating that these are misleading translations, and that the grammatical structure of these verses indicates something else, so that these verses would best be translated: “Whatever you bind on Earth will have already been bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will have already been loosed in Heaven”,

I love that translation; wish all Bibles read that way.
Essentially that is what infallibility is – that whatever the Pope binds on earth will agree with the truths in heaven. What a reassurance for us that the Pope will bind only what God has bound in heaven. Truly a solid foundation for us at this point in history, when so many other Christian denominations are being blown over (accepting) by the secular “winds” on the moral issues. (cf. Mt. 7:24-27)

What great gifts we have in the Church.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I’m a Roman Catholic, but, I’ve been researching and pondering a lot lately whether I’m in the True Church or not. I’ve been reading Protestant things, and there are a few things that have really got me questioning the Church’s authority. I don’t know if this is right or wrong, and I would appreciate anyone who would give their opinions on the following claims:

1.) .

However, I’ve read an overwhelming number of articles stating that these are misleading translations, and that the grammatical structure of these verses indicates something else, so that these verses would best be translated: “Whatever you bind on Earth will have already been bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will have already been loosed in Heaven”, and “Whoever’s sins you forgive will have already been forgiven, and whoever’s sins you retain will have already been retained.”

The question still remains even if that were the correct interpretation - who is doing the binding and loosing and who is doing the forgiving? The objection does not address the authority and identity of the binder and looser but of only when it takes place.

2.)The argument here is: If Paul recognized that Peter had been appointed as Head of the Church, he wouldn’t have opposed him, which would be very disrespectful to do to the Pope.

I think that is a weak argument that says Paul did not have as much respect for Peter as he should have so that means Peter could not have been pope. Actually Paul was pointing out Peter’s weakened resolve on his decision to allow Gentiles not to be circumcised and was caving in to some of the judaizers who wanted to impose circumcision on gentiles. Paul was simply pointing out to Peter his inconsistency and telling him not to cave into these Judaizers. It was not a lack of disrespect for Peter but an admonishing for Peter to hold up to his own teaching. Being Pope doesn’t guarantee you that you will always live up to your own beliefs. We can certainly see that in history.

Argument: Why were they arguing over who was the greatest? If Peter has special authority, isn’t it kind of obvious that he’s the greatest? The bishops wouldn’t argue if they were better than the Pope or not, would they?

Does that surprise you? It was not the apostles that appointed Peter but Jesus. It just shows how human the apostles were. Do you think that the bishops who elected the Pope were perfect? Yet God somehow manages to use imperfect human beings to accomplish his will.

3.) Finally, the Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics can go to Heaven, but this seems to contradict that:…

I think that the idea here is that while there is no salvation outside the church that those who are ignorant of Christ and his church through no fault of their own may still be saved known only to God. Thus, the church makes room for people who have not knowingly rejected Christ and his church. How can they be judged on what the could not possibly have known? Think of the extreme example of the native americans which nicely illustrates this point. For prior to the discover of the Americas there is no way they could know about Christianity. God is after all sovereign and can save whoever he wishes. And scripture says that God desires all men to be saved. So doesn’t he care about the native americans? Of course he does.

In the Catechism it says the church wishes to affirm that there is no salvation outside the church but wishes to formulate this in the positive sense.

The Catechisms states:

"“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338 "

 

[Nita]

Regarding Confession, here are some words from the Catechism. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4C.HTM

1440 Sin is before all else an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him. At the same time it damages communion with the Church. For this reason conversion entails both God’s forgiveness and reconciliation with the Church, which are expressed and accomplished liturgically by the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.

Only God forgives sin

**1441 **Only God forgives sins. Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” and exercises this divine power: “Your sins are forgiven.” Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.

**1442 **Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the “ministry of reconciliation.” The apostle is sent out “on behalf of Christ” with “God making his appeal” through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."
(Bolding done by me)

 

[temmemarie]

You’ve combined 2 things in your first item, so I’m going to separate the two topics.
**Regarding forgiving sins:**John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
The words of Jesus are quite clear. Read each verse slowly and ponder it. Jesus is “sending” them - and sending them in the same way as He was sent by the Father. He “breathes”(infuses if you will) on them the Holy Spirit to empower them before giving them the command to hear our confessions of sin and speak the words of absolution.
(The terms binding and loosing are not used at this time.)

