If the Catholic Church is the true Church, why is it that Evangelical Protestants are more successful in making converts?

Full Question

If the Catholic Church is the true Church, why is it that Evangelical Protestants are more successful in making converts?

Answer

Success in making converts doesn’t necessarily prove the truth of a religion. If it did, then Mormonism and the faith of the Jehovah’s Witnesses would have to be the truest forms of Christianity since they’re growing even faster than Evangelical Protestantism.

Failure to make converts doesn’t disprove a religion’s claim to truth either. Only a small minority of Jesus’ contemporaries accepted his message, yet this didn’t refute Christ’s messianic claims.

Why have Evangelicals been so successful lately in making converts? Because they’re making better use of their partial truth than Catholics are making of their complete truth.

It’s like the Jews and the Samaritans. God revealed himself to Israel and entrusted to it his commandments. Yet in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:29-37), it was a Samaritan, someone regarded as defiled, who actually carried out God’s commandments.

God worked through an obedient Samaritan, a man outside the salvific covenant community, rather than through a negligent priest or Levite.

Similarly, Evangelicals are doing more with less, and Catholics are doing less with more. When Catholics wake up to this reality, we’ll also make converts. It’s time we had, as Chesterton put it, not a Church which will move with the world, but a Church which will move the world.













wpsd_autopost:
1

212 comments

  1. Sonia Reply

    I will tell you yyy there go to this church there ar telling people call no one farther and there ar calling the Catholic Church all the time brain washing them we tell them the truth and it hurts a lot of people and we ar not so easy going as there ar we stick to the truth I have been to these churches and listen to them I don’t like the way there work

    1. Ed M. 3rd. (@edm3rd) Reply

      When was the last time local bishop pointed out let alone promoted faith teachings on Birth control etc..

    2. Susan Reply

      The movie Spotlight is a good start. The persecution of anyone not being Catholic. Makes Catholics appear that they are evil.

    3. Teriqua Jones Reply

      Sonia, That was the longest, most nonsensical sentence I’ve read online.

      1. Greg Reply

        Teriqua Jones: Nothing she writes makes sense.

    4. Teri Reply

      What are you trying to say?

    5. Debbie Reply

      you nailed it Sonia, I agree with you 100%

    6. Rex Reply

      Catholic Church is the only church and the only church that can true itself all the way to Christ. So if Christ is God and he promised the church that the gates of hell won’t prevail then who are you to say God is a liar? Seriously. Great accusation here. Maybe you should check out what the real Church that was instituted by Christ teaches before you yap out the stupid lame accusations. That just shows how well you are Not reading the Catholic book called the Bible! Sheesh.

      1. Rob Adams Reply

        The RCC got its start in the fourth century by the Roman government as a political/religious organization to control the masses. It has no ties to true Christiamity or Christ Himself.

      2. Lisa Agosta Reply

        The catholic church didnt read revelations where it says not to add or take away from,the scripture. Right call no one father. No such thing as purgatory etc read scripture. You have to see the issues yourself

        1. WALT C Reply

          Since the Bible didn’t exist when John wrote Revelations, he was only referring to his book when he wrote no one can add to it. It was included with the other books that make up the bible.

          1. Isaiah's Cry

            Actually, it’s also in the OT. Proverbs 30:6 “Do not add to His words,
            Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” If you think it’s okay to add to God’s Word, feel free. You’ll be judged as a liar.

    7. James M Reply

      Evangelicals are flourishing because they are led by men of God; Catholics are led by men – if they are men – of bureaucracy, who couldn’t evangelise their way out of a paper bag if their lives depended on it. But, boy, can they woffle ! (Some people would use a much less polite term.)

      1. rizal Reply

        evangelicals are successful becuase they use lies about the catholic church to lure people away from Christ church leads them to hereries of invented protestant doctrines.

        1. Isaiah's Cry Reply

          ROFL. Yeah, why are you defending an apostate church that teaches false doctrines….and then accuses Christians of lying. Oh yeah….because we know that the father of lies is your father.

        2. Isaiah's Cry Reply

          Here’s a bit of truth for ya….Catholicism is a man-made organization created centuries after Jesus walked the earth, as a political/religious organization to control the masses, especially the ignorant ones. Hence why their original Bibles were written in Latin, a language only known among well educated people, so that the peasants wouldn’t know all the lies they were spreading. Catholicism has not connection with Jesus, or the True Church, but is built upon lies and false, anti-biblical doctrines. They promote necromancy, idolatry, and deifying humans.

          1. Patrick Gannon

            I agree with much of that.
            .
            The problem is you speak of things that are “anti-biblical doctrines.” However the Catholics were the ones who assembled the bible and decided what would be in it. There were many other gospels and revelations floating around at the time – many historians think the RCC made a point of destroying as many as possible once THEY decided what the orthodoxy (truth) was going to be. If not for the Catholic Church, the bible might look very different. Some of the gospels floating around even suggested that Jesus had come to save mankind from God (given his poor behaviour in the Jewish scriptures). There were many competing sects, both in Judaism and in early Christianity. Many of the texts floating around at that time depicted early Christianity as a mystery religion pulled right out of expectations for a messiah that arose because of prophetic problems in Jeremiah and then Daniel (which many scholars consider to be forged) which pointed to a date of 30 AD. These texts depicted Jesus as Paul does – as a celestial god, not THE God, and not a real human being. The whole idea of Jesus as a walking, talking, living human being seems to have arisen with whatever material the author of Mark used – and from there, they just copied and embellished.

            As an aside – Paul’s Jesus does not appear to be human. He never refers to anything about Jesus’ birth, baptism, family, disciples, miracles, parables, or crucifixion details. Look at anyone writing about a famous person and they will use real examples. Paul never says, “Jesus solved this problem in this way,” or “When Jesus was confronted with this issue, he did this,” or anything of the kind. His letters to his congregations are extremely bizarre if there is a real Jesus, but make perfect sense if he thinks Jesus lives in the sky as a celestial being. Paul apparently has no concept of a physical Jesus. Some think Hebrews was written in the 90’s; while others think the 60’s, just after Paul. If so, there is much in Hebrews would also reinforce this idea of a celestial Jesus. Around 70AD when the gospel of Mark was written, Jesus became a flesh and blood human. However, if Jesus wa a real person, he was a complete nobody, because not a single historian of the time wrote anything about him.
            .
            In any event, the RCC decided what the final bible would include, what the final edits would entail, and we have none of the original documents to see if they did it right, or made intentional modifications – for which there is a lot of evidence – see Bart Ehrman as one well-known expert on the subject.
            .
            The problem evangelicals have when they hack away at Catholicism, is that they are hacking away at their own roots. Hack away!

