40 lashes for 75 Year Old Woman

[Rhyfelwyr]

And how exactly is that misleading? And who is being misled? JP2 aside from being a saint, was tolerant and non-bigoted. That is a *good* thing.

Obviously the words "I am the way, the truth, and the life" didn't mean anything to him. I would rather preach the word and be deemed a bigot, than lead people away from Jesus in the name of toleration.

[rvg]

Obviously the words "I am the way, the truth, and the life" didn't mean anything to him. I would rather preach the word and be deemed a bigot, than lead people away from Jesus in the name of toleration.

The word you're preaching isn't Christianity. It's Calvinism.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

John Paul II Magnus, when he referenced the "plan of salvation" meant only that there was a path to salvation for those mentioned. He did not assert that their path was equally direct or that The Church was not the preferred path.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The word you're preaching isn't Christianity. It's Calvinism.

They're rather inseperable I would say. Believe it or not, when I bring up the subject of Christianity to non-believers, I don't go straight into the TULIP points. First thing I always ask is, "do you think you are fit to enter heaven, and do you therefore acknowledge the need to accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins". Any Christian believes this. Only after someone has accepted this would I ever mention Calvinism, and when I do I the first thing I point out is that Calvinism is only one theory, and its not central to a person's salvation.

John Paul II Magnus, when he referenced the "plan of salvation" meant only that there was a path to salvation for those mentioned. He did not assert that their path was equally direct or that The Church was not the preferred path.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I do not like having to come across as so intolerant, or bigoted, but in all honesty I cannot pretend that what the Catholic Church is beginning to teach is in any way Christian. It is ignoring the most fundamental aspects of the faith. I can try and sugar-coat it but the Book of Revelation doesn't, this mixing with other religions is nothing else than playing the harlot.

[LittleGrizzly]

My respect for Catholicism just doubled... I now officailly have one iota of respect for the Catholic church

On a serious note it is good to see such tolerance!

[Rhyfelwyr]

My respect for Catholicism just doubled... I now officailly have one iota of respect for the Catholic church

On a serious note it is good to see such tolerance!

And its totally un-Christian but who cares?

[rvg]

I do not like having to come across as so intolerant, or bigoted, but in all honesty I cannot pretend that what the Catholic Church is beginning to teach is in any way Christian. It is ignoring the most fundamental aspects of the faith. I can try and sugar-coat it but the Book of Revelation doesn't, this mixing with other religions is nothing else than playing the harlot.

As A. M. Hills once said: "...Such is Calvinism, the most unreasonable, incongruous, self-contradictory, man-belittling and God-dishonoring scheme of theology that ever appeared in Christian thought. No one can accept its contradictory, mutually exclusive propositions without intellectual self-debasement.... It holds up a self-centered selfish, heartless, remorseless tyrant for God, and bids us worship Him."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Amen.

I do not like having to come across as so intolerant, or bigoted, but in all honesty I cannot pretend that what the Catholic Church is beginning to teach is in any way Christian. It is ignoring the most fundamental aspects of the faith. I can try and sugar-coat it but the Book of Revelation doesn't, this mixing with other religions is nothing else than playing the harlot.

I don't believe JPII was, implicitly or explicitly, advocating a watering down of the truth of Christ being the means of our salvation in God. You are suggesting that ONLY by adopting Christianity as one's personal belief in this life and explicitly can one achieve salvation. All I am suggesting is that I do not know enough of the mind of God to understand the entirety of that plan or the means by which Christ will achieve the salvation of all who would be saved.

By the way, I don't think The Church is really teaching anything "new" here. It has always been the hope of The Church that all in schism -- from whatever cause -- will one day return to share together at the same table.

[LittleGrizzly]

And its totally un-Christian but who cares?

Well not that it bothers me but....

Couldn't Islam technically be praising the same God as Christianity ?

Ill admit my knowledge of Islam is limited to a few documentary's and some minor reading... but the mian difference i see is that in one Christ is a prophet in the other he is the son of god, and that Mohammed was a more important prophet than Christ...

Christianity preaches tolerance (im pretty sure) but also not to worship false idols, im not sure here... would Mohammed be classed as a false idol... or is it only those that are classed as Gods that are false idols ?

Though on the other hand your point might be that any pope/christian leader shouldn't be so errm... overly friendly to another religion... respectful disagreement perhaps being more your thinking... ?

[rvg]

Couldn't Islam technically be praising the same God as Christianity ?

