By Tom Gilson Published on April 21, 2018

The word is, Christianity is “Stupid.” It’s “Anti-intellectual.” And “Anti-science” above all. Very smart people say so in important magazines. I could tell you all kinds of reasons we’re anti-science — and why we’re not.

Christianity is anti-science because:

1. It was against science from the beginning. The Dark Ages, you know?

Yes, that’s the rumor. But look at where science grew up. The first scientific revolution (yes, there was more than one) was centered at Chartres Cathedral around 800 to 900 years ago. Right in the middle of the so-called “Dark Ages.” The Revolution was led almost 100 percent by Christians, many of them clergy.

2. But the Church persecuted the scientists in the Middle Ages!

Facebook Live Next Tuesday!

I’ll be interacting on this topic live by video next week on The Stream’s Facebook page — Tuesday, April 24, at 8 pm Eastern time, in the next edition of “Contentious Questions (Because some questions are just that way).”

Bring your questions, your comments, and your friends. Share this around social media. I’ll look forward to being with you then.

You think so? You’ve heard of Galileo getting burned at the stake for it? That’s the one great example of the Church persecuting science. 

In the meantime, though, Quick: Tell me another one! I dare you. Giordano Bruno? Wrong. Yes he was persecuted, but for his religious beliefs, not his science. Copernicus? Ha! He was a priest. And he wasn’t persecuted. Can you think of anyone else? I didn’t think so.

As for Galileo, his full story includes the part where he called the Pope “Simplicio.” And that’s a lot of what got him in hot water. Err, house arrest, actually. That’s as bad as it got for him.

3. Still, they all thought the earth was flat because the Bible said so!”

Yes, there is such a thing as a flat-earth myth. And the myth is that people used to believe in a flat earth. Never happened. Look, the main astronomy textbook in the Middle Ages was titled “Sphere.” And that was when the earth was in the middle of it. The round earth.

So, I’ll bet you can’t guess where we all got the idea that Medieval Europe thought the Earth was flat. The evidence seems to show it came from the same author who gave us a man who took a twenty-year nap — Rip Van Winkle — and a galloping Headless Horseman, in The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.

Someone’s acting fairly anti-science here after all.

Washington Irving also wrote a multi-volume History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus back in 1828. He made up the story of people believing the earth was flat — hundreds of years after the fact.

This myth won’t die, despite the facts.

And It’s Even More Anti-Science Because:

4. Haven’t science and Christianity always been at war?

That’s another myth. This one came along even later, around the time of the Civil War. Two men, Andrew Dickson White and William Draper, were mostly responsible for it.

James Hannam, historian of science, charitably suggests, “It is worth briefly examining whether White was being entirely honest in his work.” Draper was definitely “engaged in polemic,” he says. White and Draper both “set out to prove what they already believed rather than take their conclusions from the facts.”

If you go to the experts in the field — historians of science — you’ll find them all wondering when that myth will die. Hannam shows what really happened in his book The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution? Christian propaganda, you say? It was shortlisted by the Royal Society — one of the world’s most prestigious scientific organizations — for its science book prize.

5. That still doesn’t prove Christianity isn’t stupid. Hasn’t science proved virgins don’t have children? That dead people don’t rise from the grave?

If you think it took modern science for people to figure that out, you’ve got a lot of learning to catch up on. They called these things miracles back then, too. Why? because they knew they didn’t happen naturally.

Now, science is the study of what happens naturally. So tell me, is the discipline that studies only what happens naturally the right one to prove that nothing else can happen? How could it be? No, it’s not science that says miracles can’t happen. It’s a philosophical bias that says, “If science can’t study it, then it’s not knowable.” And philosophy isn’t science. You’re confusing your disciplines here.

One other thing: Philosophy tells science what it can do and what it can’t do. It tells science that if science studies natural causes, it only studies natural causes. It can’t possibly tell us anything about super-natural causes.

6. Seriously, though, you’ve still got the one huge problem you can’t talk your way out of: Christians think the world was created 6,000 years ago in just six days.

Well, yes, that does pose a problem between science and some Christians. Certainly not all. Although I know some Christians won’t agree with me, I’m here to say that’s not an essential Christian belief. Lots and lots of firm, convinced, Bible-believing Christians see plenty of room in Genesis for it to be about something other than six literal days of creation.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

So I’ll own up to a little discomfort over that one. We’re not in complete agreement among ourselves, and some of us think the settled conclusions of mainstream science are wrong. But not all of us. You’re generalizing from a part to a whole here.

Counting the Score

I’d like to count the score here, if I may. In the process of criticizing Christianity for being anti-science, you have:

  1. Drawn your first conclusion in the face of overwhelming amounts of contradictory data.
  2. Generalized one isolated cased — Galileo — across centuries of Church-science interaction as if it represented the whole — and even distorted that one in the telling.
  3. Accepted belief in the flat-earth myth without bothering to examine any original-source evidence for it.
  4. Gone against all expert opinion in deciding that Christianity has been at war with science.
  5. Jumped disciplines, using the name “science” to justify a conclusion that isn’t in its field at all.
  6. And finally, on the age of the earth, committed another fallacy of generalizing from a non-representative sample.

Looks to me like someone’s acting fairly anti-science here after all.

Postscript

For those who will predictably come by and charge me with distorting skeptics’ opinions or presenting simplistic answers: I expect that from people who don’t understand satire, or who think an answer has to be completely explained, with all objections dealt with, or else it’s no answer at all. The whole answers fill whole books. I recommend:

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • davidrev17

    “I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a
    lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.”

    — The non-Christian, Dr. Erwin Schrodinger, [i.e., the famous “Schrodinger Equation”], Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1933.

    ▪ ▪ ▪

    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

    “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

    “Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”

    — Former Marxist/Atheist Emeritus Professor of Evolutionary Biology, Dr. Richard C. Lewontin, Harvard University, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997.

  • GLT

    Very concise and very accurate but it will sadly still fall on deaf ears. Atheists heavily rely on the rhetoric you so keenly exposed here and will never give it up.

    • swordfish

      Says someone who denies the science of evolution.

      • GLT

        Evolution is not a scientific discipline, it is a philosophical position which relies on scientific disciplines to support its narrative. If you believe evolution to be a science you must be able to define it as a science without reference to independent disciplines such as genetics and biology. Good luck with that.

        • swordfish

          Meanwhile, those pesky bacteria keep evolving resitance to our antibiotics.

          • GLT

            Meanwhile those pesky bacteria simply remain bacteria while losing information in order to develop resistance to bacteria.

            In case it hasn’t become obvious to you, losing information is the exact opposite of what evolution needs. Evolution in its very definition requires the addition of information in the process of descent from a common ancestor.

            How are you doing in terms of coming up with a definition of evolution as a self contained discipline of science, without reference to biology, genetics, etc.?

          • swordfish

            What makes you think that antibiotic resistance would necessitate losing information? Mutations can also add information by duplicating sections of DNA, which can then be subject to further mutations.

            Maybe you think that bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is an example of intelligent design? If so, is God busy designing new superbugs to amuse himself?

            As for defining evolution, you haven’t established that it isn’t a science yet. How about you define Christianity without reference to anything religious?

          • GLT

            “What makes you think that antibiotic resistance would necessitate losing information?”

            Antibiotics gain access to the bacterial cell through membrane ports. Resistance is gained by shutting down these ports which is done through a loss of information, not a gain. Look up the process and see for yourself.

            “How about you define Christianity without reference to anything religious?”

            I can define Christianity without reference to any other religion. You cannot define evolution without referring to other scientific disciplines on which it depends to support its narrative? In other words, Christianity does not depend on other religions for its narrative, just the opposite in fact, whereas evolution is wholly dependent on scientific disciplines such as biology to support its narrative. Do you understand the difference?

          • swordfish

            “Look up the process and see for yourself.”

            I looked it up, and you’re completely wrong. The ongoing war between antibiotics and bacteria involves a myriad of different processes. And you ignored my explanation as to how mutations can add information. And you miss the point that evolution doesn’t have a direction anyway, so loss of information is part of it.

            “I can define Christianity without reference to any other religion.”

            Go on then. And I said “anything religious”, not ‘any other religion’, so don’t cheat.

          • GPS Daddy

            swordfish, what do you define as “religious”? Thats a vague term.

          • swordfish

            You don’r like answering questions quite as much as asking them, do you?

  • James Blazsik

    Hey Tom, thank you for your article. It was refreshing to read that faith and science are very compatible with each other.

    There is one thing missing – and it’s pretty glaring. The one thing is the Catholic Church. It was Catholic Church that created the University System, developed the concept of human rights, practiced how we understand charity and help of the poor, and in Catholic culture resulted in a slave free Europe.

    It was the Catholic Church that birthed modern science. Catholic clergy dominated in astronomy and other scientific disciplines. Father George Lemaitre developed the Big Bang Theory; and traveled with Albert Einstein in promoting it.

    It was in Catholic culture where the free market was developed in Venice more than a century (?) before evidenced in England.

    Now I wonder, why miss such a glaring fact? Here are some suggested books to back up my diatribe: “How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization” by Thomas Woods, “The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism and Western Success” by Rodney Stark, and “Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History” also by Rodney Stark.

    I may be making something out of nothing. But maybe not.

    • Andrew Mason

      Theology was also once considered the queen of the sciences.

      • James Blazsik

        Good point. When Theology become an option and not a requirement in education resulted in God becoming an option and not a requirement.

        • swordfish

          Then that was a step in the right direction.

    • Kathy

      I don’t believe that Tom is a Catholic, James. He most likely would not recommend books on Catholicism as you probably would not encourage literature concerning the Reformation. However, I’m sure there is relevant and helpful information to be found in the books you mentioned.

      • James Blazsik

        Hey Kathy!
        Point taken. But I do think it is a valid issue that the content of the article reflected the advances within Catholic culture.

        • Kathy

          Certainly understand, James. Was just pointing out that a non-Catholic is not likely to promote material if it contains a lot of theology/doctrine that they disagree with. Don’t know if these books do or not.

          You mentioned Martin Luther. Some of his later actions and those of many in all faith traditions in the past 2000+ years are a good indication that we should not rely so strongly on our churches and the fallen people (including clergy) in those churches regarding our souls. Christ alone is our hope.

