Answer me this then: Why is it that you never hear about people who are homosexuals or lesbians becoming Catholics?

*wishing I could edit my post* I guess what I'm really trying to say is from my understanding that there is no power in Catholicism to change the person for the better. You never hear about someone who is a prostitute for example becoming Catholic and having their lives changed.

why do u follow the bible, although you know it has been altered and changed ^o|

?

Aure you do, go look at a "lives of the Saints"


http://www.franciscanfriars.com/

With all due respect, you have no right to make such definitive claims of Roman Catholicism while being so ignorant(not in an insulting sense) of the religion, it's doctrin, or it's people.

And you are not likely to ammend this ignorance by reading propaganda articles like the one you cited.

Most of the alterations arn't to drastic, and Christians don't take the Bible as the literal word of God, at least not generally, many Christian thologians would have no problem admitting it has historic and scientific inaccurcy.

I'll read through the site that you referenced but one thing immediately stood out, the Catholic belief of transubstantiation was mentioned concerning someone's conversion. Here's a good link explaining it from a Biblical perspective, and not necessarily a Catholic perspective: http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/eucharist.html



I'll admit that I don't know a whole lot about Catholicism. I've watched EWTN many times. I have a Catholic encyclopedia in my favorites. The thing is though, none of what you said explains that bleak Catholic history. As far as I'm concerned that alone eliminates Catholicism from being considered the true representation of what Jesus taught.

Just be careful that you don't make the mistake of concluding that since the Catholic church is not the one true and exclusive representation of the church nor the sole keepers of the faith that Jesus taught, that it therefore follows that they aren't truly Christian. I tend to doubt that any of us Christians have a perfect understanding, and I've never actually heard the Catholic church claim that they did. I think that there is probably both truth and error in all of our teachings (even those of atheists) and on that grand continuum I would suspect that while there are points of theology over which I disagree with my Catholic brethern, that they are indeed my brethern and we are each likely to be right and wrong on different things, but probably in relatively similar amounts. On the whole I think we both get it right the majority of the time.

As I've said I'm really not interested in reading a propaganda websight, the doctrin of transubatantiation/consubstantiation is very old, it is directly refrenced even in 110AD, and it or something like it has been held fairly universally I global Christianity throughout time with the stark example of American Fundamentalism.

Now, perhapse it is wrong, however it clearly has a Biblical basis, even if as this author contens it is misrepresented and it is how the early Christians interpreted the verse.

Transubstantiation is not a Catholic specific doctrin, it is well established in not only the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholic Church's, the Orthodox Church's, many Anglican/Episcopalian sects, most other strong protestant sects hold a very simmilar doctrin.



If you don't know much, isin't it dishonest to make such definite claims about the religion?

?

Care to be specific?

I think this is good advice. Will you take it with regard to your following comment?


From the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Communion (which includes both the Anglican and Episcopal church): The that very article is quote in the Articles of Religion used by John Wesley and continued in all of the various Methodist denominations. You will also find that Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed churches, and Baptists of all stripes (not just those that are fundamentalists), reject the concept as well. So, it seems that "most other strong protestants sects" actually hold a different view than what you posted for them.


And as far as the Orthodox go, while they do believe in the bread and wine of the Eucharist actually becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, they do not believe it in the same way as do Catholics, enough so that this is one of the issues involved in the split between the two groups.

I would consider consubstantiation a sillilar doctrin, especially when you look at the way some protestant theologians speak about it, I really don't consider Baptists protestants, I'm not makeing that demarcation as a strict historical fact, however when I think protestant I generally think Lutherans, who do beleive in consubstantiation, perhapse Anglicans, Calvanists, etc.

Episcopalians and Anglicans do NOT hold transubstantiation as an official doctrin however different sects within the community take it different ways, some do indeed beleive something very simmilar to what Roman Catholics mean when they say transubstiation. If I said 'Transubstantiation means we eat the body of Christ" most strong protestant sects would fervently disagrea, if I said, "concetration transforms the host so that the substance changed and only the accidents remain" I think many would be more inclined to agrea, not in that they beleive it but then the line between what a Lutheran means by consubstantiation and what an Catholic means by transubstantiation becomes harder to distinguish. Or at least that is the impression I have gotten from my grandfather and reading certain protestants, manily older, more traditional ones.

Haveing said that, I do accecpt your criticism and overstated myself

Salaam/peace;


I read that some Jews in the holy land burned NT those were distributed by Christian Missionaries.

Do u think , to avoid burning of holy Bible , Missionaries must stop preaching to Jews or they should continue preaching there ?

Depends upon the nature of the mission I suppose. A Christian is obligated to spread the Word wherever he or she can, and the thought of someone burning the NT isn't quite as alarming as it might be to a Muslim with the Qu'ran. There are a good many Jewish Christians, and it wouldn't be a bad thing to see more of them.

burning some one else's holy books is wrong, no matter what you think.
however, christians proselytizing jews in israel is pretty nervy in view of christian history.

Salaam/peace;

pl. explain.

I had the chance to sit by a Jewess last evening on the plane to Belgium and had a short but interesting conversation with her. I learned that converts are accpted into Judaism, but must go through some religous training, much like what I understand of Catholicism. She confirmed that they don't prostelize and seek converts from other religions or from among non-religious people.

Can you explain what a Jewish Christian is? I assume that you mean a convert to Christianity from Judaism.