It praises God of Abraham, which makes it the same God as the Judaeo-Christian one.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As A. M. Hills once said: "...Such is Calvinism, the most unreasonable, incongruous, self-contradictory, man-belittling and God-dishonoring scheme of theology that ever appeared in Christian thought. No one can accept its contradictory, mutually exclusive propositions without intellectual self-debasement.... It holds up a self-centered selfish, heartless, remorseless tyrant for God, and bids us worship Him."

And so the undiscussed but very real traditions of anti-Calvinism (a far more potent force than anti-Catholicism) reveals itself. That is typical of the vitrolic statements that come from those who just cannot accept the gospel for what it is. I pointed out the flaws in Catholicism, made valid comparisons with the Book of Revelation. And yet this is just bile straight out of the heart of man, it makes no scriptural sense at all. Honestly... "man-belittling"? I should hope so, since God is not respecter of persons, thankfully Heaven is not run by men and their ways. "God-dishonoring"? Excuse me? I thought your complaint a moment ago was that Calvinism gave all the credit of salvation to God, its what makes it His complete and glorious gift.

And it is a strange "self-centered selfish, heartless, remorseless tyrant" that sends His only son, both totally human and totally divine, to die on the cross for the sins of those who do not deserve forgiveness. The charge against Calvinists that "their God" is merciless is ridiculous, if there was no justice there would be no need for mercy, and so Jesus suffered at God's hand so that people might enter into Heaven sinless, and still men with their doctrines wil deny this because they must believe that they are somehow deserving of their salvation.

I have never suggested you have to believe Calvinism to be a Christian, though apparently many Catholics would not grant this in return, even if they would for Muslims.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It praises God of Abraham, which makes it the same God as the Judaeo-Christian one.

And this God of Abraham, this messiah, is going to come down to earth in times of great trouble, riding upon a white horse armed with a bow? To unite people of all faiths and usher in a new era of peace?

Hmm, this Koranic figure sounds familiar... oh yes its the exact discription given of the antichrist in the Book of Revelation.

[rvg]

And this God of Abraham, this messiah, is going to come down to earth in times of great trouble, riding upon a white horse armed with a bow? To unite people of all faiths and usher in a new era of peace?

I do not remember reading that anywhere in the koran. Care to elaborate?

[Rhyfelwyr]

According to the Koran, there will be a figure called the 'Mahdi', effectively their messiah, who will come when the world is in a time of great trouble (ties with the 'birth pains' of Revelation). So, this figure goes on a conquering spree, converting all the 'infidel' Jews and ushering in a new era of world peace (firmly supported by Daniel and his weekly cycles, with a peace treaty being signed in the middle of his seven year reign). While Muslims believe the Bible to be a very corroputed account of Jesus' life on earth, they believe that the Book of Revelation is a valid prophecy of the end times, but with one difference... the Second Coming of Christ is for them the coming of the Djallal (their antichrist), similarly the rider with the bow (the antichrist for a Christian) is believed to be their Mahdi.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

What IF, Rhyfe, the Bible is wrong and God doesn't exist?

[rvg]

According to the Koran, there will be a figure called the 'Mahdi', effectively their messiah, who will come when the world is in a time of great trouble (ties with the 'birth pains' of Revelation). So, this figure goes on a conquering spree, converting all the 'infidel' Jews and ushering in a new era of world peace (firmly supported by Daniel and his weekly cycles, with a peace treaty being signed in the middle of his seven year reign). While Muslims believe the Bible to be a very corroputed account of Jesus' life on earth, they believe that the Book of Revelation is a valid prophecy of the end times, but with one difference... the Second Coming of Christ is for them the coming of the Djallal (their antichrist), similarly the rider with the bow (the antichrist for a Christian) is believed to be their Mahdi.

There, isn't any mention of Mahdi in the Koran. Mahdi is mentioned in Sunna, which is *not* part of the Koran.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[quote=Rhyfelwyr;2170119]Not necessarily, look at the nationalised churches under the absolutist monarchs.[quote]

Not necessarily what? The King does not claim to hold the keys to heaven, nor does the Primate. Therefore, neither are equivilant to the Pope.

Well the only Christians I've met who have any knowledge of the scripture (in English) are from the Reformed branch of Christianity, often the smaller sects. For example, I have a friend who is a Reformed Baptist, and a relative in the Plymouth Brethren, both are much more evangelical and theologically learned than any one else I've met in RL. Similarly, on the Christian forums I frequent, usually people will state how they have free will because they think they do, before a Calvinist actually refutes them with scripture,.