            Sources for some of this: Willis Barnstone “The Other Bible,” Richard Carrier’s “Historicity of Jesus,” Bart Ehrman “Misquoting Jesus” and others.

          2. Isaiah's Cry

            I see our resident fool is back flaunting your lack of education. In case you didn’t know, you’ve already made it clear to everyone that you don’t understand the simplest things of theology and the Bible. No need to keep trying to prove it. And with all your ignorance, you still haven’t changed the truth that Catholicism is a man-made organization created centuries after Jesus walked the earth, as a political/religious organization to control the masses, especially the ignorant ones. Hence why their original Bibles were written in Latin, a language only known among well educated people, so that the peasants wouldn’t know all the lies they were spreading. Catholicism has not connection with Jesus, or the True Church, but is built upon lies and false, anti-biblical doctrines. They promote necromancy, idolatry, and deifying humans.

          3. Patrick Gannon

            I didn’t ask anyone to believe me; I provided sources, and I will not respond directly to you IC, unless you are commenting on specific issues. I notice that besides calling me names, you didn’t counter, object to, or challenge my assertions. So I win.

          4. Isaiah's Cry

            Oh….so you continue to flaunt your ignorance because you’re too ignorant to know better. I can understand that. You have nothing that could be considered intelligent enough to “challenge.” You have just ignorant blatherings of a fool. You’ve shown time after time on this article that you have no understanding of God’s Word. You’re just an argumentative jester with no credibility. Arguing such things with you is worse than arguing quantum physics with a 5 year old. You’ll just keep posting stupid things, and, in your psychosis, smiling at yourself because you think you’re smarter than you actually are.

          5. Isaiah's Cry

            Besides, Gannon, despite your “assertions” you still haven’t changed the truth that Catholicism is a man-made organization created centuries after Jesus walked the earth, as a political/religious organization to control the masses, especially the ignorant ones. Hence why their original Bibles were written in Latin, a language only known among well educated people, so that the peasants wouldn’t know all the lies they were spreading. Catholicism has not connection with Jesus, or the True Church, but is built upon lies and false, anti-biblical doctrines. They promote necromancy, idolatry, and deifying humans.

          6. Patrick Gannon

            I didn’t dispute any of that, did I? I just pointed out that evangelicals are a branch that came from Catholicism and any time they attack the RCC, they are hacking away at their own roots. So, as I said before, please hack away. I’m happy to point out flaws in Catholicism and do so on the CatholicSay forum almost every day, although I do it in a far more educated and professional way than you do.
            .
            I may be wrong, but I think most Catholics are better educated than most evangelicals, and confronting intelligent people with logical, reasonable ideas based on critical thinking and objective evidence is likely to lead to better results than calling them idiots like you do. I think your approach just points out to them, that if there has to be a religion – it’s better to have some dignity than to be a fundagelical who must resort to bashing others. But have at it. It’s an open forum, and I really do enjoy watching you hack at your own roots.

          7. Patrick Gannon

            Hmm. I think I figured you out. You are actually a Catholic in disguise trying to make Catholics hate Evangelicals (and you’re doing a wonderful job of it) so they will remain with a more dignified faith system – even if both are unsupportable. I think you’re a phony. I can’t help but wonder if you are planted here by the RCC to convince people to stay with the Church, since you certainly don’t make the evangelical alternative in the least bit attractive. I think you’re a fraud. You’re really a Catholic aren’t you? What do they pay you to help convince Catholics to remain with their religion?

          8. Isaiah's Cry

            “I didn’t dispute any of that, did I?" Of course you didn’t. It’s the only smart thing you’ve done. But then you follow it up with more stupid.

            “I just pointed out that evangelicals are a branch that came from Catholicism…"No, we’re not. You keep trying to prove your ignorant, but we already know. We are a branch of Jesus, delivered from the apostate RCC.

            “although I do it in a far more educated and professional way than you do." Carry on with your psychosis. The only one taking you seriously is you. But….you are a fool, so I can see why.

            “I may be wrong, but I think most Catholics are better educated than most evangelicals, and confronting intelligent people with logical, reasonable ideas…." Yes, you are wrong

            Speaking of having dignity, it’s apparent you have none. You certainly have no qualms in being an ignorant fool and boasting about it.

            “Hmm. I think I figured you out." I’m up in the air about that comment. One side says that you’re promoting false advertising by claiming you think. But the other side says “Well, at least he’s smart enough to say he doesn’t know"….which you don’t

            As for the rest of that comment, I see you’ve gotten so desperate to use the ol’ “You’re actually helping out the ones you’re arguing against" tactic that 5 year old’s use. How many times have I heard pathetic people use that when they continuously get shot down

            But that brings me back to the question: are you atheist/agnostic because you’re an ignorant fool? Or are you an ignorant fool because you’re an atheist/agnostic?

          9. Patrick Gannon

            Thank you so much for confirming that I was correct! Goodbye IC. I’m here to debate self-identified Catholics, not frauds pretending to be evangelicals. Raise a legitimate issue, and I’ll debate you. Otherwise don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

          10. Patrick Gannon

            Forgot to respond to your legitimate challenge. Please visit Wikipedia “religiosity and education,” or Pew Research on “educational distribution,” or any number of other articles attesting to similar results. Catholics, in general ARE better educated than evangelicals. Sorry – but as a Catholic pretending to be an evangelical, I assume you know that already.

          11. Patrick Gannon

            ““I just pointed out that evangelicals are a branch that came from Catholicism…"No, we’re not. You keep trying to prove your (sic) ignorant, but we already know. We are a branch of Jesus, delivered from the apostate RCC.”
            .
            Note that one must be “part of” something before they can be “delivered from” it. As I pointed out, evangelism (Protestantism) branched from Catholicism, unless your specific denomination, sect or cult can trace its roots back to the time of Jesus without going through the RCC. There are perhaps a couple eastern Christian sects that can claim that, but you’ve already acknowledged that you were part of the RCC in order to have been delivered from it – and as I pointed out, the bible you say they get all wrong was put together by them!
            .
            I already responded with some evidence indicating Catholics are generally better educated. I don’t see any other comments in your post that are applicable to the subject at hand. I think I’ve pretty successfully refuted you, and will leave it to those better educated Catholics who participate here to decide for themselves which of us is the 5 year old.
            .
            Which brings us back to the question of whether you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing – a Catholic stooge pretending to be an evangelical… You do play the role well.