          Noticed above that you say you deal with bigotry. Do you mean that others treat you badly or that they voice their disagreements with some of your beliefs? Can only speak for myself…without details, I’ve had extensive experience with the CC. I learned that we can agree on the basic and most important tenets of our Christian faith. You may know this, but the issue is the Biblical Christian’s (which I now am) focus on God’s Word in Scripture and our skepticism concerning anything changed or added to it by men. Unless doctrine is true to the Bible, it’s not relevant to us. Over many years, I have found the CC has added much doctrine, some even contrary to God’s Word. That is the primary disagreement between us that I can see.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy!

            I was raised in the Catholic Church and left in my high school years into the evangelical world. I encountered different non-denominational churches, went to a Assembly of God college, and became a United Methodist youth pastor. After 20 years I felt there was more. I started reading church history and checked out different church groups such as the Lutheran Church, Orthodox Church and even got into Reformation theology. I became an Anglican priest.
            But…my heart was drawn back to the Catholic Church. What I found is that the Catholic Church fulfilled Scripture more than all the church groups I had experienced.

            I have encountered anti-Catholic bigotry after returning to the Catholic Church, sometimes it was pretty intense. So I can get a little defensive when I think I see it. Thanks for asking.

          • Kathy

            Wow, fascinating (and very complicated) background, James! Mine is pretty boring. Raised in the Lutheran church and married a cradle Catholic. Decided to attend and raise our sons in the CC…after all, they are so similar anyway. Or, so I thought. Long story short, after exploring my many doubts, God opened my heart to Him and eyes to the truth of His Word, essentially experiencing the new birth Jesus talked about in John 3. Always thought that “born again” was some weird fundamentalist thing…never expected it. I have been a devoted follower of Christ ever since…I’ve fallen in love and realized that He is all we really need.

            Not speaking for you, but what I have noticed is that Catholics seem to be more in love with the things of the church than with God Himself. Appears to be their primary focus, with relating to God always having to be through something, like the sacraments, or through the saints, etc, rather than having an intimate, personal relationship with Him. The temple veil was torn when Christ died, indicating no more intercessors are needed between God and man, we have direct access to our Father. What do you think, James?

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy!

            I agree that Catholics can be “cultural catholics” and lacking in a personal relationship with Christ. But I think we can see that in any denomination or church group.

            What I found in the Catholic Church is the treasure of the faith. We are saved by Christ alone. When we are born again (born of water “baptism” and the Holy Spirit), we receive Christ and we get it all. We get the Church (which is His Body), the Sacraments, the Liturgy, and the communion of saints. We have 2,000 years of the treasure of faith and teaching and 2,000 years of saints who light the way.

            The center of the Catholic Church is Christ. When we attend mass we have the Liturgy of the Word where three or more portions of Scripture is read. In the mass we have the Liturgy of the Eucharist, where we consume the Body and Blood of Christ.

            You can’t get more closer in intimate fellowship with Jesus than when you consume His Body and Blood.

            What do you think, Kathy?

          • Kathy

            Oh, absolutely James, there are many cultural Christians… I was in that camp until just 6 years ago. Going through the motions, but at least I was showing up at church every week! haha Little did I know there could be so much more.

            Agree that we are saved by Christ alone and the center of the church is Christ…his suffering and death on the cross was a free gift of grace from God. “If partaking in the Lord’s Table (Eucharist) is necessary in order to receive grace, then grace is not really free and must be earned by deeds we perform, contrary to Titus 3:5. (The same could be said for baptism) If the bread is actually the body of Christ, then the Lord is being sacrificed again and again, contrary to Romans 6:9-10” (Taken from a website that answers over 500,000 biblical questions) I remember a phrase like “please accept the sacrifice….” during the Eucharist liturgy, so it must be considered that in the CC.

            My perception is that what Jesus accomplished on the cross is not quite enough and we must still work for our redemption, according to the CC. He was setting us free from striving to earn God’s forgiveness and grace through the Law, but it seems the CC continues to burden their flock like the Pharisees did.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy!

            The website that you are using completely misrepresents Catholic teaching. This is what I am talking about when I refer to anti-Catholic bigotry.

            When we talk about the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is the understanding of the early church to the present. There wasn’t even a controversy about that understanding until a thousand years later. Of course the Reformers changed it centuries after that.

            The celebration of the Eucharist doesn’t resacrifice Christ over and over again. The celebration of the Eucharist participates in the one time sacrifice on the cross for eternity. It is a sacrifice, but it is participating in the one time sacrifice of Christ.

            Christ calls us to eat His Body and drink His Blood. That’s what the Catholic Church does to obey her Lord in the sacrifice of the Eucharist as it has always done since the beginning. If you desire an intimate relationship with Jesus, then the depth of the celebration of the Eucharist is indispensable.

            As for baptism, Paul said in Gal. 3:27 – “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ”. Being baptized is not a work of the Law. It is a gift of grace to be able to put on Christ, to be a disciple, to be born again, and to be buried with Him to rise to new life. This is done by grace through the Holy Spirit.

            You can say that saying the sinner’s prayer is a “work”. You can say that going to church is a “work”. You can also say that reading the Bible is a “work”.

            Christianity is not a gnostic faith.

          • Kathy

            It’s tough to explain everything in writing when trying not to write a book…sure you can relate, James. That website was recommended to me only a few months ago, and it only confirms what I’ve learned over many years. The “Catholic Questions” section of the website contains information written by former Catholics, people that have had extensive experience with the church and those that have done extensive research in a Q & A format, so I consider it pretty reputable.

            John 3:8 – The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or wither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit”. I can tell you that neither my infant baptism nor my Confirmation at 13 transformed me into a committed Christ follower, only when I was born anew by the Spirit six years ago. Couldn’t Gal 3:27 be baptized of the Spirit? It doesn’t say “water”. Christ commanded water baptism for repentant professing believers, who have already received His grace through His Spirit. I’ll refrain from my thoughts on the Eucharist…already writing too much!

            Many things are done for many years, but I don’t think that necessarily makes them right. Rather than me attempting to share the details of what I’ve learned again, this may sum it up, at least for the most part.
            “Even a cursory reading of the NT will reveal that the CC does not have it’s origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the NT, there is no mention of papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity of Mary (there is reference to Jesus’ brothers and sisters in Scripture) assumption or her co-redemptrix status) petitioning of saints in heaven for prayers, apostolic succession, ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences or equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. Therefore, the origin of the CC is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles as recorded in the NT.

            We believe it’s better and safer to rely on God-breathed Scripture than man-devised tradition. How would we know what men say is legitimate unless it aligns with the Bible? Could their proclamations actually be an affront to God if they are contrary to His Word?

            i am not anti-Catholic person, I am anti-Catholic doctrine when it is added to or contrary to Scripture. (The Mormon’s and JW’s have done that) Of course, I can only share my beliefs with you, nothing more. The website is gotquestions (dot) org. Wouldn’t hurt to check it out if you want to verify the CC’s teachings. There has been A LOT of good out of the CC as well, as you have pointed out, so I can agree there. Oh, never thought Christianity was gnostic.

          • Kathy

            If interested, James, type in “Catholic Questions” in the box.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy!

            I became very anti-Catholic after leaving the Catholic Church. I know the drill of anti-Catholics. It was the search for the early church, becoming a student of Church history that started my path back to the Catholic Church.

            How do we now that we are faithful to Scripture? The thousands of Protestant/Evangelical denominations with differing views of Scripture show how private interpretations of Scripture leads to confusion.

            Scripture alone is unworkable. I will go as far to say that it is impossible and has never been done. The many interpretations and applications of Scripture are proof of this. Who is right and how would you know?

            That is why Jesus instituted the Chair of St. Peter in Matthew 16:17-19 and gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose to establish the true interpretation and application of Scripture. In other words, Jesus never intended the Church to be in confusion.

            The Reformers basically took the Catholic faith and either kept, removed or changed what they wanted by their private interpretation. The Trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, His passion, resurrection and atonement for our sins is Catholic. The Scriptures are the Catholic Churches gift to the world.

            I would suggest checking out Catholic Answers and using their search engine or tract option to explain Catholic teaching and it’s faithfulness to Scripture. EWTN’s “The Journey Home” has excellent testimonies of folks coming home to the Catholic Church.

          • Kathy

            Quick question, James. You have absolutely no problem with any man-created doctrine added to God’s Word out of speculation and declared the truth? Much of it was addressed in my last post referencing the website.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy,

            I could say the same thing – do you have the same problem with man created doctrine added to God’s Word? I know you think your interpretation of Scripture is true to Scripture. But “Scripture alone” and “faith alone” was created by a man, Martin Luther.

            Did you know that Luther removed books from the New Testament? The books of James, Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter and Revelation. Wasn’t this man created? By what authority did he do this?

            Christian dogma is the work of the Holy Spirit and the Church. This is evidenced by the first Church council in Acts 15 when James made the statement, “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” in confirming their decision. Paul said that the the Church is the “pillar and ground of the truth”, (1 Tim. 3:15)

            That is why I recommended Catholic Answers to answer your questions. But I can answer some of them now.

            1) The perpetual virginity of Mary. This belief is from the beginning and is also believed by the Orthodox Church. Luther, Calvin and Wesley also believed it. The Bible never states that Mary had any more children. As for the brothers and sisters of Jesus: it’s important to know that NT greek didn’t have a word for blood brother or sister. It could also mean family member, cousin or even national identity. The mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus is attributed to another Mary. (Mark 15:40)

            2) Intercession of the Saints. The Church in Heaven and on Earth are one Body. (Eph. 3:15). We celebrate Mass together – it is a heavenly liturgy after all. Hebrews 12:22-24 states that we have access to Heaven and the saints. The book of Revelations is resplendent with the saints in Heaven involved with the affairs on earth.

            3) Purgatory. Purgatory is the purging of our sin nature and dealing with unresolved sins in Heaven before the Judgement Seat of Christ. (2 Cor, 5:9-11) We are not saved by our works, but we will be judged by them. (1 Cor, 3:12 -15). Evangelicals would define this as “Final Sanctification”

            I could go on. But I think the point is this: how do you know what you believe is not man-made?

          • Kathy

            Yes, we could go on and on concerning doctrine and everything else we disagree on. The answers I would give you are all on that website, and I learned most of it before I even heard of or referred to it. So much seems like just common sense to me, James. Rather than continuing to debate and get nowhere, here is one example of what I believe to be common sense.

            Have you ever wondered about this? If God loves us so much and desires an intimate relationship with us as Jesus tells us, wouldn’t He want us to go directly to Him in prayer? Would your wife or even a friend require that you use an intermediary to communicate with or have any form of access to her/them? What kind of a relationship would that be?

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy!

            What do you mean by intermediary?