Being able to quote lots of scripture does not mean understanding it. Many reformed branches try to derrive doctrine from Old Testemant Law, which is incorrect, because the New Covenant nullifies the Law. If you want a scriptural proof, take a look at the passages on divorce in Mark.

To call them Calvinist is stretching things quite a bit. Generally, they viewed Arminianism as a 'compromise' between Calvinism and Catholicism. It's the organisation of a church that allows it to be oppressive, not the doctrine, otherwise how would the doctrine be enforced?

History is testament to the fact that the Catholic Churhc was quite apt at being oppressive without being deterministic.

The Articles of Religion are a mix of Calvinism and Lutheranism, they are decidedly deterministic in tone, and I would say they can be read to contain your TULIP, though they can also be read the other way, which is the genius of their conception.

Every individual should devote their lives to the church. The church shouldn't be constrained within the four walls of a building, faith must be something evident in a person as they go about their everyday tasks, in every part of their life. Look at how Jesus took the common people as his disciples, to make them fishers of men. Anyone can grow in their understanding of the scriptures by living the Christian life, "the way" as they referred to it when Jesus was around. A system which teaches that only certain people can devote their life to "the way", that only they are capable of forming doctrines, is extremely dangerous.

I agree, but you are the one pushing unconditional election, not me. I merely pointed out that priests and bishops are those who devote their lives to God first and formost, they usually give up comfortable lives and nice jobs in order to do it as well.

At University last term, I studied the Scottish Covenanters, namely those murdered in the wake of the Restoration in 1660. And when I read their letters which they had written when they were sentenced to death, I was really shocked at just how comprehensive their knowledge of the scripture was. These were ordinary people, and yet they were certain in their beliefs, referencing from all over the Bible, you can't say they were just brainwashed with Calvinist propaganda. I have never seen anything like this with, say, the Catholics who were persecuted immediately prior to the restoration.

Have a look at the Wycliffites/Lollards, in any case, understanding od scripture requires understanding od context as well as text. Context is something I often find lacking in Protestants, if Catholics have a fault it is that they focus over-much on corporate worships. Of the two the Catholics are acting in good faith, and following the ordinances of what they believe to be the True Church. On the other hand, Protestants insist on making their own decisions, I sometimes wonder how the two will be judged against each other.

The English version is accurate enough to be considered scripture, you can double check the Greek for those very rare occassions when it is needed to clarify a point of doctrine. If they can't, it's not a big deal, they've still got the bulk of the good book.

"I am the Lord Thy God and thout shall have no other Gods before me."

Deliberately archaic, and therefore ambiguous, when written. The commandment could be interpreted as meaning you are allowed multiple Gods, so long as Yahweh is first.

Ordinary Catholics are mislead by their leaders, sometimes to the point that their salvation is threatened. Should I pretend that this is acceptable in the name of toleration? Maybe I should also kiss the Koran and bow to Mecca, why can't we all just get along?

Tollerance and recognition of comminality are not evil things. Hatred is.

They were the early seeds of change, although Lutheranism kick started the Reformation on a serious scale. You can't really pick a single date and say that it was the beginning of the Reformation, the Culdees could have been living by it all along.

Again, Wyclif, Huss, Luther. Each looked back to the one before, fact.

They're rather inseperable I would say. Believe it or not, when I bring up the subject of Christianity to non-believers, I don't go straight into the TULIP points. First thing I always ask is, "do you think you are fit to enter heaven, and do you therefore acknowledge the need to accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins". Any Christian believes this. Only after someone has accepted this would I ever mention Calvinism, and when I do I the first thing I point out is that Calvinism is only one theory, and its not central to a person's salvation.

You would say. For all your certainty you haven't ever provided a convincing proof.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I do not like having to come across as so intolerant, or bigoted, but in all honesty I cannot pretend that what the Catholic Church is beginning to teach is in any way Christian. It is ignoring the most fundamental aspects of the faith. I can try and sugar-coat it but the Book of Revelation doesn't, this mixing with other religions is nothing else than playing the harlot.

Jesus said he came only to the Jews, yet he consorted with Caananites, Samaritans and Romans.

[Fragony]

And this God of Abraham, this messiah, is going to come down to earth in times of great trouble, riding upon a white horse armed with a bow? To unite people of all faiths and usher in a new era of peace?