          12. Isaiah's Cry

            “Thank you so much for confirming that I was correct! Goodbye IC." Hahaha…so you have to resort to lying to boost your pathetic ego. And now you are going off to lick your wounds. Typical. Besides, how seriously can I take a fool who has already said “Enough of this tit for tat.. Done with you unless you raise issues having to do with the post" and yet keeps talking to me. Do you ever post anything remotely intelligent or honest?

            “I’m here to debate self-identified Catholics" No, you’re not, liar.

            “Raise a legitimate issue, and I’ll debate you." I have, and you’ve failed each time.

          13. Isaiah's Cry

            “Note that one must be “part of" something before they can be “delivered from" it." Wrong. You really should finish middle school at least, before you pretend something. Being captive of a group doesn’t make them part of it. Sorry.

            I see you, once again, have tried to counter facts, and have failed miserably.

            “As I pointed out, evangelism (Protestantism) branched from Catholicism" That’s like saying the Jewish race branched from the Egyptians because they were slaves of the Egyptians once. Rofl. You are a fool. I get a kick out you pretending to be smart.

            “I already responded with some evidence indicating Catholics are generally better educated." How “educated" is one who says they’re a Christian, but practices un-christian doctrines? The only person more ignorant than that is an antheis/agnostic.

            So…I’m a Catholic stood pretending to be an evangelical? Hahahahaha. So you’re saying that because I argue against Catholics that I’m a Catholic? Ok, lil boy. That must mean you’re a Christian.

          14. Patrick Gannon

            OK, I’ll keep playing.
            .
            How is it that evangelicals were “captives” of the RCC? In what sense? Was there any specific identifiable group or sect that you can show with historical documentation to have been captive to the RCC in the same way that Genesis tells us the Jews were captives of the Egyptians… (interestingly with an army of over 600,000 fighting men, the Israelites were held captive by the greatest superpower of the day, whom historians say had the largest army in history – about 100,000 fighting men. With a six to one advantage (and generally greater as the Egyptian army was not always stationed at home), the Israelites were held captive by the Egyptians? Hmm. I have trouble with that. In any event there isn’t a shard of evidence to support any mass Exodus from Egypt and archaeologists have given up the search as futile. Even leading Jewish scholars admit it didn’t happen in any way, shape or form as written). Please explain to me how evangelicals were held “captive” by the RCC as I have never heard this suggestion before – very interesting. Any sources would be greatly appreciated. How did these evangelicals know that they were captives? Who were their leaders or spokesmen for the many centuries before Martin Luther? Who spoke for their cause? What documentation exists to confirm this interesting claim?
            .
            I don’t think your analogy works. I did not suggest that evangelicals are a different “race” than Catholics, as that would be nonsensical. I suggested that they were part of Catholicism and the burden of proof is on you to support your claim that in some way, they were not part of the Catholic religion, since you are the one making the claim that evangelicals were somehow “captives” of the RCC. Also the analogy fails because the Israelites had their own separate religion and were not part of the Egyptian religion, and it is religion that we’re talking about here, not race – right? The analogy fails. Try again.
            .
            “Education: the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university.” My point stands on its own merits. The research indicates that in general, Catholics are better educated. You may be confusing “education” with “belief.” You may argue that their beliefs, and my lack thereof, are wrong – perhaps as a result of superior education misleading us by inducing us to use logic, reason, critical thinking, etc., but again, if you are making this claim, so you have to support it.
            .
            I still think there’s a good chance that you really are playing a role here, in an attempt to get Catholics to dislike evangelicals. Your entire writing style would support this conjecture. You are rude and insulting, and that kind of behavior turns most decent people off. It doesn’t make them want to spend time with you, so the net is that you push them away from evangelicalism. It certainly repels me. I’m in sales and learned long ago that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar – though I too tend to like using a dash of vinegar in my debates at times. I doubt you are making many converts here. I may not be doing any better, but hopefully I give intelligent people some things to ponder, research further, and discuss. I insult the organization from time to time, but I don’t think one wins many converts by insulting individuals as you do so elegantly. There is a risk in insulting the organization, since believers identify with it as though it were themselves – but that’s part of the problem. They have to learn that religious organizations (whether Catholic or evangelical) exist for their own benefit. But have at it – I enjoy the show. I’m happy to help sharpen the axe you use to hack away at your own roots. Let me know how I can help.

          15. Isaiah's Cry

            “OK I’ll keep playing" Of course you will. You’re a liar and no matter how many times you say you’re done talking to me, you keep coming back.

            “How is it that evangelicals were “captives" of the RCC? In what sense?" And hence why I say you’re an ignorant fool.

            “Hmm. I have trouble with that" Of course you have trouble with facts and truth. Duh

            “I don’t think your analogy works." Well, it does to intelligent people. But you’re just a little boy whining for attention.

            “Education: the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university." My point stands on its own merits." Yeah…zero merits. “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight." As I said…How “educated" is one who says they’re a Christian, but practices un-christian doctrines?

            “I still think there’s a good chance that you really are playing a role here," Well, you never were very smart. I found that out from the beginning. So now you’re going to act like a 5 year old and make up stuff and try to soothe your bruised ego. In all my conversations with people like you, that’s what you do when you get shot down and you’re embarrassed and you want to save face.

            “I’m in sales and learned long ago that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" No you don’t. Your conversation on here shows otherwise. I would suspect that you base your sales on deceit and lies. I certainly wouldn’t buy anything from you.