          • Kathy

            A go-between. Of course, we cannot have access to the Father but through Jesus Christ, as in John 14:6. We both know that, but I am referring to Mary, saints, priests, etc.

          • James Blazsik

            I guess I am not sure what you mean. Does your church have ministers, counselors, teachers, pastors, evangelists, and mentors? Does your church minister to one another? Do you pray for each other?
            Or, if it is only you and Jesus – do you even bother go to church? Why would you need someone to teach you or even minister to you?

          • Kathy

            Okay, straightforward questions…why is it that Catholics find it preferable, or even necessary, to ask Mary or other deceased people to intercede for them? Why not go directly to God with their prayers? Why do they need, what I call “props” (tangible material) to experience God’s presence?

            Our church: We come together in fellowship for worship, learning (our ministers call themselves “teaching pastors”) and Holy Communion. We have access to Bible study, community groups and counselors if needed. Of course, there is a children’s ministry as well. There are many outreach opportunities (mission trips, charitable organizations, etc) we can be involved with. I keep writing way more than I intend to. Ugh.

          • James Blazsik

            Does your church pray for its members?

            Have you ever prayed for anyone? Have you ever asked people to pray for you?

          • Kathy

            You seem to be an intelligent man, you know what I am getting at. I refer to Matthew 6:6-7 regarding prayer. I don’t see anything there about petitioning anyone to pray for you, but I don’t see anything condemning that either.

            Did Christ ever ask anyone to pray for Him? He went directly to His Father, as we believers now can. No need to channel “saints” in heaven (did you know all true believers are saints and a royal priesthood?) who are no better than we are…they are all sinners who received the grace of God. Isn’t that like a Medium channeling dead people, which is strictly prohibited by God?

            I do see Jesus saying “Do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do…” like the many rote prayers of the CC that my boys had to memorize. The Lord’s Prayer is the only “rote” prayer that is unique since Jesus Himself said “Pray then like this”. Notice He said “like” this, not pray this particular prayer. Of course, it’s the perfect prayer prayed by the only perfect person, so it’s perfect for us as well.

            Oh, would you tell Messianic Jews (Jesus came first for the Jew, then for the Gentile) or the Orthodox that the RCC is the first and only true church? Yeshua (his real name) was a devout Jew as were all of the disciples, including Paul, as you know. That seems pretty presumptuous to declare that about your church, don’t you think?

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy!

            It can seem that you are presumptuous that you put yourself as the judge of the Catholic Church. Who put yourself in that position? You are doing the same thing that you accuse of the Catholic Church doing.

            Are you saying that you don’t bother to pray for others? That your church doesn’t care to pray for its own?

            1)”Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men” 1Tim 2:1
            2) “Pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” Matt.5:44
            3)”that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers” Romans 1:9
            4) “you also helping together in prayer for us” 2Cor 1:11
            5) “making mention of you in my prayers” Eph 1:16

            Of course there is more. You seem to be an intelligent woman – how could you deny that we are to pray and intercede for each other? Or is it that it doesn’t fit into your argument?

            I have already covered this. The Church in heaven and earth are one body. (Eph 3:14,15)
            We have access to the saints in heaven. Heb. 12:18-24
            The book of Revelation reveals that the Church in heaven participates with the Church on earth.
            Why wouldn’t we ask the saints in heaven who are perfected to pray for us?

          • Kathy

            I don’t recall ever saying that my particular church was the true church. From what I understand, the true church is comprised of ALL born again believers in ALL Christian (or Messianic Jewish) traditions. Born again meaning those experiencing the transformative power of the new birth by the Holy Spirit as the apostles did at Pentecost, as Jesus said we must to enter His Kingdom.

            Water baptism comes after repentance and confession of faith. If salvation was first through water baptism, an atheist would be saved just by doing that. What about the thief on the cross…he was never baptized with water. All he did was put his trust in Christ.

            Judging: Shouldn’t we all make many judgements throughout the day concerning what we understand to be right and wrong through the eyes of God, as evident in His Word?

            I notice you make no reference of praying to God directly, James. I don’t see any verse that indicates we should pray to deceased people in those you referenced. Of course, I pray for others and they can pray for me, but I enjoy being in my Father’s presence with my own prayers.

            Gotta go…later.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy!

            I didn’t refer to praying directly to God because that’s a given. You didn’t ask a question about that.

            One thing I noticed in your comment is that you didn’t provide any Scriptural back up for your statement. Can you defend it with Scripture? I have provided Scripture with every comment.

            Jesus said, “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God”. (John 3:5). Paul said, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal.3:27) Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized is saved.” (Matk 16:16).

            It is the through the work of the Holy Spirit and baptism that we are saved. That is why an atheist cannot be saved. Though we are bound by the Sacraments, God never is. He can save the thief on the cross and whoever calls upon Him if they die before they are baptized.

            The Catholic Church is the church founded by Christ from the very beginning. It contains a treasure of truth, goodness and beauty in Christ. I would encourage you that instead of judging the Church, actually doing the homework with humility to see that beauty.

            I also encourage you to use Scripture to prove your position.

            Believers who die in Christ live forever. I thought you would know that.

          • Kathy

            You never confirmed my reference to praying directly to God. You agree, so why do you need an intercessor then? Isn’t it better to go directly to the Source of your life and faith, James? There is nothing in Scripture that says people in heaven can hear us anyway, is there? I am not talking about speculating on obscure passages.

            I referred to John 3 in previous posts to you regarding born again. I wrote out John 3:8 as a matter of fact. Read John 6 as well “That which is born of flesh is flesh (could that be the water birth from which we come into this world?) and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” This may be very timely since my pastor is speaking on the book of John and this is the third week, so it will be chapter 3.

            “He who BELIEVES and is baptized will be saved” How does an infant believe? I am not saying baptism in irrelevant. It does not usher in the new birth, however. If people can still be saved without water baptism, you are saying it is not a requirement for salvation then.

            Guess you forgot I spent many years in the CC with my family, The more I look into it since I left, the more my original doubts have been confirmed. You suggested I look into the Catholic website. There is no need since the one I told you about discusses both views in each answer with much Scriptural backup. Does your website give the Protestant view as well? Doesn’t that make sense so you can discern for yourself? Check out the questions regarding the origin of the CC and are they the first true church.

            Yes, the things of your church are beautiful, but is that the focus? That’s what I found in the CC. Had to purchase a gold chalice, a huge ornate crucifix (don’t get me started), a new fancier frock for the priests, more statues, whatever. The most faithful people are the new converts in China who sit on concrete floors for hours at a time just to feed on God’s Word. That is what it’s all about!

          • James Blazsik

            The Catholic Church is a universal church. Of the 2 billion Christians in the world, the Catholic Church comprises of 1.2 billion people. The reason I bring this up is that it is around the world, whether in the underground church in China or in the jungles of Africa.

            I know the beauty of Catholic cathedrals, but the beauty that I was talking about is what we believe.

            Jesus said: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him”.(John 6:56) The Eucharist, the consumption of the Body and Blood of Christ, is the beauty of abiding in Christ in a deep and powerful way. Protestants don’t do this. Tragic.

            May I ask what church you attend?

          • Kathy

            Lately, I’ve noticed that Catholics avoid the “Roman” part of the CC. Yes, catholic (lower case c) means universal, and it is included in the creeds. Many converts are of other Christian traditions as well. There are a very large number of Muslims in the world, so not sure the number of adherents to a religion is relevant.

            Yes, I know John 6:56 and can see why you believe that. We reference John 6:63-64 as well. Also, the fact that when Jesus spoke those words in 6:56, he was not yet celebrating the Passover meal with his disciples. So, we say how does that tie into the Communion (Eucharist) observance?

            I now attend (my cradle Catholic husband as well) a non-denominational church. I refer to myself as an orthodox Biblical Christian. Our pastors wear plain clothes so as not to deem themselves any better than their flock, just more educated maybe. 🙂

          • Kathy

            My reply was deleted for whatever reason and other posts have been flagged, probably due to suggesting that website. I enjoyed our conversations and will recommend Wade Trimmer’s March 10th Inspiration article on the Stream “Loving Jesus Passionately”, if you haven’t already seen it. Excellent! What our faith should be all about. Wishing you many blessings from our wonderful Father, James.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy!

            Just wanted to touch base before leaving with follow up on you comments on the Eucharist in the comment that was deleted.

            Jesus said, ” He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” Now you made the comment on the time frame that Jesus made this comment before the Passover happening.

            Now that’s the beauty of what Jesus said. Because at the celebration of the Last Supper, Jesus said that the bread is His Body and the wine is His Blood. It can’t get any clearer than that.

            With the Scripture you mentioned, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you are spirit and they are life” (John 6:630), actually works beautifully with the Eucharist.The Priest during Mass speak the words of Christ over the bread and wine; and because the words of Christ are spirit and life, the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ.

            There is a depth and a richness in fellowship with Christ in the Eucharist. It is a treasure beyond all comprehension.

            I would just encourage you to be open to the gift of surprises that the Holy Spirit will give. I was raised in the Catholic Church, left, and came back. While gone, I became very anti-Catholic. You never know what will happen on your journey.

            May the Lord bless you richly.

          • Kathy

            James, the Holy Spirit has already graciously bestowed on me the undeserved and free gift of God’s grace and forgiveness through Christ. My eyes were opened to the truth of God’s Word in Scripture and my heart was overwhelmed with a love and peace that only He can provide. I experienced that soul transformation just six years ago after living as a nominal “Christian” my entire life. Yes, it was the best “surprise” ever! I could not be more grateful… I’ve realized He is all we really need. (Wade Trimmer’s article I mentioned)

            I’m sorry, but the focus of the CC is on accessing God through many external means. Rituals in themselves are harmless, it’s what we believe about them that could be harmful. God revealed Himself to us in Scripture, obviously with the intention that we must believe what He revealed, The many Protestant denominations are divided over mainly minor differences, but you and I over major doctrinal issues, hence my suggestion you look into the you-know-what I suggested. We all must try our best to not offend our Father and worship Him as He desires and deserves, so it’s imperative that we discern what we are being taught and weigh the options on the basis of Scripture alone. Who knows better than our Maker, James?

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy,

            One thing I do know: you do not understand the Catholic faith. As Catholics, we know that we are only saved through Christ alone. We can only access the Father through Christ alone. But when we have Christ, we have everything.

            Every denomination, every Christian group has rituals. We have rituals in our daily life. Your church has rituals.