Hmm, this Koranic figure sounds familiar... oh yes its the exact discription given of the antichrist in the Book of Revelation.

Must be true then.

[rvg]

What IF, Rhyfe, the Bible is wrong and God doesn't exist?

Then life is absurd and nothing matters. Which would make me a sad panda, possibly sad enough to put a bullet through my head.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Must be true then.

I'm not presenting it as proof but I believe the Bible and I believe all of it.

Not necessarily what? The King does not claim to hold the keys to heaven, nor does the Primate. Therefore, neither are equivilant to the Pope.

The doctrine of Papal supremacy didn't emerge until a few centuries after Christs' death.

Being able to quote lots of scripture does not mean understanding it. Many reformed branches try to derrive doctrine from Old Testemant Law, which is incorrect, because the New Covenant nullifies the Law. If you want a scriptural proof, take a look at the passages on divorce in Mark.

Maybe not, but reading the scripture is a good step towards understanding it. Few people I know have taken the first step. Also, the Old Testament Law is not redundant, Jesus himself said that he came to fulfil the laws to establish the Covenant of Grace. Do you think the ten commandments are irelevant to a Christian? Because they are now written on our hearts and not stone? One example of Jesus 'filling in the gaps' is the issue of the sabbath. Seventh-Day Adventists say that by worshipping on a Sunday we are failing to keep the Sabbath (which would be Friday-Saturday evening); what they don't acknowledge is that Christ is now our rest and our Sabbath. A classic example of the laws not being made redunant, but made complete.

The Articles of Religion are a mix of Calvinism and Lutheranism, they are decidedly deterministic in tone, and I would say they can be read to contain your TULIP, though they can also be read the other way, which is the genius of their conception.

I'm not going to argue here, since I agree it was their very vague tone that led to the future Calvinist/Arminian/Catholic debates.

I agree, but you are the one pushing unconditional election, not me. I merely pointed out that priests and bishops are those who devote their lives to God first and formost, they usually give up comfortable lives and nice jobs in order to do it as well.

Unconditional election is irrelevant. All men know the laws and have them written on their hearts, that doesn't mean they can brake them just as surely as they did in the days of the Old Covenant. I don't really have a problem with someone devoting their life to the scripture, I just prefer the system in which everyone plays a role in understanding the scripture, while at the same time doing their part for society. Jesus was a pretty collectivist guy after all.

Have a look at the Wycliffites/Lollards, in any case, understanding od scripture requires understanding od context as well as text. Context is something I often find lacking in Protestants, if Catholics have a fault it is that they focus over-much on corporate worships. Of the two the Catholics are acting in good faith, and following the ordinances of what they believe to be the True Church. On the other hand, Protestants insist on making their own decisions, I sometimes wonder how the two will be judged against each other.

That comparison is so vague and generalised it is practically meaningless. Not many theologians considered the context of Paul's writings when they unwittingly brought ancient Greek religious practises into Christianity and discriminating horribly against women as a result - all Catholics and indeed most Protestants were guilty of this.

"I am the Lord Thy God and thout shall have no other Gods before me."

Deliberately archaic, and therefore ambiguous, when written. The commandment could be interpreted as meaning you are allowed multiple Gods, so long as Yahweh is first.

Well I don't think I will be believing in any other God's any time soon.

Tollerance and recognition of comminality are not evil things. Hatred is.

Denouncing everyone who disagrees with you as a "schismatic" isn't very nice either. All Christian beliefs should be tolerated according to article XX of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It's great to agree on things, wouldn't it be great to have a Godly Republic where every Christian denomination could get along? However, I would be an irresponsible Christian if I told a Muslim that they could 'qualify' (what a horrible legalistic word but can't be avioded, this is what happens when we go into the realms of absurdity) as a Christian.

Again, Wyclif, Huss, Luther. Each looked back to the one before, fact.

And the Culdees were around since the days of Celtic Christianity, fact.

You would say. For all your certainty you haven't ever provided a convincing proof.

Proof of what? The need to acknowledge Jesus died for our sins? Please tell me you believe that? I'm pretty sure that's all I presented as a 'fact' of Christianity. I never said you had to believe Calvinism to be a Christian, its not fun because it seems to make you pretty unpopular. But then so does being a Christian these days. To be honest I spend so long pointlessly defending my faith to friends, family, and the more finer details to people on the internet, that sometimes I feel like just quitting evangelising and just keeping things to myself. I used to be like that, but I knew I had to get out my 'comfort zone' to serve God.