          16. Patrick Gannon

            IC, I adjusted my stance and said I would continue to debate, as long as we stick to a subject and not default to personal attacks. That’s your specialty, not mine, so aside from some gentle jibes, I’ll refrain from that tactic, or end up saying something I’ll regret, which is what I think you’re trying to get me to do. I’ll leave the mud slinging to you.
            .
            So I’m ignorant. OK. I’m not too proud to admit that. Help me understand what you mean in saying evangelicals were captives of the RCC. Put it in terms a 5 year old can understand. Assume that there are Catholics interested in that claim. Tell them how their religion held yours captive for centuries. I’m sure we’re all interested.
            .
            I would encourage anyone following this discussion to research the Exodus for themselves. There isn’t a shard of pottery, a wagon wheel, a spear tip, a sword, a shield or any of the trash that 2 – 3 million people would have left behind, particularly when we are told by the ancient texts, that they stayed in specific places for extended periods of time. As best I recall, every single apologetic essay on the Exodus that I have read, starts with the admission that there is no evidence. The logistics are mind-blowing. It’s a bit over 200 miles from Cairo to Jerusalem. If you lined them up heel to toe, you’d have over two solid lines of people between the two cities – it’s a massive number, and yet there’s NOTHING to confirm that there was ever anything but occasional bands of people migrating from here to there. All the available evidence scholars are aware of for the Conquest of Canaan indicate Persian invasions which are supported by archaeological evidence, but the Israelites did not wipe out various tribes of Canaanites to the last man, woman and child as directed by their rather vicious god. This is well known in scholarly circles, and is steadily making it’s way into the knowledge base of the general public despite the attempts of the Abrahamic religions to do what they can to slow the spread of this damning information. Without these events, what foundation is there for Yahweh? It took time, but Abrahamic believers eventually came to accept that the earth is not the center of the universe as the evidence clearly illustrates, and in time we will accept that there was no Exodus or Conquest, just as many are coming around to accepting that there was no 6 day creation (why does an all-powerful being need to “rest”?), and no global flood. The foundation just keeps crumbling away, and Catholics won’t like it – but this affects all the Abrahamic religions including theirs. I won’t even get into original sin and DNA at this time, but the impossibility of a two-person bottleneck is becoming indisputable as we learn more and more.
            .
            I’m not going to debate further on “education.” I provided a dictionary definition you didn’t object to, and I presented evidence to support my assertion, which you have not countered; so again – I win. I think most of the Catholics here will agree.
            ..
            You haven’t convinced me that you aren’t playing a role, or really even tried to. I still think you could be a Catholic in disguise. (That assertion is probably more likely to annoy Catholics than anything else I’ve said – grin).
            .
            I didn’t originate the old adage or proverb that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, but you say it’s not true. So test it and let us all know the results – put out a bowl of vinegar and a bowl of honey and let us know which catches more flies. And don’t worry – the nice thing about my business is I don’t have to sell to clients if I don’t want to – and you are a deal I would run, not walk away, from. Note as well that you haven’t countered anything I’ve said with any sort of evidence, and you’ve offered no evidence of your own, for any of your claims.
            .
            You do win most of the “hostility” points though! Congrats!

          17. Isaiah's Cry

            ML, If you find the truth an “attack," you merely solidify your low opinion of the truth.

            “I adjusted my stance" I like how you justify lying as “adjusting my stance" rofl. So if someone says they’re going to do something for you and then don’t, they’re just “adjusting their stance" You certainly are quite the liar. Hence why I would never buy anything from you. You’re the perfect epitome of a used-car salesman.

            “So I’m ignorant. OK. I’m not too proud to admit that." I never said you were too proud to admit it. If I remember correctly, a couple times I stated that you are rather boastful in being ignorant. That means that you don’t want to know. So when you say “Help me understand what you mean in saying evangelicals were captives of the RCC." I know that you’re just lying. You don’t want to know. You want post stupid stuff.

            “I’m not going to debate further on “education." I provided a dictionary definition you didn’t object to, and I presented evidence to support my assertion, which you have not countered" And I merely provided the truth, which you didn’t object to, and presented evidence to support the truth which you haven’t countered. All you have is assertions. And you’ll continue to lose.

            “You haven’t convinced me that you aren’t playing a role, or really even tried to." I see you’re still hanging on to that sophomoric defense. It’s interesting watching how desperate people like you become when you’re owned. Yeah, I not intentions of playing your fool’s game. If you want to accuse me of something just because you don’t like being shot down, no worries to me. I know the truth.

            “I didn’t originate the old adage or proverb that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar," I didn’t say you did

            “but you say it’s not true" No I didn’t. But, then again, you are a liar, so why would I expect truth from you. As your conversation makes clear, you apparently don’t even adhere to that adage.

            You find the truth hostile. I feel sorry for you.

          18. Patrick Gannon

            ““I didn’t originate the old adage or proverb that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar," I didn’t say you did
            “but you say it’s not true" No I didn’t.”
            .
            In response to my point that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, you clearly said, “No you don’t.” Here’s the full line:

            ““I’m in sales and learned long ago that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" No you don’t.”

            Done here. I’d have to go back and read all your comments, but I don’t recall you providing evidence for anything you said – even quoting scripture. You’ve lost this debate. Good bye till we have something useful to debate… I suspect the Bishop will reassign you to work on another thread since you seem to have blown your cover here!

          19. Isaiah's Cry

            “I’m in sales and learned long ago that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" No you don’t." I guess I should have said “You didn’t" because you apparently didn’t learn that. Either that, or you just don’t give a darn about using honey. The more I listen to you, the more I doubt you’re in sales.

            “I’d have to go back and read all your comments, but I don’t recall you providing evidence for anything you said" Well, that’s because you lie and you don’t want to see it.

            “You’ve lost this debate" I hope your fragile, immature ego feels better now that you lied. What sucks is that you’re the only one believing your lies. Well, I’m sure you’ll go find all your pathetic friends and tell them all the stupid stuff you posted and lie about what I posted and get them give you a high five. But what kind of friendship is built on lies?

            “Good bye till we have something useful to debate" Lie. You’ve said that before.

            So far all you’ve proven is that you have nothing but lies and ignorance to post. Think you’ll ever be honest and intelligent?

          20. Patrick Gannon

            “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" No you don’t." I guess I should have said “You didn’t"
            .
            Ah, this sounds like a demonstration of what is likely an educational difference between us. You called me a liar, but now admit that my statement was true, given your alternative choice of words. Next time, perhaps you could think about what you’re going to say, and make sure your words support that. Grammar counts. You don’t know anything about me, so you’re unqualified to comment on what I may or may not have learned, and therefore have made yet another assertion you can’t support.
            .
            Once again you failed to explain what you mean about evangelicals having been held captive by the RCC. You made that up, didn’t you? If evangelicals avowed such a thing, I’m pretty sure I’d have heard it by now. A quick search fails to turn up anything to support this idea. You just keep on hacking away at those roots because evangelicals WERE a part of the RCC, as there was no other alternative, aside from a couple eastern Christian sects not affiliated with the RCC.

          21. Isaiah's Cry

            “Good bye till we have something useful to debate” Well….I see you “adjusted your stance” again….lol aka….lied.