            Another thing you may want to consider: study Church history. Your statement, “many Protestant denominations are divided over mainly minor differences”, can’t be more incorrect. The difference between Calvinism and Anabaptists, Pentecostals and Baptists, Lutherans and Methodists are profound.

            Which leads us to Scripture alone. If our faith is guided by the concept of Scripture alone, then why all the profound differences? Teaching tradition. Every Christian group follows their own teaching tradition. In other words, There is always someone teaching how they interpret Scripture. Scripture alone is an impossibility; their is always Scripture plus someone’s teaching. Whether Luther, Calvin, Wesley. or anyone else.

            Scripture doesn’t teach Scripture alone. That’s why Christ instituted the seat of St. Peter – so there would be no confusion. (Matt. 16:17-19).

            I guess I have one question: can you support your position of Scripture alone?

          • Kathy

            Wholeheartedly agree with your first paragraph, James. That should be the focus, but I have trouble seeing that in the CC many times. For instance, praying the rosary calls on Mary more often than Christ. It’s pretty obvious who the priority is in that instance. It’s one of those “props” I mentioned as well.

            The differences in Protestant churches are relatively minor as compared with us and the RCC. I was raised a Lutheran, and attended that church again for two years out of respect for my husband…it was an easier transition for him to go from the CC to LC than to go directly to non-denominational. I disagree with the LC as well…infant baptism, ordaining female ministers, etc. I am an orthodox Biblical Christian now.

            Scripture alone means we always refer to it first and foremost. Our pastors teach extensively on it every Sunday, and tell us often to compare what they are teaching to God’s Word. Sunday it was John 2:1-11. We don’t depend solely on a hierarchy that seemingly has been granted some special divine insight that no other Christian is privy to. If they are clueless themselves, I guess that is the only alternative.

            Must disagree with you on Peter. There is no mention of a future succession of bishops or popes in the Bible. Once again, the comparative explanations are on that site…Catholic view and Biblical Christian view. You can discern for yourself. I could say so much more, but why not just reference the site? I can’t write a book on here. 🙂

            I have seen your exchange with Ken and didn’t want to interfere, but I agree with what he says. (May I suggest Michael Brown’s book “Our Hands are Stained with Blood…The Tragic Story of the “Church” and the Jewish people”) I learn from faithful people all the time, and have weeded out quite a few when they appear to stray from Scripture. I listen to many podcasts of preachers that don’t seem to stray and read many books on my faith…it is my passion in life now. Wasn’t really interested before. What do you think could explain that, James?

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy!

            The focus of the Rosary is Christ. The first decade consists of the Joyful Mysteries:
            1) The Annunciation of the birth of Christ
            2) The Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth
            3) The Nativity of Jesus Christ
            4) Presentation of Jesus in the temple
            5) The finding of the child Jesus in the temple

            The second decade consists of the Sorrowful Mysteries:
            1) The agony of Christ in the garden
            2) The scourging of Christ
            3) The crown of thorns placed on Jesus
            4) Jesus carries HIs cross
            5) Jesus dies on the cross

            The Third Decade consists of the Glorious Mysteries:
            1) The resurrection of Jesus
            2) The ascension of Jesus
            3) The descent of the Holy Spirit
            4) The ascension of the Blessed Virgin Mary
            5) The coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary

            The fourth decade consists of the Luminous Mysteries:
            1) Christ’s baptism in the Jordan river
            2) Christ at the wedding in Cana
            3) Christ’s announcement of the kingdom of God.
            4) The Transfiguration of Christ
            5) The institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper

            When someone uses the rosary in prayer, they are focused on Christ our Lord. But it’s not mandatory.

            The difference between Protestant churches is profound. Please, you need to study church history and the development of theology.

            You’re definition of Scripture alone aligns more with the Catholic Church than Protestant churches. The Reformation states that Scripture is the only rule.

            The Catholic church reads a ton of Scripture in every Mass.

            If we didn’t have succession then we wouldn’t have any clergy today. That’s what the “laying on of hands” is all about. Of course you would disagree about Peter. But what was Jesus saying? What did He mean?

            Read the “The Jews and Their Lies”, by Martin Luther. Read it. This was also used by the Nazis to justify the Holocaust. Read it and see if you agree with Ken.

            He manipulated Scripture by deciding what books belonged in the Canon.

            The one thing I noticed that you talk of the primacy of Scripture, but rarely used it to back your position. I have given plenty of Scripture to back the Catholic view of Baptism and the Eucharist.

          • Kathy

            Wow, really didn’t ask for an explanation of what the rosary means. No wonder it took 9 months for people to convert…why must it all be so complicated? Thought that Christ came to set the captives free (doesn’t mean just from sin), not put extra burdens on people like the Pharisees did. Sure you know that Jesus chastised them for that numerous times.

            Once again, I am not part of any of those denominations you refer to. I can only do the same thing with them as I am with you…ask them if all they are taught and believe is in the Bible. and if their interpretation is in sync with the rest of Scripture. The old school Baptists prohibited drinking, dancing, makeup, pants for women, etc. Man-made rules.

            Sorry, our definition of Scripture does not elevate tradition to equal status or above it, so can’t agree there. You and the Orthodox do.

            We have 40-45 minute sermons on passages of Scripture, not just readings.

            Interesting that you ignore your church’s role in persecutions of Jewish people. The Inquisition, for instance. If you are going to ridicule Luther, you need to do the same of your church up until the present day. Can you defend the rampant abuse of children by priests and their enablers in the hierarchy? Let’s be fair now, James.

            More later….

          • Kathy

            Apocrypha: “Protestants don’t consider these books to be Scripture for several reasons, one being that the Jewish authors who wrote the books never accepted them into their canon. They themselves put them into a different category from the recognized Hebrew scriptures.” Book “Can I Really Trust the Bible?”

            It is also explained on the site I suggested, but I doubt you’ve accessed it since you continue to say I should write it out here when you have easy access to more extensive explanations including Scripture than I could possibly give here…Protestant AND Catholic, not just the CC’s rendition.

            Attended a Messianic synagogue for a while and even considered joining since they are about half Jewish and half Gentile. Since it seems you are very defensive of the Jews (which you should be), you should know that they are not at all fond of the RCC and do not make attempts to hide that.

          • James Blazsik

            Kathy.

            You seem to very cynical and anti-Catholic. You are the one who brought up the rosary and I showed how Christ centered it is. Instead on commenting on what was shared, you made a cynical remark.

            The rosary is not a requirement for salvation or membership in the Catholic Church. It is there for our devotion in prayer. It doesn’t complicate our lives or our salvation. You are the one who complicates it.

          • Kathy

            I am an equal opportunity “cynic”, James. I confronted JW’s with stations set up in a city we visited and some conducting a “bible study” at a memory care facility. I now answer the door if a Mormon knocks. I am not comparing you to them (they don’t subscribe to the principle tenets of Christianity), but I am not singling Catholics out. I happen to know more of the RCC because I was there for so long, researched the doubts I had and know a lot more Catholics (friends and family) than the others. I still have those friends and the family members have not disowned me 🙂

            What about you and the Orthodox? For one thing, they don’t acknowledge the papacy. I don’t keep bringing them up to you, so why do you continue referencing all of the other Protestants with me? I don’t agree with many of them either, James.

            Seems to be a misunderstanding here. Scripture is first and foremost. Everything after that is weighed or compared to it. If it aligns with Scripture, it’s relevant to us. If it does not, it’s questionable and rejected. I read many books on the faith and listen to many teachers. As long as what they teach is biblical, it’s good. If they seem to stray from it, I disregard the book or the teacher. Does that make sense in the context of Scripture alone.

            I am not defending Luther’s indiscretions either, James. He did much good as far as we are concerned. Know you wouldn’t be interested, but Eric Metaxas’s book “Martin Luther”, The Man Who Rediscovered God and Changed the World, came out last year and he refutes many misconceptions about him. I know what he said about the Jews at the end of his life. As Ken pointed out, the Bible is full of broken people who God used for His purposes. They made huge mistakes in their lives. All the more reason not to put ANY human (alive or dead) on a pedestal, only God is deserving and worthy of that.

            Did you know that Jewish and Gentile believers were never supposed to be separated? We were to be in communion together. The RCC wanted to distance themselves from the Jews as much as possible, hence the separation. I learned that in a 70-page timeline the synagogue gave us. I know about Luther, but it’s apparent you must read Dr. Brown’s book since you don’t seem familiar with the RCC’s persecution of the Jews. Your church is not going to proudly announce their indiscretions to their flock, hence the importance of reading other material that may not agree with what you are taught.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy!

            True, the Orthodox disagrees with the concept of the Papacy. But – The Catholic Church and the various Orthodox Churches agree with much. Which is an example to Protestants – the reformation was a radical revolution from historical Christianity.

            Everybody says Scripture is foremost. But everybody disagrees on what Scripture says. That’s the point. How do you know you have the right interpretation of Scripture? I have given you a sound Scriptural basis for the Catholic position on Baptism and the Eucharist. So, why don’t you believe it? Could it be because of your teaching tradition?

            Again – how do you know you are right? in the end you are really judging by the teaching tradition you agree with.

            Instead of reading a book about Luther and his absolute failure in sin – I ask again: did you read “The Jews and Their Lives”? Read it for yourself, not an attempt to whitewash it. After you do, then imagine the pain and suffering he caused. And that was NOT his only failure. He finished very poorly, or so I say tragically.

            One of the other great failures of Luther was in his rejection of the spiritual authority of the Pope and replacing it with the State. Instead of marriage being a Church institution, he placed it under the State. His actions resulted in State Churches and the problems with the State defining marriage today.

            Paul said that in the Body of Christ there is no Jew or Gentile. All are included in the Church. If there was a separation, it was because there were Jewish folks who exercised their free will and refused to follow Christ. It was their decision.

            Name a time when the Catholic Church persecuted the Jews. There were Catholic political leaders who did – but again – when did the Catholic Church persecute the Jews? Please don’t mention a book, if you accuse- then provide the proof.

          • Kathy

            Uhh, always my intention to be brief. Oh, well… I have a book that says that the East claims the West strayed into heresy with the development of the papacy and claims to absolute supremacy over all other churches. Also an issue is Rome’s filioque doctrine which was added to the Nicene Creed arbitrarily, without the decision of the General Council. Not as cordial as you thought, I guess. The P revolution was in response to the deviation from the historical 1st century church of the book of Acts.