Jesus said he came only to the Jews, yet he consorted with Caananites, Samaritans and Romans.

Spiritual Israel, not just the nation, in accordance with the New Covenant.

[Fragony]

I'm not presenting it as proof but I believe the Bible and I believe all of it.

That's ok but Muhammed was just a warlord, hardly the antichrist.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's ok but Muhammed was just a warlord, hardly the antichrist.

I agree, the antichrist is not a man but a fallen angel (well probably, its not really certain). I don't think Islam is a wicked belief system either. It's got some unpleasant elements, its got some good teachings too. The things is, that is all they are. Just teachings. They do not bring a person salvation. And yet here are major Christian churches proclaiming that Islam is compatible with Christianity, that by worshipping Allah you are worshipping the God of the Trinity as in Christianity. This is not true, and it is an extremely dangerous teaching. Corny as it may sound to you, the antichrist will I believe use such teachings in forcing people to worship him, and to exalt himself above God.

[Fragony]

I don't think Islam is a wicked belief system either. It's got some unpleasant elements, its got some good teachings too. The things is, that is all they are. Just teachings.

I think the problem is that the islam is a whole lot more then religious teachings, it's a religious-political ideoligy and because of the religion part the political consequences aren't to be questioned. It should get with the times or shut up and die, with a little help if needed.

And yet here are major Christian churches proclaiming that Islam is compatible with Christianity, that by worshipping Allah you are worshipping the God of the Trinity as in Christianity

Why not, I use the broadest brush at hand when it comes to religion, Allah is just the arab translation of god.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As A. M. Hills once said: "...Such is Calvinism, the most unreasonable, incongruous, self-contradictory, man-belittling and God-dishonoring scheme of theology that ever appeared in Christian thought. No one can accept its contradictory, mutually exclusive propositions without intellectual self-debasement.... It holds up a self-centered selfish, heartless, remorseless tyrant for God, and bids us worship Him."

I agree.

And so the undiscussed but very real traditions of anti-Calvinism (a far more potent force than anti-Catholicism) reveals itself. That is typical of the vitrolic statements that come from those who just cannot accept the gospel for what it is. I pointed out the flaws in Catholicism, made valid comparisons with the Book of Revelation. And yet this is just bile straight out of the heart of man, it makes no scriptural sense at all. Honestly... "man-belittling"? I should hope so, since God is not respecter of persons, thankfully Heaven is not run by men and their ways. "God-dishonoring"? Excuse me? I thought your complaint a moment ago was that Calvinism gave all the credit of salvation to God, its what makes it His complete and glorious gift.

Calvin's God was a God responsible for Good and evil, a manipulator of man's every thought and action. From this is is clear that he created men to suffer and chose, apparently randomly, who to save. It's a selfish theology which absolves the believers from their own responsibilities and failures, including their failure to effectively preach.

And it is a strange "self-centered selfish, heartless, remorseless tyrant" that sends His only son, both totally human and totally divine, to die on the cross for the sins of those who do not deserve forgiveness. The charge against Calvinists that "their God" is merciless is ridiculous, if there was no justice there would be no need for mercy, and so Jesus suffered at God's hand so that people might enter into Heaven sinless, and still men with their doctrines wil deny this because they must believe that they are somehow deserving of their salvation.

No, that would by my God of universal love, who guides aand protects, and who earnestly desires the salvation of every soul, no matter their sins.

I have never suggested you have to believe Calvinism to be a Christian, though apparently many Catholics would not grant this in return, even if they would for Muslims.

Spiritual Israel, not just the nation, in accordance with the New Covenant.

Rubbish, Jesus spoke to the Jews, the episode with the Caananite woman in Mathew and the Parable of the Good Samaritan, as well as the sending out of the 70, are clear proof of this. Further, Peter's dream and the conversion of Cornelius makes it very clear that the change happens after the Assension.

Oh, and Paul was a sexist bigot, he wrote to the Corinthians and enforced traditional Jewish practices, which also agreed with Greek prejudices. If you knew your scripture half as well as you claim you would know that Mosaic law makes it clear that women should be seen and not heard.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I agree.

Calvin's God was a God responsible for Good and evil, a manipulator of man's every thought and action. From this is is clear that he created men to suffer and chose, apparently randomly, who to save. It's a selfish theology which absolves the believers from their own responsibilities and failures, including their failure to effectively preach.