          22. Isaiah's Cry

            Ohhh….so you’ve found something “useful to debate" like the fact that I never said the quote you posted was wrong. I just said you didn’t believe/practice it. Yeah. You got shot down again.

            “Next time, perhaps you could think about what you’re going to say," yeah, because we all know you don’t think about what you say.

            So you’ve proven once again that you’re a liar and ignorant. So I’m not concerned with your assessment of…well…pretty much anything. I don’t take pathological liars like you seriously.

            “Once again you failed to explain what you mean about evangelicals having been held captive by the RCC" No I didn’t. Liar

            “You just keep on hacking away at those roots because evangelicals WERE a part of the RCC" yeah, no one’s willingly part of something they don’t believe in. Liar.

            “as there was no other alternative," Actually there was. Ignorant fool.

  2. Merle Reply

    I was raised in a protestant church, the entire time I was taught that the Catholic church was a evil cult. I never could understand why these churches were so busy running a church into the ground. I married a Catholic who was faithful to his religion, I converted have never in 25 years heard anyone in my church run another church down. Even when I spoke to father about my children attending another church, he said they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Sprit they are saved. Don’t worry they always find their way back.

    1. Chris Reply

      Merle, show me in the Bible where just believing gets you saved. You must believe that Jesus died, rose again and sets at the right hand of the father. Then Jesus said to also repent and flee from your sins. Your priest needs to tell you the whole story.

    2. Cindy Brown Reply

      I am so happy to read your message! I grew up and was educated in Catholic schools in a major city that pretty much only had Catholics when I was growing up. I didn’t meet a Protestant, or a Muslim until college. One thing that shocked me to my core was that Catholics do NOT run around putting other churches down, or other people, or judging all kinds of stuff, or gossiping!

      It wasn’t until I got to college that I met my first “born again.” who within minutes demeaned and belittled my faith, before she even got to know me! I had no idea until that moment that most if not many protestants have this HATRED for Catholicism.

      The cool thing is that Catholics live their life, their faith, their service is mostly quiet, not bragging about, or being loudmouthed, telling everybody they are going to hell. I’m certain it turns more faces toward Christ, when you love first, service next, and leaving the conviction up to the Holy Spirit and the judging up to God.

      I am so happy to have been brought up in such a sacred place where the spirit is clearly present. We don’t have to use words to tell people what faith we belong to.

      1. Bernard McClendon Reply

        Hey Cindy,

        First off, I love you. If I didn’t love you, I wouldn’t bother replying.

        Second, history tells us that Romans killed Jesus, and persecuted the church for centuries. Who do you think killed off the apostles?

        Third, Roman Catholicism was introduced hundreds of years after Christ. The Roman leadership based a universal religion off of Christianity, mixed with pagan festivals and traditions, and said that everyone under their authority was to be a Catholic from then on.

        Only people who were already Christians were opposed this idea because the pagans still had their rituals and didn’t know Jesus. These were not subject to scripture, nor did they have a genuine conversion through faith. Thus began the priest and laymen church relationship that is no where present in the book of Acts.

        In John 3:5 Jesus said “…Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God…” No amount of religious practice does that, but the blood of Jesus cleanses us, and His Spirit births us into his holiness nature (1 John 3:9).

        Besides that, people can join the organizations but no one can just join the true church (or body of Christ).

        Then Rome introduced a papacy at that time (which had no scriptural dexterity) to control this religion and its new members.

        Finally, there are a list of non-biblical traditions that are practiced by Catholicism, some of which directly oppose Bible scripture , which is the word of God for us (II Tim. 3:16-17). You can check the CARM.org resource for more info.

        You should know, that even the basis of salvation differs from Catholic to myself. Eph. 2:8-9 says by grace through faith in God, that many catholic believers are unaware of and remain untaught.

        Purgatory (which is not in the Bible at all) is taught and indoctrinated into the youth, to offer a false security of salvation through works.

        We share the truth in love. God’s church has Jesus, and He is the light of the world . We are to let our light shine so that men see our good works, and glorify the Father (Matt 5:16, 2 Cor 4:6). A big part of the is the gospel message (Mark 16:15-18).

        1. Lorry Davis Reply

          Dearest Bernard, you have been so mislead, so misinformed in everything you have sighted here.
          Truth now, how much formal education in Theology do you have?
          From every statement and accusation you have made here, tells me very little. What you do have is a handed down understanding of what others have convinced you of.
          My suggestion to you, is to listen to PHDs of Theology and Church Fathers and history.
          Stop listening to those who are so full of pride and ego and hate.
          Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Brant Pitre are two good places to start.
          Stop trying to bring Jesus down with His Church!

          1. Peter Haviernik

            Thank you, Lorry, your comment is accurate and concise.

          2. Isaiah's Cry

            Lorry, nothing as prideful and arrogant and Catholics. They refuse to listen to the truth

          3. Isaiah's Cry

            BTW…everything that Bernard posted was 100% truth. Don’t let your pride keep you blinded

          4. robert norman

            i can see clearly who are the prideful and arrogant one…..i once before stumble upon a book, an illustration guided book that meant for children that was written by non-catholic group/organisation, i didnt read the whole book, but one of page that shocked me, is that they wrote and stressing out that we should not following an old church because it is an old and evil church…they didnt mentioned what church it is, but they drew a catholic bishop…… i live in a diversity races and religion society, and the bragging one here in my country is muslim…they are the one that always oppressing us christian and non muslim….but what disappointed me is that, the non-catholic are pretty much has the same attitude toward catholic…espc. the evangelical………..

          5. robert norman

            ……..and u know what, we the catholic are the coolest one……we didnt overreact……

        2. Josephine Harkay Reply

          Purgatory is definitely alluded to in the Old Testament. It says after a battle that: “It is a good and wholesome thought to pray for the dead.” If souls went to heaven, they didn’t need prayers, if they were damned, they couldn’t use prayers.