            No more arguments about the book on Luther. I never defended his diatribe in the book, I just said he also did many good things. You obviously never read anything positive, or just don’t like what he did. Seems you are totally anti-Luther, James…I sense a real hatred. Again, another reason not elevate any human, like the pope, since even the present pope is obviously going off the rails. (Oh, look up the name Jan Hus and see what you find.)

            The RCC was separating themselves from Jewish believers, not just traditional Jews. Christ came for the Jew first, then the Gentile. How dare anyone say they must change and conform to their way. I am much more prone to believe the rabbi at the synagogue than the RCC. I don’t think their historical timeline referencing the abuse of the RCC something they made up. They refer to Luther as well. Not meant to offend you, it’s just the truth. You are not the church anyway.

            I figured you wouldn’t want to look at that Q & A site, so give me a topic, and I will find Scripture for it to support our understanding of it.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy!

            There are disputes between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church that’s for sure. But – they are talking together. And – they agree a lot in theology. Whether the Eucharist, baptism, the nature of salvation, the Blessed Virgin Mary and the canon of Scripture (actually the Orthodox Bible has more books!). We are able to approach each other’s communion table (with pastoral approval).

            You should work on not judging people. I used to be a big fan of Martin Luther. Then I started digging into history and finding more than the sanitized info from standard Protestant fare. It seems that you are ignoring his flaws, sins and faults but have no problem believing anything negative against the Catholic Church. No hatred at all. Not a hater. Just an aroused sense of justice.

            Again: did you read “The Jews and Their LIes”?

            Instead of choosing who to believe between the Catholic Church and your Rabbi – just study the facts. Be stand up and not judge who you want to believe before you know the facts.(Maybe it’s because you hate the Catholic Church). I don’t get what you are saying about the Catholic Church and Jewish people who are Christians. Please give details.

          • Kathy

            I feel like we are talking in circles. I noticed Ken said the same thing. We make judgements all of the time, James. Yes, I believe the Messianic Jewish teachings over the RCC. You know why? They follow Scripture to a tee and have not added man-created doctrine to the Word and proclaimed it as true. That is the reason. After all I’ve told you about my reading and studying and 30 years in the CC, you still think I am just making assumptions and unfounded “judgements”?

            Example: On November 1st, 1950, the RCC decreed that Mary’s body had been “assumed into heaven.” Pope Pius XII noted that Mary, “having completed the course of her earthy life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” This is in spite of the fact her fate was never recorded. Don’t you celebrate that on the “Feast of the Assumption”, one of the Holy Days of Obligation? I see it as observing something that probably is not true…it is just an “assumption”. 🙂

            Reading a book now with writings of John Calvin incorporated into it. He says “We have in the sacraments another aid to our faith related to the preaching of the Gospel.” The key words here are “aid to our faith”. In giving us sacraments, as Calvin goes on to say “God provides first for our ignorance and dullness, then for our weakness.” The sacraments are needed, not because God’s Word is lacking in any way, but because we need all the help God can give us to instruct us and establish us in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Protestants have only two; Baptism and Communion, the only ones referenced in Scripture)

            I’ll speak from my experience, James. Didn’t realize it, but I was not really a Christian. I said I was, after all, I was raised in the church, I attended almost every week, I’m a “good” person. While at the CC, I would think the rituals and such were appealing and sometimes moved me spiritually, or so I thought. Had nothing to do with Christ, it was the beauty of the things of the church. ( Rituals being things like the sprinkling of “holy” water on the congregation, etc.)

            After experiencing my new birth (John 3) six years ago, it is all about Jesus for me, the Word made flesh. He IS the Word in the Bible..how could it be okay to mess with that? Like the disciples on the road to Emmaus, “my heart burns within me” when I read the Scriptures (not every single verse, of course) because I finally had them opened up to me by God Himself. So rituals are not needed for me…just speaking for myself, James.

            I am anticipating you will refer to Luther and the books he removed. I explained one reason the Apocropha (spelling) was removed. All of the other books you mentioned are still in our Bibles, so no need to go there.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy!

            I do think we are talking in circles

            I don’t think you realize by saying a group is following Scripture to a tee, you are just merely saying they are following Scripture in a way YOU agree with. In other words, you are following your teaching tradition. But, this is where we are going in circles – how do you know YOU are right?

            There are plenty of folks who spend 30 years in Protestant groups and don’t understand what their church teaches. They spend time in church and never are converted. In other words, your experience happens in every denomination. If you want to say you understand the Catholic faith, reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a good start.

            I was in evangelical world for over 20 years. I studied Calvinism, Lutheranism, Methodism and all the other isms. The Catholic Church makes a lot more sense.

            Still going in circles – I gave a Scriptural basis on .the Catholic understanding of baptism and the Eucharist. You still haven’t refuted it.

            Still going in circles – have you read “The Jews and Their Lies”?

            In quoting John Calvin you are proving my point that Scripture alone doesn’t exist. You are quoting John Calvin as an authority of truth on the same level of Scripture. You trust in his teaching tradition.

            The two men did have their hearts burn as the Word of God shared Scripture. But read the passage again. They didn’t recognize that He was Jesus until He broke Bread. We see Jesus in the Eucharist in every Mass.

            There are seven sacraments. 1) Baptism “Gal. 3:27” 2) The Eucharist “Matt. 26:27,28” 3)Confirmation “Acts 19:3-6” 4) Penance “John 20:21-23” 5) Anointing of the sick “James 5:14,15” 6) Holy Orders “Acts 6:3-6” 7) Matrimony “Eph.5:31-32”

            The Assumption of Mary was believed since apostolic times. Pope Pius Xll made it dogma, making it a matter of faith for Catholics. Read what you criticize.

            All rituals in the Catholic Mass center on Christ.

            As to making up stuff: the Protestants are the ones who are good at it. Scripture Alone, Faith Alone, Imputed Righteousness, removing 5 sacraments and thank you for mentioning it – removing books from the Bible. Luther was actually doing what you accuse the Catholic Church of doing. Plenty of man made doctrines.

          • Kathy

            I perceive a lot of confusion on your part during your life considering all of the faith traditions you dabbled in. That would confuse anyone. Lutheran, Catholic, a short time at the synagogue and orthodox Biblical Christianity for me. That is what makes sense to me. I was not confused and seeking, I just began questioning what was being taught.

            You still don’t seem to understand that I have studied (including reading the Catechism) the RCC. I thought I was making myself clear, but I guess not enough. I never said everything in the CC was a problem, but I found enough that is. Same for many other religions.

            The site I suggested only more strongly confirms what I’ve learned since beginning to question and research what was being taught. I have suggested you refer to that for related Scripture on RCC beliefs AND Biblical Christian beliefs instead of me responding with info equivalent to writing a book. That would be silly if the info is readily available to you. We don’t just reference one isolated verse for most beliefs…it encompasses the whole of the Bible and how it’s all related in context.

            If you want to live in the darkness of really not be certain of your salvation because maybe you haven’t done enough religious works, I say go for it. How do you know how much is enough, James? If you don’t trust in Christ’s full atonement for our sins (past, present and future), that he has paid the FULL price on our behalf, you are belittling His sacrifice. Sorry, but I believe that is an insult to God. What was the point in Him suffering like He did if we still must “perform”? God could have just said “Okay, do this and that, and I will save you” Can you not see that, James?

            I haven’t noticed anywhere in your posts that you can relate to being “born again”, as Jesus said we must to enter His Kingdom. I didn’t even know it was possible until my “Saul experience”. Not quite as dramatic, but it was pretty profound and certainly ushered in my transformation. Yes, I was justified and am being sanctified. I don’t have to wait to see Jesus in the Eucharist..His Spirit indwells all believers. Instead of continuing this futile debate, can you relate to that? Please just answer that one question…no need to defend the RCC any longer because it will not change my mind.

            Putting this to final rest, this is from Eric’s book on Luther “That the Nazi’s cynical master of propaganda would find the few vile words Luther had written against the Jews and broadcast them to the world, ignoring the 110 volumes of Luther’s other writings, is of course fathomlessly cynical. Even at the time, those who knew Luther’s other works very well either were unaware of this pamphlet or simply ignored it, feeling that it was such a strange outlier it could hardly be understood rationally.”. Hope that satisfies you because I’m done with it.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy!

            There isn’t any confusion – that’s the point. In my journey through Protestantism/Evangelicalism, I arrived into the light of life into the fullness of Christ in the Catholic Faith. Of course I am born again, and experienced the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

            Of course my confidence is in the work of Christ on the cross as my Saviour and Lord. My confidence is in the grace of Christ. I know His love and I am grateful for all His gifts in the Catholic Church. One of the most beautiful gifts is the giving of His Body and Blood.

            Jesus said, “Most assuredly. I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you”. You do need the Eucharist.

            I one thing I have noticed is that you hardly use Scripture to verify what you believe. You talk a lot about it, but rarely use it.

            Not really confidant in Eric’s whitewash of Luther.

            My question that I have asked multiple times; DID YOU READ LUTHER’S, “THE JEWS AND THEIR LIES”? Also, how can you justify commanding the persecution of the Jews? How can you justify removing books from the Bible? How can you justify Luther’s admonition to kill peasants, which resulted in 100,000 deaths?

            And the final question: How can you trust a man that has done this to lead a reformation?

          • Kathy

            I seem to be running into a brick wall when I suggest you look on that website for answers to your questions, so James, you’ve confirmed that I am wasting my time. It has been interesting to say the least.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Kathy!

            This is a waste of time – when the question, “Did you read Luther’s, The Jews and their Lies”, has been asked over and over again without an answer. The answer to this question has nothing to do with a website.

            Also, when you are dogmatic about what you believe and unable to defend it with Scripture, but only refer to a website – you may want to work on that or stay away from debating someone.

            I hope the best for you and may our Lord bless you richly.

          • Kathy

            Lost your last post, but wanted to thank you for admonishing me concerning referencing Scripture when wanting to explain what I believe. I was not offended and thought you are right. Listening to John MacArthur this morning saying the same convicted me further. Since referring to the website the past few months, I had forgotten that my husband has an ESV Study Bible I could reference in answering your questions. I am sure you were referring to something and don’t have it all memorized. 🙂

            I suggested the site because they explain both church’s interpretations much better than I could. Why write it all out again when you can easily access it? That’s the reason. I am fairly new at all this, and considering my background of learning more about everything but the Bible, I am still learning. Yes, Scripture was read in both churches, but never explained like I hear it now. Never read any other Christian material either back then.