It’s really the same thing.
If you had good instruction in the Catholic faith then you know repentance is required in order for our sins to be forgiven. We know going into the confessional that if we just tell the priest our sins but are not at all sorry for them and have no intention of even trying to quit committing that sin/s, then we are not forgiven - even if the priest says the words of absolution.

We know it is Jesus/God who forgives us our sins when we confess and repent of them. Therefore when we hear the words of absolution from the priest we know He is speaking for Jesus; it is Jesus who is forgiving our sins.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Do you mean they should announce publicly who was forgiven and who was not forgiven?

Only God can forgive sins.

The Catholic Church believes that when Jesus spoke those words He was giving priests the power to speak on His behalf - so the penitent can audibly hear the words of forgiveness Jesus is bestowing on them…
God instituted the sacraments for our benefit – so there would be tangible means for us to know when we are receiving invisible graces/benefits.
God is the one who decided to make us both physical and spiritual (rather than just pure spirits like the angels). He knows we cannot detect immaterial, invisible interactions and gifts. And so He instituted the sacraments to accompany the bestowal of His grace. (Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Confession…) To administer these Sacraments requires a human person and thus Jesus chose humans to carry out that mission.

The priest speaks the words of absolution, but the actual forgiveness is God’s.
“Whose sins you shall forgive” – (that is, "whose sins you,the priest, speak the words of forgiveness/absolution for)
“they are forgiven” – (it is God who is assuring the priest that upon the priest so doing, - He, God, has/is/had forgiven them.)

Regarding binding and loosingI love that translation; wish all Bibles read that way.
Essentially that is what infallibility is – that whatever the Pope binds on earth will agree with the truths in heaven. What a reassurance for us that the Pope will bind only what God has bound in heaven. Truly a solid foundation for us at this point in history, when so many other Christian denominations are being blown over (accepting) by the secular “winds” on the moral issues. (cf. Mt. 7:24-27)

What great gifts we have in the Church.

 

[temmemarie]

Thank you to everyone who responded…So many helpful people!
I know people can be misleading, but I was looking at Catholic stuff as well as Protestant stuff. You have to look at both sides, right? Everyone’s answers have really helped me, and I have more faith in the Catholic Church, it’s just, I guess when you have people calling it evil it kind of gets you worrying.
You see, I’ve been thinking about learning more about the faith and “becoming more Catholic” I guess you could say, but when you go deeper into something… you sometimes start to worry if you’re getting into the right thing.

Only God can forgive sins.

The Catholic Church believes that when Jesus spoke those words He was giving priests the power to speak on His behalf - so the penitent can audibly hear the words of forgiveness Jesus is bestowing on them…

Nita, this makes a lot of sense. I knew that God was really the One forgiving your sins through the preist, but our preist at church always tells us that his 2nd favorite thing to do as a preist is forgive sins, and, well, I guess I took it the wrong way and got a little misled.

fisherman carl, what you said about the Apostles fighting makes sense. Perhaps Peter being Pope would actually give them MORE of a reason to fight, considering that they may be a bit jealous or confused about why Jesus chose Peter over them.
I also appreciate your explaination on no salvation outside the Church.

 

[Nita]

2.)…“Then an argument broke out among [the Apostles] about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. [Jesus] said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are adressed as ‘Benefactors’; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.” -Luke 22:24-26
Argument: Why were they arguing over who was the greatest? If Peter has special authority, isn’t it kind of obvious that he’s the greatest? …

I really found the question you posed here very interesting. I had never thought about it before and it got me thinking. Here are the thoughts I came up with.

The apostles’ arguing was probably not about who would have the greatest authority in the Church Jesus would be establishing – especially since they already knew whom He had appointed as head. It might have been arguments in regards to:

1. who was more effective at preaching - attracting more listeners; who was more popular with the crowds;
   (Recall Jesus did send them out to preach and baptize. cf. Mt. 10:5 et seq.; John 4:1)
2. who followed Jesus’ commands more closely;
3. who remembered and/or understood Jesus’ teachings better (intellectual superiority)
4. who seemed “holier” (spiritual superiority)
   etc.

In other words, any way in which they would appear superior to the others; above the others; commanding more respect than the others.

 

[Nita]

Nita, this makes a lot of sense. I knew that God was really the One forgiving your sins through the preist, but our preist at church always tells us that his 2nd favorite thing to do as a preist is forgive sins, and, well, I guess I took it the wrong way and got a little misled.
.