          1. Patrick Gannon

            There was no purgatory in the OT. When you died, you went to Sheol. Everyone went to Sheol, good and bad alike. The Church translated the word “Sheol” to the pagan word “Hell” along with three other words (Gehenna, Hades and Tartarus). Sheol was not a place of punishment. The word Sheol meant either “dead,” “grave,” or “permanent unconsciousness” depending on the context in which it was used. The idea was that you languished there till the end times, upon which you were judged and either rewarded with a new paradise, or destroyed. The OT did not have the lovely notion of eternal punishment. Eternal punishment was added to keep the sheeple in line, but when you think it all the way through, you realize that it turns Jesus into the biggest monster of all time. We didn’t get eternal torment until after the “good news” of Jesus. After Jesus, we bypass going to Sheol and instead are judged on the spot and either rewarded by spending eternity in servitude to an all-powerful divine being who seems to need this worship, like a celestial North Korean dictator, or we are sent to eternal torment. Just destroying us for failing to live up to impossible standards wasn’t good enough for the early Church. They had to make sure they really had a big FEAR stick, so they invented a horrific punishing Hell, that no “good,” “fair,” “just,” or “merciful” god or human could ever condone. And then some early Church theologians decided that everyone needed to be “singed” a bit as punishment for their sins, because God just can’t forgive anyone without scorching them with a blowtorch first – so they invented purgatory, which like Hell is a place of punishment by fire.
            .
            Stick your finger in a lighter and leave it there till it smokes, spits and blisters, then imagine that over your entire body, while the skin is replenished from below, and now imagine this happening for all eternity to someone who simply failed to believe, say or do the wrong things during the very short time they lived here, and ask how anyone could worship a being who would do that, and what it says about the people who would worship such a being. Fear such a being if it existed – of course, but to worship this evil and say that it’s good is to give up your humanity.
            .
            All I can figure with regard to the reference to praying for those in Sheol, is that one could ask Yahweh to have mercy on them when He got around to judging them. As for Purgatory, while the concept was based on praying for the dead, the word as we know it, didn’t arise till the 11th century. Neither Jesus, Paul or any of the other NT writers mention it, of course. It’s not biblical. It’s an invention – a very useful invention because the RCC said you could pray for people in Purgatory and even better, you could give ‘indulgences’ (financial offerings) to the Church, which would reduce the sinner’s time in Purgatory. This had to be one of the greatest scams in the history of mankind, up to that point; and of course it was abused, and was one of the factors leading to the breakup of the RCC. To this very day, the Vatican is embroiled in financial scandal. God’s disordered, celibate, virgin men in robes still can’t be trusted with money!

        3. Michael Schmidt Reply

          Bernard; Cindy makes sense, you on the other hand ramble on incoherently.

        4. rafie Reply

          FIRST of all, you don’t love Catholics, that’s the fact. You hat Catholic Church and you destroy the faith of every baptized Catholics. SECOND, the Romans killed the Lord Jesus Christ REQUESTED by the Jews. The Romans sees nothing evil done by the Lord Jesus Christ. But the Jews “…SHOUTED LOUDER, CRUCIFY HIM!” – Matthew 27:22. If we continue, Pilate asks the Jews “…. “What evil has he done?” But they shouted louder, “Crucify him!”” – Matthew 27:23. Pilate (Roman Governor) find no case against him as we can read “On seeing him the chief priests and the guards cried out, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” Pilate replied, “Take him yourselves and have him crucified, for I find no case against him.”” – John 19:6. Clearly the Romans killed the Lord Jesus Christ BUT by request of the Jews. It was the Jews killed the Lord Jesus Christ because Pilate want the Lord Jesus Christ free Him but the Jews want the Lord to be CRUCIFIED.

          THIRD, the Catholic Church was started in Jerusalem but the JEWS rejected it so St. Paul brought the Catholic Church from Jerusalem to Rome requested by the Lord. “That night the Lord stood by Paul and said, “Courage! As you have borne witness to me here in Jerusalem, so must you do in Rome.”” – Acts 23:11.

          The festivals is part of the Jews tradition that apply by the Church and even modify it. And the word tradition means is what you accept as it is then you pass it into the next generation. Like Bible, Bible itself is tradition. All teachings of the Catholic Church was deposit by our Lord Jesus Christ because the Lord Jesus Christ is the founder of the Catholic Church even historians can prove it.

          While protestants are confused because you read the Bible literally.

          1. Patrick Gannon

            Only a handful of Jews – the clergy – called for Jesus’ death. The Catholic Church for centuries blamed all Jews, living and dead, for killing Jesus. They dropped that finally, so hating the Jews is no longer Church policy, but back in the day, the Catholic policy regarding the responsibility of all Jews for the death of Jesus, provided implicit support for killing and mistreating Jews – and the RCC did a lot of that, and helped empower Hitler and others to do the same. Most people don’t seem to grasp the fact that Jesus’ ministry was directed against clergy. If he were to be here today, I suspect the same would still be true.
            .
            As for Acts – you have to take that book with a grain of salt. The author (same as Luke most likely), was writing perhaps 40 years after Paul died. Acts does not agree with what Paul says about himself in several respects, and you’d think Paul would know when and where he went and what he said. Paul in any event has little credibility. Jesus failed to tell him about evolution, (or germs or any other small step in technology that might have saved millions of people), but he also led Paul to believe that the end times were near, within a generation, and in this, both Paul and Jesus were wrong.
            .
            There was no Catholic Church per se at the time of Paul. There was no organization. Peter, was still associated with Jerusalem and he was supposed to be the first pope, not Paul, so your quote about Jesus telling Paul to take the message to Rome does not imply that the Church should be founded there. He already gave that honor to Peter, didn’t he? The tradition you mention says that Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome, but there’s nothing in the bible or elsewhere to support this assertion that was put forth a century after the fact.
            .
            You said that Jesus was the founder of the Church, but almost everyone agrees that Paul was the real founder. He put down the blueprint. He invented original sin, which was later fine-tuned by Augustine, and this is what the Church is based on. Evolution has destroyed this base, so things are getting dicey for the Church. Consider reading the NT in chronological order. It’s put together to tell a story – you get the stories of Jesus, then Acts talking about what happened next, then Paul spreading the word, and so on – but Paul was the first author, writing two decades after Jesus’ death. If you read the books in the chronological order in which they were written, you see a lot of evolution and theological development taking place. Paul was the first author, then Mark, Matthew, probably Luke, and then John, the gospel most different from the others, was written last. John’s Jesus is very different from the Jesus in the other books. John developed the theology out of the stories that came before, and he was writing perhaps 60 – 70 years after Jesus died in a time when the average lifespan was about 35 years. Later you had epistles claimed to have been written by people long dead, such as the Tims, which ‘edited’ some of the original letters of Paul, removing any chance for equality for women, for example.
            .
            You mentioned that protestants are confused because they read the bible literally. First, not all protestants do that, and secondly, it takes the wind out of your bible citations, to suggest that they were just metaphorical and that the words likely didn’t happen as written. However your point is well taken – there isn’t single original manuscript for any part of the bible, so we really don’t know anything for sure.