            In Michael Brown’s latest article he asks “Have we forgotten that Jesus is enough?” What I saw in both the LC and to a greater extent the CC, is distraction with rituals, ceremony and aesthetics. To me, they draw attention away from Christ and put the focus on things rather than on Him alone. We don’t need all that “stuff” and other humans for interceding for us to access and feel close to anyone else we love, so why with Christ? Isn’t all that a distraction to us in this temporal world? We sure deal with enough of that! It’s not a personal relationship if other means of access are needed. Wade Trimmer’s Inspiration article from March 10th says it so well. Don’t know if you ever searched it.

            Don’t wish to continue the conversation (just don’t have the time), but I always enjoy talking/writing about what I’ve learned in my new-found faith. I still mess up sometimes, for sure. Hope what I wrote makes more sense to you now, James.

          • Kathy

            Should clarify what I meant concerning “The Word became flesh” in the post below. Christ, as you know, has always existed, everything was created through Him, and the Bible is all about Him, both the OT and NT. 2 Timothy 3:15-17 “All Scripture is God-breathed….” If we believe that, it should not intentionally be messed with whatsoever.

      • I’m not a Catholic but I think Thomas Woods’s book How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization is fantastic. I haven’t read the Stark book on Catholicism, but I’ve read the others James recommended. Victory of Reason was actually in this article at first. I edited it out because the other deals more directly with the topic of science, and I thought one Stark book was a good enough start.

        • Kathy

          Thanks, Tom! I replied to James below. Keep up the good work…really enjoy your articles.

    • Bryan

      James, when most people speak of the Church in Pre-Reformation history, it is understood that it’s the Catholic Church that is being referred to, unless someone specifies the Orthodox Church.
      Form me it’s a non-issue. I know there are some serious theological debates and issues that are still issues, but on the key principle that Christ was born and died for my sins and rose again so that I could one day be raised in a new body, justified before the Most Holy God, we are agreed, more today than during the early Reformation.
      Also this particular article didn’t deal with the University system. It didn’t need to. It dealt with a few generalized criticisms of the Church and “science” in general. There are plenty of other articles on The Stream that refer to the Catholic Church starting the University system, hospitals, etc.

      • James Blazsik

        Hey Bryan!
        I see your point. I guess I deal with a lot of anti-Catholic bigotry, so I may be a little more sensitive than I should be. But I still think that the advances reflected in the article is the result of Catholic culture is a valid point.

    • James, I had a busy weekend traveling to see family. Thanks for your patience on a response. Bryan covered it, though — so thanks, Bryan.

      • James Blazsik

        Thanks Tom!

  • Ken Abbott

    I recommend as well the books of Mitch Stokes, an academic philosopher with a background in mechanical engineering.

  • Patmos

    The Bible is by far the most scientific book ever assembled. What other book is linked to the study of the Hebrew and Greek languages, archaeology, astronomy, history, and morality all in one?

  • brothergc

    interesting , great read thanks !

  • Thanks, Tom. Glad for the succinct and well-stated summaries and refutations as well as the book promotions. Even a respondent who wishes you’d said more, piles on other writing by an author you already promoted, R. Stark. Thanks again, Tom.

  • Trilemma

    1. Back in the Dark Ages of Europe, pretty much everyone was Christian. It was the clergy that tended to have the time and education to dabble in science. So, it makes sense that’s where there was scientific inquiry.
    2. The church back then persecuted lots of people, even other Christians.
    3. Earth’s circumference was first accurately measured more than 2,000 years ago by the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes. Christopher Columbus was able to get funding because people knew the Earth was round. His mistake was thinking the Earth was smaller than it really is. There are people today who believe the Earth is flat.
    4. There’s only trouble when science appears to go against firmly held religious beliefs which is only relatively recently and only in certain areas such as the science of transgenderism.
    5. Science is getting better at reviving dead people. Science can also help a virgin have a baby.
    6. Ken Ham or Hugh Ross?

    • Andrew Mason

      Officially a Christian isn’t the same thing as actually a practicing Christian given the general ignorance of all things Christianity and the conflation of political and religious leadership at that time. To be honest it’s probably an issue again these days given how many priests (and priestesses) are more concerned with adhering to politically acceptable values than adhering to Scripture.

      There are indeed people who believe, or claim to believe the Earth is flat. The only ones I’ve heard of are millennials, and a small group of evolutionists. Whether these folk are genuine in their claim I’ve no idea.

      Actually there is no science of transgenderism but rather a group of individuals masquerading as scientists who propound theories and claim things. Actual facts are ignored andor buried.

      Science still can’t revive 3 day old people, and while virgins can now be impregnated that wasn’t the case 2,000 or so years ago.

    • James Blazsik

      Trilemma – it would be a good thing to study history. The dark ages probably only lasted until 800 AD or sooner. Modern science was birthed in the high middle ages of Catholic Culture – birthed in the University System developed by the Catholic Church.
      The reason modern science came from Catholic Europe instead of other cultures was because of Catholic Theology. The Scholastics believed that God created the universe with reason and because God was knowable, the universe could also be understood. They believed they could know God more by understanding His Creation. Check out the book by Thomas Woods, “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.”
      The Church didn’t persecute lots of people. I encourage you to read the book by Rodney Stark, “Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History.”

      • Trilemma

        Sorry, back when I was in school, the Dark Ages referred to the entire Middle Ages instead of the Early Middle Ages as it does now. I should have said Middle Ages (500-1500) so as to include the Crusades, the Medieval Inquisitions and the start of the Spanish Inquisition.

        • Charles Burge

          The so-called Dark Ages were completely made up by Voltaire and others who wanted to smear the Catholic church. In reality, the middle ages were a time of steady progress in science, art, and finance. All of those were made possible because of a prevailing Christian worldview, not in spite of it.

        • James Blazsik

          Hey Trilemma!
          So, what is the issue with the crusades, medieval inquisitions, and the spanish inquisition?

          • Trilemma

            The tongue in cheek point I was trying to imply was that science shouldn’t feel like it’s at war with Christianity because of a little persecution because Christianity in the Middle Ages persecuted lots of people and wasn’t singling out science.

            I recognize that during the Middle Ages, the Church did much good including the advancement of the sciences and even providing a form of government. But it also did much bad as evidenced by the crusades, various inquisitions and superstitions.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Trilemma!
            I knew it was tongue in cheek, that’s why I responded the way I did. I was hoping that you would explain your position.
            I think a lot, and I mean a lot of what is out there regarding the crusades and the inquisitions are based on myth and propaganda. That is why I recommended the book by Rodney Stark, “Bearing False Witness; Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History”.
            The Church in the Middle Ages didn’t persecute a lot of people. If you disagree, and I know that you do, please provide the proof.

          • Trilemma

            Perhaps we have a different idea of what a lot of people is. One example is the persecution of the Waldensians which began in 1211 and lasted a few hundred years and resulted in the murder of thousands.

          • James Blazsik

            Can you please give the source of your info?

          • Ken Abbott

            On the Waldensians, any standard church history or medieval European history book should cover the matter. Here’s a snippet from a 2015 Christianity Today article reporting on Pope Francis’s apology for the Waldensian persecutions:

            “In late June, Pope Francis apologized to “the oldest evangelical Church” for the Catholic Church’s persecution during the Middle Ages.

            ”On the part of the Catholic Church, I ask your forgiveness, I ask it for the non-Christian and even inhuman attitudes and behavior that we have showed you,’ Francis said during the first-ever visit by a pope to a Waldensian church. ‘In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, forgive us!’

            ‘The Waldensian church was founded by Peter Waldo in the 12th century after he gave up his possessions and took up a life of poverty and preaching.

            ‘Waldo’s monastic lifestyle and ideas were similar to those of the pope’s namesake, Francis of Assisi, but his insistence on preaching as a lay person, and on speaking out against the excesses of the church, got him excommunicated.

            ‘The Waldensians took up residence in Italy, not far from the border of France. The little group suffered years of massacre, rape, and pillaging during the Catholic Church’s attempt to stomp it out. During one famous massacre, more than 1,700 Waldensian lives were taken on Easter week in 1655.”

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Ken,
            In a discussion with Trilemma, but I will respond. There is no doubt that Catholic forces were responsible for what happened on Easter weekend of 1655. This was a tragedy.
            The issue is whether the Catholic Church itself directly persecuted lots of people.
            In contrast Martin Luther directly advocated persecuting the Jews, burning down their synagogues and taking their property. Google, “The Jews and Their Lies”.

          • Ken Abbott

            For some reason I’m not being allowed to respond to this post.

            The matter you mention concerning Luther is rather more complicated than you imply. I make no attempt to excuse what he wrote, but I’ll ask if you are aware of all the background on this issue.

          • James Blazsik

            One of my steps back to the Catholic Church was the reading of a scholarly biography of Martin Luther by a Lutheran author. I know the author didn’t intend this.
            What I saw was a Catholic priest with his insecurities and with good intentions carried along by political and sociological forces that resulted in his insecurities and weaknesses overtaking him. He supported the massacre of over 100,000 peasants, advocated the persecution of the anabaptists, and his calling for the taking of the property of the Jews and burning down of synagogues was the ranting of a madman and a lunatic.
            If you make a cursory view of his writings, you’ll would be floored by his heretical and outlandish statements.
            Martin Luther became a madman.

          • Ken Abbott

            I’ve made more than a cursory view of his writings and read several works on his life (and I’m not Lutheran, just so you know). Martin Luther was a brilliant theologian and Bible scholar whom God used powerfully to restore the light of the gospel to Europe. If such is madness, we need more madmen.

          • James Blazsik

            More madness of a man who commanded violence against the Jews? More madmen who condoned the slaughter of a 100,000 peasants? He divided the Church which caused the 30 years War that killed many more. Keep your madness to yourself.

          • Ken Abbott

            Had the Roman Catholic hierarchy responded to Luther’s apt concerns and corrections in a spirit of humility and willing submission to the authority of Scripture to accomplish genuine and needed reform of both doctrine as well as practice instead of with stubborn pride and arrogance, the split in the western church might well have been avoided. But it was Rome that excommunicated Luther; he did not seek schism.

            Please don’t suggest that the Wars of Religion of the 16th century and the later Thirty Years’s War were the sole responsibility of Martin Luther and those who agreed with him. For one thing, European national politics played a huge role (else why was a Roman Catholic cardinal–Richleiu–backing the Protestant forces of the King of Sweden at one point?) as did dynastic struggles regarding the French throne.

          • James Blazsik

            Are you going to blame his hatred toward Jews and his condoning the death of over 100,000 peasants on the Roman Catholic hierarchy?

          • Ken Abbott

            Certainly not.