I hope I didn’t make the role of the priest sound too inconsequential. The power to forgive sins belongs to God alone, but it was God who chose to “exercise” His power of absolution through others – specifically, through the apostles and their successors. (cf. CCC 1442) Thus the actual forgiveness of our sins is tied to the absolution granted by the priest.

It is similar to the way in which God has bound His grace for the Baptismal remission of sin (original and personal) to the physical element of water and the spoken words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and…”

 

[Robyn_p]

Hi Marie!

I just wanted to say I know where you’re c

 

[Robyn_p]

Hi Marie!!

Other posters have already given you some great answers. I just wanted to say I know where you are coming from! I felt exactly like you did just two years ago. I honestly wasn’t sure if Catholicism was true. I never heard really good answers before. And I did not want to be part of a religion just because my parents were. Catholicism goes back on my moms side hundreds of years! My dad they were all baptist. My dad eventually converted, but I still wasn’t sure if Catholicism was true.

I looked up the claims of dozens of different religions. Bur I couldn’t discount Jesus, I knew he wasn’t just a wise teacher or a prophet, nobody says the kind of things he did. So I wanted to know which Christian Church got his message right. I didn’t care what they’re outward appearance was, If they were exciting and dynamic. I wanted the truth. I noticed, that all (at least the ones I looked into; Mormonism, JWs, Lutherans, Calvinism, Baptists,etc…) had one claim in common. The early Church was (insert denomination here) but then it quickly corrupted a few hundred years in, and that became the Catholic Church. Then (insert founder of denomination) came and restored the true Church of Christ. I found that VERY intriguing to me. Only the Catholic Church claimed to go all the way back without any break in succession or doctrine.

So I figured, there’s only one way to find out who’s right. I’ll look at the early Church!! I told myself, whatever Church I find there, I’ll become a part of. So that’s what I did. I found Ignatius of Antioch teaching the Eucharist, saying it was really the flesh and blood of Our Lord…in 107 AD. I saw Justin Martyr describing the Early Church’s worship service in 150, and it was exactly like the Mass!! I saw Irenaeus of Lyons in his work Against Heresies saying that if anyone wants to make sure they are in the true Church, they must be joined to the Church of Rome because of its special place of preeminence! And on and on it went, every where I looked I was like, hey! Thats what I still do! That’s what we still believe! And it was so universal and united their testimony. Not just some isolated individual saying some things. But bishops who were ordained by the apostles themselves or ordained by men the apostles ordained. So fresh! I just limited it to the first two and three centuries, since that seemed to be when most of the other religions said the early Church was pure and undefiled. But it seemed so Catholic.

Still though, it was a while before I was really convinced. I still didn’t really know how to defend the stuff we believe. Even if the Early Church believed it, WHY do we believe it. Then I accidentally found Scott Hahn and Tim Staples and Patrick Madrid…and for the first time I heard real, biblical, historical, reasonable answers. And I was set on fire ever since.

Sorry this was such a long story. I just wanted to encourage you that what you’re doing is good!! It’s how God reached me. Just don’t give up, look to see why the Church teaches what she does. It’s really awesome, and I hope we can help you in anyway way possible. Seek and you shall find. He meant it.

Just some words of encouragement.

 

[Hat4]

You will hear arguments using the Bible to prove that Jesus is actually Michael the Arc Angel, that you will go to hell for worshiping on any day other than Saturday, that there is no Trinity etc. and they will all sound about as convincing as what you read. To be Protestant you will need to ask yourself which man or women finally found what God wanted after 1500 to 2000 years of leaving his flock in the dark. You will need to discover that before you can trust their exegesis.

 

[temmemarie]

Thank you for your story, Robyn p, it’s very inspirational. Especially because I know very few people who care about knowing the truth enough to actually seek it out! Most people just stick to their own religion and don’t question it, which really doesn’t make much sense.

 

[temmemarie]

You will hear arguments using the Bible to prove that Jesus is actually Michael the Arc Angel, that you will go to hell for worshiping on any day other than Saturday, that there is no Trinity etc. and they will all sound about as convincing as what you read.

This is a good point, the Bible isn’t exactly the CLEAREST thing in the World. I think about this often. Without the Church, how is a Christian supposed to know how to live their life? There are a million interpretations of the Bible. It’s like being lost in a tornado of people trying to grab at you and teach you THEIR interpreatation…It’s kind of scary. That’s why the Church is comforting…it gives me a general direction in life (there are 3 persons in the Trinity, abortion is wrong, ect.)