        5. Birhane Reply

          peace be with you!
          i have read your message???

          i think all christians believe in ” trinity!” which is not written in the bible. If you believe this is an idea to describe three in one,you can believe what the catholics teach.

          This is the idea missing in all christian and they are critising the catholics add to thier teaching.

          Dear,if you find the word trinity in bible,let me know.

          1. Isaiah's Cry

            Birhane. Wrong. But good attempt to justify an apostate “church” that teaches false doctrines. Nowhere in the Bible does it infer that priests are to forgive sins. Nowhere in the Bible does it infer purgatory. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to pray to dead people (it does, however, condemn it). Nowhere in the Bible does t say to worship idols (but it does condemn it). Nowhere in the Bible does it say to deify humans (but it does condemn it). And a number of other teachings that can’t be found anywhere in the Bible (immaculate conception, for example). Thank God for the Reformation which delivered the Church from the grips of the man-made, false Catholic cult.

          2. Isaiah's Cry

            Not to mention that the office of Pope is anti-biblical and never mentioned in the Bible. It’s a man-made office. But, considering that the RCC wasn’t created until the 4th century, we understand.

    3. Michelle Tavakoli Reply

      That priest needs to scolded by his bishop. Im sure he was trying to console you, but very badly done. I cant believe he didnt even tell you to prsy rossries for them to come back, or that he would also do yhe same. Very shameful.

  3. Raymund Reply

    its not about of using the truth, its about telling the real truth. And the people will recognize who is laying.

    1. RAY Reply

      what kind of battle if i would ask? the catholic church is not competing or battling with with anyone for sumpremacy or recognition. those protestants are trying to make a story out of nothing, becauce the catholic church has ever existed since with its rich doctrines that the attackers do no have and no man can not change that because the church is build onthe the holy trinity . Continuing believing in your faith and give the catholics a break. we wont go to heave with our denominations but according to our deeds.

      1. Lilyian simon Reply

        Oh my…y are we fighting with esch other..catholic n protestant…just look at church history…protestant comes when martin luther, then a priest was dissatisfied and broke away from the church. u see, protestant comes way after the roman catholic church. Well nevertheless, we all believe in God and his son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
        Our common goal is Jesus Christ! Why r we christians so divided and disunited when we all have one common goal.

        Do you think we are making God happy and pleasing to Him? Di you think that iur denomination guarantee us a life eternity in heaven.? Our faith does! So stop comparing and badmouthing…it is a sin.

        1. Isaiah's Cry Reply

          Actually, Lilyan, Catholicism came way after Christianity, and hijacked it. All the reformation was, was God separating and removing true Christians from the apostate “Church”

    2. Cindy Brown Reply

      Each and every denomination claims that theirs is the real truth. Quibbling about such things is against at least a dozen verses, including Tim 2:14 Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

      These little things that Protestants use to divide everybody into little fighting groups does less to draw others to Christ and more to draw people away from religion as a whole.

      We are all part of the Body of Christ. But many denominations cut off a foot, an arm.

      It is stupid to think that God is such a little nit picking, juvenile human being. He is more than we could ever imagine. Why make him so small, and ridiculous in man’s image?

      1. Scott Reply

        Bravo, Cindy! As a former Evangelical Protestant who joined the Church much the same way you did (my wife is a cradle Catholic), I’ve experienced a lot of anti-Catholic rhetoric in my past. Heck, there was a time when I believed it.

        But I have found my Catholic church to be more warm and genuine in their faith than many of the Protestant churches I belonged to. And I too have not heard my Catholic friends bashing and badmouthing other denominations, the way I heard many Protestants do to the catholics.

        Your comment about the splintering of the Protestant churches is dead on. When I was growing up I had a few records (dating myself there) by a Christian comedian named Mike Warnke. He said something on one of those albums that really stuck with me:

        “Isn’t it weird that the mighty Army of the children of God, armed with the Spirit, clothed in righteousness, shielded with faith, girded with truth, shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, spend the vast majority of their time either shining their armor or fighting one another.”

        If Satan can keep us busy fighting amongst ourselves, our effectiveness and ability to spread the Gospel is diminished in ways we cannot possibly imagine.

        1. easeltine Reply

          I cannot find the exact quote by Mike Warnke. It is on his original testimony tape when he is describing his childhood. His story was that he was part of a Roman Catholic home, and then went to a Fundamentalist Protestant home that was extreme anti-Roman Catholic. I cannot find the exact quote, he swears, and his new foster mom says something like, If you don’t accept Jesus Christ right now as your personal Lord and Savior a bold of lightening is going to come down and nothing of you will be left except a glob on the ground with you eyeballs sticking out. Something like that his new home believed that if you were Roman Catholic and you died there was a chute that would appear and you would be sent straight to hell, do not pass go.

          Mike Warnke was proven to be a liar and a fraud, but that tape was as funny as any Bill Cosby story jokes that I ever heard.

  4. Patrick Gannon Reply

    I think there are several reasons. The first, will not be well-received by fundagelicals, but in America, at least, I think Catholics are smarter, or better educated. There are a number of studies that show a correlation – if not causation – between intelligence, education and religious affiliation. Catholic schools are good; but of course they create a problem – once a kid learns how to think, then buying the Christian story becomes a real challenge. You have to indoctrinate them before they learn critical thinking or you’re unlikely to get them at all.

    It’s not nice to say, I suppose, but I think, based on my personal experience, that fundagelicals are less intelligent, or at least, less educated. As the rate of education and intelligence goes up, the more liberal, agnostic and atheistic the population becomes. By the time you get to the most intelligent people on the planet, you find that most of them are atheists or agnostics. So, fundagelicals are recruiting “dumb” people, and unfortunately there are a lot of them out there.

    Next you have the problem of waffling. First the sun goes around the earth, then it doesn’t. First you force conversion at the end of a sword, then you get civilized. First you get eat fish on Friday, then you don’t. First Mary Magdalene is a prostitute, then she’s not. First there’s a 6 day creation, then the RCC accepts evolution. First there’s Limbo, now there’s no answer to what happens to unbaptized souls.