            1) Luther, being himself of peasant stock originally, was sympathetic to the plight of German peasants and initially advocated reforms by the landowning nobility. However, when the peasants took it upon themselves to force the matter and the danger of things descending into chaos heightened, Luther (very much the traditional law-and-order type; he was also afraid that the disorder threatened his reforming work, which was still in its early stages) urged the nobles to repress the rebellion, which they did to an unwarranted extreme. Luther’s stance regarding the Peasants’ Revolt seriously harmed his reputation in the peasant class, who had previously looked to him as a champion, and hindered the progress of the Reformation, especially in southern Germany.

            2) In 1523, Luther wrote a treatise titled “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” in which he urged compassion and charity towards the Jews of the HRE, hoping that they would respond to the reappearance of the biblical gospel by embracing their Messiah. His attitude then was remarkably enlightened for his time and place. This did not happen; in fact, over the ensuing years Jewish criticism of both him and reformed Christianity became harsher. Luther was always a volatile and impassioned debater. He strongly attacked anyone who opposed what he genuinely saw as the truth of God in the no-holds-barred style common to the era. Language was vitriolic and ill-tempered. His anger and impatience finally boiled over in the production of the tract you referenced in one of your posts above. I won’t defend that tract. It would have been better if it had been burned after he got it out of his system. “The best of men are men at best,” which is not an excuse so much as an explanation that this side of glory we still battle our sin nature, and sometimes it gets the better of us.

          • James Blazsik

            When we talk of Luther’s misgivings we are not talking about character flaws. We are talking about bondage to sin.By your own words he was controlled by sin: volatile,strongly attacked, ill-tempered, anger, and impatience. This is a man that was NOT controlled by the Holy Spirit or lived a holy life.
            His bondage to sin resulted in violence to Jews not only during his time, but contributed to the mind-set of the nazis and the Holocaust.

            He directly influenced the Peasant Rebellion. His teaching on personal interpretation of Scripture and his direct support led to the rebellion. He turned on them like a weasel and in no uncertain barbaric terms encouraged their slaughter. He knew what was going to happen – because he supported it.

            This man has blood on his hands. The problem for Protestants is that he is their their founder. In the Counter Reformation, holy men and women led the Catholic Church to reform. The contrast can’t be more clear.

          • Ken Abbott

            Are we to judge a man solely by his sins? Martin Luther was a sinner and the first to acknowledge such. In his days in the Augustinian monastery he was overwhelmed by his sense of sin and guilt before a holy God and had no peace until he found it in the gospel of the righteousness of God (Romans 1:16-17). But if we take Luther to task for his anger at the enemies of this gospel and his volatile and ill-tempered speech, we must also accuse the liar Abraham, the deceiver and thief Jacob, the murderer Moses, the adulterer David, the syncretist Solomon, the coward Peter, and the persecutor Paul. I would be ashamed to put myself in that company, but I, too, am a sinner, like they were. But in Christ at the same time just and a sinner. God has powerfully used sinful men and women in the accomplishment of his divine purposes, which are always just, holy, and altogether righteous. And so he used Martin Luther (and not just Luther) to bring the light of the gospel of Christ back out of the obscuring shadows of the late medieval church. The word of God regained its rightful place in the hearts and minds of men and women.

            A question, James. In the matter of the indulgence crisis of 1517, who was in the right?

          • James Blazsik

            The point is that there were holy men and women in the Counter Reformation that brought renewal to the Catholic Church. The Church made corrections and changed its course. It took saints that lived a holy life faithful to the Church that brought change.
            Martin Luther was not a holy man. A holy man does not write, “The Jews and Their Lies”. only a madman writes something like that. You know them by the fruits of their lives.
            Luther also removed books from the New Testament canon. He removed James, Revelations, Jude, Hebrews and 2 Peter. Only a madman would do something like that.

          • Ken Abbott

            In reverse order:

            1) Luther did nothing of the kind. I own a copy of Luther’s German New Testament. It has all 27 canonical books.

            2) Did you read my post from two days ago providing a brief sketch of the background on Luther’s views of the Jewish people? You understand that the basis for his later animus was not anything racial or ethnic but theological–he lost patience with the continued rejection of the Christian gospel and the attacks some Jewish religious scholars made on biblical Christian teaching. In 1536 the Elector of Saxony banished all Jews from his territory, even making it an offense for them to traverse the country en route to elsewhere. This was unfortunately an accurate reflection of the spirit of the times all over Europe. In 1537 a prominent Christian Hebrew scholar asked Luther to intervene with the Elector on behalf of one of his Jewish academic acquaintances. Luther wrote directly to the Jewish scholar and chastised him and his people for their stubborn repudiation of Jesus Christ. He was angry at this continued insult to Christ. The matter kept bothering him and eventually worked him up into something of a lather. In 1543 he wrote the tract against the Jews; in it, he moved toward active support of the Elector’s policies. He lumped them into the same category of active opponents of the gospel (e.g., the Anabaptists), regarding them all as “a poisonous yeast in the Christian loaf.” You should know that Luther’s opinions of the Jews differed little from most of Christian Europe in the 16th century. The Roman Catholic Church of his day certainly did not have any more enlightened view of the matter.

            3) I suppose a great deal depends on your definition of what constitutes a holy man or woman. That Rome eventually, after several decades of failing to do much at all, acceded to the generalized recognized need to execute certain reforms of practice and morals is to her credit. There is no question that the Church emerged from the middle decades of the 16th century in far better shape with respect to the education of her clergy and their moral rectitude. Certain new reforming orders (following the pattern of the Middle Ages–when old orders had fallen into corruption, the accepted solution was to form new and better orders) brought renewed vitality to Roman Catholic observance. But Rome stubbornly refused to reconsider or roll back the accumulated doctrinal errors that contributed heavily to the Reformation movement and, indeed, codified her unbiblical teachings through the Council of Trent. It is a reliable saying that orthopraxy follows orthodoxy–that it takes right thinking to bring about right practice–but it is also true that one can superficially live “rightly” from wrong bases or motives, and otherwise moral people can make terrible, consequential mistakes even with the best of intentions. By anathematizing the biblical gospel of justification by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone (which is what Trent did–you can read the pertinent canons of the Sixth Session), Rome committed a ghastly sin that in no way would qualify her or the men and women who followed her as “holy.”

          • Ken Abbott

            Another one of my posts has been disappeared, and without warning about it being under moderation. I will try to briefly recap it.

            1) Luther removed no books from the NT canon. I own a copy of his German New Testament translation. It has all 27 books.

            2) I refer you back to my previous post regarding the 1543 tract and ask that you do some more reading about the historical circumstances of that tract’s production. Things are not as simple as you have presented them here. Again, not an excuse but an explanation.

            3) I give credit to the RCC for its (delayed) response to the Reformation in terms of the improvement in clerical education and morals; there is no question the church came out the better in these terms. However, much depends on one’s definition of “holy.” Orthodoxy must precede and inform orthopraxy–Rome not only did not reform her erroneous and unbiblical doctrines that precipitated the Reformation, she solidified them at Trent while anathematizing the biblical gospel. There can be no real holiness when the truth of God is repudiated.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Ken!

            1) Now remember, I said Luther removed them from the canon. The books would be in the Bible, but he put them into an appendix. So it will have all 27 books, but with Luther challenging the authenticity of not only New Testament books but also the Deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament.

            It’s ironic, isn’t it? With a supposed high view of Scripture, he manipulates what books he deems not appropriate. Let’s face it – no servant of Christ and lover of Scripture would do anything like that.

            2) No explanation helps at all. No servant and lover of Christ would write anything like that. He commanded violence against the Jews. The Nazis used it to support their position against the Jews. He has much blood on his hands.

            With all the shortcomings of Catholics in governments throughout Europe, no Pope, no Bishop would ever write nor ever encourage anything like that.

            Also, his complicity in the slaughter of 100,000 peasants is unspeakable.

            I repeat: no lover of Christ would do anything like that. No one, led by the Holy Spirit in love and holiness would conceive of anything that has anything to do with that.

            3) The Counter Reformation lifted the Church, Luther’s revolution broke it apart. The Popes had not only dealt with that and the 30 Years War, but also with Islamic aggression. Guess what? Luther sided with the Islamic aggressors.

            Jesus said you would know them by their fruits. The manipulation of the canon of Scripture, his anti-semitism and his commanding of violence against the Jews, and siding with the enemies of his Christian brothers is not the fruit of a man who loves Christ and is led by the Holy Spirit.

            As a Catholic, your anti-Catholic bigotry is offensive. I would be glad to defend with Scripture and reason any Catholic dogma you deem erroneous or unbiblical.

          • Ken Abbott

            1) Those German New Testaments I mentioned above? Matthew through Revelation, all in their accustomed order, with no divisions or compartments. Your sources are just wrong. On the matter of the Deuterocanonicals, the other Protestant Reformers were of the same opinion as Luther: Books useful for reading, but not inspired of God and not possessing the authority of Scripture. They weren’t even a part of an official canon until the decrees of the Council of Trent.

            2) I’ve tried my level best on this issue, clearly to no avail. For what it’s worth, I can tell you that the entirely nonsectarian museum in Berlin dedicated to documenting the crimes of the SS had an exhibit last summer on the use of Luther’s writings by the NSADP and they came to the same conclusion I have tried to sketch here in far more limited space.

            With all the shortcomings of Catholics in governments throughout Europe, no Pope, no Bishop would ever write nor ever encourage anything like that.” No, Gregory XIII just sent a Golden Rose to the French king, ordered the singing of a celebratory “Te Deum,” and had a commemorative medal struck, all in reaction to the news of the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in which (conservatively) 10,000 people were killed.

            3) You do realize the Thirty Years’ War started a century after Luther posted the 95 Theses (31 October 1517)? It lasted from 1618 to 1648.

            Bigot: One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. I will let other readers of this series of posts decide who should wear the label. For my part, I see no benefit to be had from continuing this exchange. I bid you a good day.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Ken,

            1) Luther removed Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon. I am assuming the reason that your copies of the Bible have the New Testament intact is that Luther’s followers quickly reversed his decision.
            The assertion that the Deuterocanonicals were added in the canon at the Council of Trent is a myth. It was included in the Septuagint, which was used by the early church. It was verified as part of the canon in the Council of Rome 382 AD, the Council of Hippo 393 AD, and the Council of Carthage in 397 AD.
            The Council of Trent merely reaffirmed the total canon in the response to the reformers removing books from them.The reformers included them in their Bibles, but regulated them to secondary status between the Testaments.
            By what authority did the reformers do this?