No, that would by my God of universal love, who guides aand protects, and who earnestly desires the salvation of every soul, no matter their sins.

You don't like Calvinism, fine. Here are your alternatives:

1. We have free will and are unequal, so that those who are more deserving of salvation will take the opportunity
2. We have free will and are equal, so whoever comes to salvation will do so through luck or life circumstance alone

No.1. contradicts just about everything to do with Christianity, and No. 2 is hardly any more appealing to our sense of individualism than unconditional election.

Rubbish, Jesus spoke to the Jews, the episode with the Caananite woman in Mathew and the Parable of the Good Samaritan, as well as the sending out of the 70, are clear proof of this. Further, Peter's dream and the conversion of Cornelius makes it very clear that the change happens after the Assension.

Oh, and Paul was a sexist bigot, he wrote to the Corinthians and enforced traditional Jewish practices, which also agreed with Greek prejudices. If you knew your scripture half as well as you claim you would know that Mosaic law makes it clear that women should be seen and not heard.

By chance, I was reading that very passage with the Cannanite woman last night. Surely it is significant that Jesus states he only came for the lost sheep of Israel, and only then does he heal the woman's daughter. How then can you suggest the New Covenant was not extended to the Gentiles until after the Ascension? Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. I know that doesn't fit too nicely with your views on God's foreknowledge, but that's what the scipture says.

There were a lot of traditions in the Mosaic law that were really just there to establish order and traditions within Jewish society. They've done the trick, the Jews have been dispersed throughout the earth, persecuted unlike any other people in history, and yet God has kept His promise and delivered them to the promised land, kept intact as a people through their traditions. And as you well know many of the traditions no longer apply to us Christians, Jesus is quite explicit about that. But he still quite clearly states that he is come to fill in the gaps in the laws and NOT abolish them, since ultimately a sinful race cannot be saved through the laws alone. Unless you come from one of those Judaizing sects I don't know why you are suggesting that we as Christians are bound by the traditions which are explicity given as a statute unto the Jewish people.

You might be trying to portray yourself as the enlightened party, but ultimately your views do nothing but deny Jesus' teachings to the average person, place all claims to doctrine in the hands of a select priesthood, and bury every teaching Christ showed to the disciples under a mountain of tradition based on Greek and Jewish practices irrelevant to any Christian.

EDIT: And I didn't claim any great knowledge of the scripture. I'm not a theologian, just an average member of a congregation who's read the word.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Calvin's God was a God responsible for Good and evil, a manipulator of man's every thought and action. From this is is clear that he created men to suffer and chose, apparently randomly, who to save. It's a selfish theology which absolves the believers from their own responsibilities and failures, including their failure to effectively preach.

This is another of the totally unfair accusations made against Calvinists. John Calvin was a more dedicated soulwinner than any other major theologian I've seen. God knows who is saved, we don't. If someone ignored the word all their life I would still preach to them on their deathbed, you can never tell when God will make His glory shine through.

Plus you are ignoring the obvious fact that Calvinist groups have been on the whole the most dedicated of Christians, there are few others who rival them, one special mention deserves to go to the Methodists though.

[KukriKhan]

Sin.

That's my basic stumbling block. I think I know what it is, but when I try to explain it to others or myself, the explanation isn't satisfying, or does not feel complete.

What is it, how does it get imparted to my individual 'me'? How does somebody else's sin get transferred to me, as in Original Sin? Why is it something from which my individual me must be saved?

I flatter myself that I "know" good and evil when I see them - but I'm not so sure that's accurate, what with the limitations of my human sensory organs and imagination. How cute that miserable little me thinks I know the universe and the mind of the creator.

[InsaneApache]

I don't sin. I'm an atheist. Good job really.

[Major Robert Dump]

hmmm, reminds me of the documentary Religulous, with Bill Maher, which had me laughing all the way through, particularly the part about Islam, speaking in tongues and the crucifixion theme park with Fabio Jesus....cept the closing monologue was a huge turn off, very Jerry-Springer-final-thoughtish rubbish that even managed to toss in global warming....anyway, worth 1.99 rental for a good laugh, it really does have some good interviews and its not really offensive unless you think that asking questions is blasphemy

[Louis VI the Fat]

I sin all the time. Then I simply confess and am forgiven. I'm a Catholic. Good job, really.