    The fundagelicals stick to the story – 6 day creation. Without it, you lose original sin, ancestral sin, the fall from grace, whatever you want to call it. We know the story is bogus and that there was no talking snake, no tree of temptation, no global flood, etc. Catholics, by and large are educated, and know that the old stuff can’t be supported any longer. This is surely creating a massive problem for Vatican theologians. They’ve dug themselves into a big hole. Fundagelicals deny, deny, deny. The clergy understand that if evolution is true, then the entire basis for Christianity is lost. The sheeple don’t understand that, but the clergy does. It’s why they are so adamant about young earth creationism – their jobs depend on it. Accepting evolution means accepting that Paul was wrong – sin did not enter the world through one man, Adam because there was no Adam. DNA evidence is clear that we did not all evolve from two people 6000 years ago; nor a single set of parents 100,000 years ago. We are apparently the product of different groups of early humans that combined to become what we are now. As I understand it, geneticists can’t make it work – they can’t make us all derive from a single set of parents, based on our genetic diversity.

    There is no other source for Christianity besides the bible, and in the bible we know that both Jesus and Paul believed that the Genesis story was real. Today we know beyond any reasonable doubt that it is not how things happened. The RCC’s current argument as I understand it, is that sometime in the past 200,000 years, something like this happened – but there’s no other biblical or archaeological evidence for the fall from grace, than the book of Genesis. Anything else is made unsupported conjecture, that is steadily being eroded by actual evidence based on DNA. This all means that there was no fall from grace, no original sin and as a result, there is no reason to believe, say and do the right things in order to obtain salvation. Fundagelical clergy see the quandary the RCC has created for itself by embracing logic, reason, and the real evidence for evolution, and wishes to avoid that conundrum. They understand that accepting evolution removes the foundation for Christianity and so they are putting it off as long as they can.

    So what’s happening, I think, is that fundagelicals play on the fear of ignorant, unintelligent and certainly, uneducated people – catching children while they are still easily indoctrinated, and thus building their ranks. Catholics have already lost the battle, at least in educated countries – so they battle the fundagelicals in third world locations where people have not had the opportunity to become educated and learn critical thinking skills.

    1. RAY Reply

      what kind of battle if i would ask? the catholic church is not competing or battling with with anyone for sumpremacy or recognition. those protestants are trying to make a story out of nothing, becauce the catholic church has ever existed since with its rich doctrines that the attackers do no have and no man can not change that because the church is build onthe the holy trinity . Continuing believing in your faith and give the catholics a break. we wont go to heave with our denominations but according to our deeds.

      1. Patrick Gannon Reply

        You don’t think there’s a battle for converts among the various religions? You have to breed or convert if you want to keep pews and coffers full.

    2. Brenda Reply

      Patrick, there’s a common phrase I love & find to be totally true: book smart & street stupid. The first thing you are missing in discussing religion is FAITH. Second, not everything is written down in the Bible. Third, the powers that be in the RCC get their direction from God, Jesus & the Holy Spirit. God in no way would allow his Holy Word to include anything but His true Word. And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that God is so complex, and that complexity is also evident in His Book…things we as humans will never fully understand until He graces us with an invitation to His Heavenly Home. No amount (or lack) of evidence from HUMAN scientists or HUMAN experts will impress me when compared to God & His infinite wisdom, complexity, power or other-worldly intelligence. I suggest a prayer for humility & faith & most certainly forgiveness.

      1. Patrick Gannon Reply

        Faith is pretending to know things you don’t know. If you have actual knowledge based on objective evidence, there is no need for faith. You’re making a bunch of claims, but they are only unfounded beliefs, and maybe even “hope” that you are correct, given that deep down you know as well as I do that there isn’t a shred of actual, objective, empirical evidence for gods or afterlives. Hope is OK, but faith is lying to yourself, telling your brain something that it knows it doesn’t know to be true, likely creates unhealthy, internal cognitive conflict.
        |
        You suggest I need a prayer for forgiveness, but I come back often to the parable of the talents. I’m inclined to think that if there really is a god, He/She/It will be something like the authority figure in that parable, and using the talents of intellect, logic, research, critical thinking, reasoning, etc. will be treated more favorably by the being that gave us those “talents,”than tucking those them up and burying them in a hole and believing what someone else told us to believe. I suspect that if there really is a god, using our gifts will be more important than burying our heads in the sand.

        1. Isaiah's Cry Reply

          You’re not very smart. lol You don’t even know what faith is.

    3. Helen Marie Dietrich Reply

      Look up Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. Also, the creation story was written at a time when the people believed in many gods. It was written as such to show that there is one creator, and that humans are the pinnacle of creation. It was written to tell the people of the time that the one God created all things and all creatures. The bible is not a science text, but it reveals spiritual truths; that which we need for salvation.

      1. Patrick Gannon Reply

        As you mention, the bible is not a science book. It’s completely wrong in its description of a 6 day creation. Humans evolved over millions of years from primates, and became ‘modern’ about 100,000 years ago. Neanderthal, modern man and the Denisovans arose around the same time and DNA indicates interbreeding. At what point did the Adam and Eve story occur? BioLogos a website founded by Francis Collins, one of the men who first decoded the human genome, indicates that current research suggests we came from a pool of about 1000 people. Which of them got Bible God’s panties in such a wad that we then needed “salvation?”
        |
        With the destruction of a literal Genesis story, original sin is out the window. Paul thought the story was true – as did Jesus and everyone else at the time. If Jesus had really been God, he might have told Paul about evolution in one of his visions, but apparently failed to do so. Paul insists that sin entered the world through one man (Adam) and that man, Adam, never existed, but Paul, in his ignorance did not know that and was not “inspired” to come up with a more plausible need for salvation in light of the obvious failure of his proposal, once it turned out that the creation story was a fable with no basis.

        1. Isaiah's Cry Reply

          True, the Bible is correct in the fact that the earth was created in six days. Thanks for expressing your ignorance for us to see.

    4. Cindy Brown Reply

      Awesome comments! by the way, they coincide with many scholars. M. Scott Peck, Fowler, Lawrence Kohlberg, Jonathan Haidt, Maslow, Paul Ekman, Socrates, Aristotle, ,and countless others that are top in their field of study!

      I was wondering what you meant though by Jesus and Paul thinking the creation story was real. The Catholic faith has never taught that the world was created in 6 24 hour days, or that it had to happen in the exact order. Neither did the Jews believe such well, nonsense. The story has a much deeper and everlasting truth when taken as a metaphor that literally. (I imagine that I just misunderstood what you meant by “real”.

      The evangelicals didn’t come up with the 6/24 fantasy until a couple years after Darwin came out with his Origins of the Species. Out of fear they figured they’d lose members unless they did something drastic!

      Loved your comments though!