            2) Some exhibit can never exonerate Luther in his vicious attack of the Jewish people. I repeat: no follower of Christ could do such a thing. The founder of Protestantism has blood on his hands.

            The result of the massacre was not because of religious reasons. As I understand, there was a belief that protestant forces plotted the overthrow of the French government. And I also understand, Pope Gregory Xlll did not know of the extent of the massacre. He saw it as a victory to preserve the Catholic Monarchy and became angry at the barbarity once informed.

            The Papacy is a 2,000 year institution. There were great, mediocre and some bad Popes. But Martin Luther was the founder of Protestantism. Protestantism was built on a poor foundation.

            3) You do realize that the 30 Years War was birthed by the seeds of division caused by the reformation?

            4) I hope you have a great day. The offer is still available to discuss any of your accusations of errors or unbiblical doctrines that you charge against the Catholic Church.

          • Trilemma

            First, there’s the Wikipedia article on the Waldensians. But, here’s an article about the Pope apologizing to the Waldensians for centuries of persecution. This article specifically mentions the Massacre of Mérindol (1545) where at least scores if not hundreds of Waldensians were murdered. (Delete the space after each dot.)

            www. catholicnewsagency. com/news/pope-francis-asks-forgiveness-of-christian-group-over-historical-persecution-43232

            In this article about the Pope’s apology, the Piedmont Easter Massacre (1655) is mentioned where 1700 Waldensians were murdered.

            www. christianitytoday. com/news/2015/july/pope-apologizes-to-first-evangelicals-for-persecution. html

            These two incidents alone already show that a lot of people were persecuted. These numbers are only the martyrs for these two incidents and do not include the thousands that were persecuted but not killed over a period of hundreds of years.

          • James Blazsik

            Hey Trilemma!

            What I wanted is an actual discussion based on actual information. Both instances did not come about from the direction of the Catholic Church or the Pope, but Catholic political and military leaders. Both instances were tragic. The religious world was very different at the time, where religion was also central to the State. Heresy not only affected the Church but also the State. There were times that Catholic political leaders made very poor and tragic decisions.

            The Reformation was not only a religious movement, but it was also political and economic. One of the results of the Reformation was the 30 Years War between Catholics and Protestants. The Reformation was a tragedy in itself.

            The issue is not to make blanket statements about the Catholic Church without looking at the facts. The Church has been around for 2,000 years with a history of saints and sinners. It has made plenty of mistakes and has done it’s share of wrongs. The point is not using blanket accusations or downright anti-Catholic falsehoods.

          • Trilemma

            I guess your idea of the Catholic Church is different than mine. I consider the Catholic Church to be all its members and not just the official leadership.

            What do you mean by actual information? The two articles I cited are actual information. What exactly did the Catholic Church do that Pope Francis was apologizing for? Wikipedia is actual information. According to the Wikipedia article on the Waldensians, Pope Innocent VIII officially requested a crusade against the Waldensians. The Catholic Encyclopedia also says he did this. This resulted in immediate violent persecution of the Waldensians. So, here you have a Pope officially responsible for the violent persecution of many people.

            The persecution of the Waldensians went on for hundreds of years. What efforts did the Catholic Church leadership make to stop this persecution?

    • There is no science supporting current transgender activism, by the way. It’s a political movement.

      • Trilemma

        Scientific American published an article entitled, “Is There Something Unique about the Transgender Brain?” with the subtitle, “Imaging studies and other research suggest that there is a biological basis for transgender identity” by Francine Russo on January 1, 2016. So, there does seem to be some science though it’s relatively new and will undoubtedly undergo changes.

  • Chip Crawford

    I’ve always heard that every turn of the archeological spade only serves to confirm the authenticity of the Bible, rather than contradict it. Older earth than 6,000 years taught as well. There’s the discovery of medical science that a baby’s blood clots well beginning at 8 days old, making the Old Covenant 8th day circumcision law very interesting. Remember hearing that the leveling of Jericho, the first conquest of Israel into the new land was for health concerns as well as first fruits. Archeologists found in a modern day dig, with DNA testing capability, that venereal disease was found in the bones of the people, even children, even the animals. They were an especially wicked people. The scripture mentions the total destruction lest they pollute the land. So, if an infected cow or other animal wandered out, was taken into someone’s herd, there would be infection spread. ABC had an awful movie in the late 1990s or so, called “Joshua.” trying to depict God as a mindless killer, even though it was against his law for man. The world is the one mixed up. God is right and his word proves out time after dig after discovery.

  • Andrew Mason

    Actually Galileo was persecuted first by the scientific establishment of the day for heresy but they lacked the power of the papacy so like the Sanhedrin involved Pontius Pilate, they wanted the pope to crucify Galileo for badthink.

    As for the YECism, yes many Christians do believe that, but it doesn’t involve conflict between science and religion – evolution isn’t science but an interpretation of facts based on the belief that God doesn’t exist, everything has always been the way it is now, and any changes have occurred very very slowly. Such a faith not only denies the Genesis creation account but also denies the Flood, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and anything miraculous. Some Christians try to reconcile the 2 beliefs, but I’ve never understood how.

  • Cortney Alexander

    I was disappointed in this article’s tone as it relates to those who believe that God created in six days. If the author wants to explain how the Genesis 1 days are six extremely long periods in view of the wealth of grammatical and Scriptural evidence to the contrary, not to mention how the existence of millions of years of death and suffering (e.g., bone cancer) in the animal world prior to the creation and fall of man is consistent with God’s proclamation of his creation as “very good” on day 6, he’s entitled to do so. But if he wanted to take that position, he could have done so without denigrating those who take the Biblical story of creation at its plainest meaning.

    It’s particularly disappointing to see the author appealing to the settled conclusions of mainstream science in favor of a reinterpreted Genesis 1 given that the Stream – on a daily basis – publishes articles disagreeing with the settled conclusions of mainstream science relating to Genesis 2 (e.g., God’s creation of mankind as male and female and the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman).

    I’m accustomed to Christians who adopt an evolutionary worldview or its cousin, progressive creation, denigrating those who take Genesis 1 at its plainest meaning. But it’s disappointing to see the Stream jump on that bandwagon given the Stream’s frequent invocation of John 17 to call for unity in the body of Christ. Surely the author can understand why some reading the words of Scripture as their final authority conclude that God created in six days, even if he does not share that conclusion. The Stream is all for promoting unity with Roman Catholicism, even though it gives a different answer than Protestants to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” Yet apparently the Stream isn’t so concerned in striving for unity with those who simply believe Genesis 1 means what it says. Disappointing.

  • Cortney Alexander

    I was disappointed in this article’s tone as it relates to those who believe that God created in six days. If the author wants to explain how the Genesis 1 days are six extremely long periods in view of the wealth of grammatical and Scriptural evidence to the contrary, not to mention the denial of a global flood (which generally accompanies old-earth positions) or how the existence of millions of years of death and suffering (e.g., bone cancer) in the animal world prior to the creation and fall of man is consistent with God’s proclamation of his creation as “very good” on day 6, he’s entitled to do so. But if he wanted to take that position, he could have done so without denigrating those who take the Biblical story of creation at its plain meaning. In doing so, he dismissed without acknowledgement the work of many scientists who believe that the evidence in the world is consistent with six-day creation.
    It’s particularly disappointing to see him appealing to the settled conclusions of mainstream science in favor of a reinterpreted Genesis 1 given that the Stream – on a daily basis – publishes articles disagreeing with the settled conclusions of mainstream science relating to Genesis 2 (e.g., God’s creation of mankind as male and female and the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman).
    I’m accustomed to Christians who adopt an evolutionary worldview or its cousin, progressive creation, denigrating those who take Genesis 1 at its plainest meaning. But it’s disappointing to see the Stream jump on that bandwagon given the Stream’s frequent invocation of John 17 to call for unity in the body of Christ. Surely the author can understand why those reading the words of Scripture come to the conclusion that God created in six days, even if he feels differently. The Stream is all for promoting unity with Roman Catholicism, which gives a different answer than Protestants to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” Yet apparently the Stream isn’t so concerned in striving for unity with those who simply believe Genesis 1 means what it says. Disappointing.

    • davidrev17

      “…disagreeing with the settled conclusions of mainstream science relating to Genesis 2 (e.g., God’s creation of mankind as male and female…”

      Dear Cortney, if you’d read the Genesis text very carefully (chapter’s 1 & 2), you’ll notice first and foremost that in Genesis 2:1-3 alone, it’s stated in no less than four (4) places, that “God had finished, ended, completed, and rested from all his work which God had created and made.”

      (BTW: I’m and “Old Earth creationist,” who flatly/stringently denies any room in nature for these whimsically described, hand-waving [creative] materialistic processes of unguided, unintelligent, thus “instant-gratification” mechanisms believed by faith to be at work in neo-Darwinian evolution…aka “Darwin’s Designer Substitute.”)

      Thus Almighty God alone IS THE NON-PHYSICAL Who, What, & How undergirding this entire created order, by his fashioning, and sustenaning all things physical/material upon this planet, and throughout this (his) universe, through and by His Word alone!

      (And you’ll see this unambiguously stated too, in the few following passages: Deut. 8:3b; Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 40:8; 42:5; 45:18; Jeremiah 10:12; Zechariah 12:1; Matthew 24:35; Hebrews 11:1-3; 1 Peter 2:22-25; Revelation 4:11.)

      Then lastly, please notice the following Genesis 1:26-27 text, whereby you’ll see that what most faulty interpretations have erroneously assumed was a “second creation day,” were in fact the additional details and/or expanded commentary provided by the human writer Moses – no doubt Divinely-conveyed, since Moses wasn’t alive at that time – with specific regard to many of the activities that had transpired on “DAY SIX” of the so-called creation-week, found in chapter two, yet left unmentioned in Genesis 1:

      “Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.” God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:26-27)

      ☆ ☆ ☆

      It seems like to this “ignorant and unlearned” (Acts 4:13) individual, that if God had wanted his creatures to certifiably know the AGE of the universe – and this his planet – then we would have all been apprised of this clearly in Scripture; just like in those other areas of NON-NEGOTIABLE doctrinal/creedal “truth’s” that’ve long-since been regarded as uniquely associated with Orthodox historical Christianity.

      Yet tragically, it’s almost like the “adversary of men’s souls” has masterfully employed this otherwise evangelical “red herring,” as some sort of a “one-and-only authoritative,” religiously pioused interpretation “against the brethren” themselves; and I mean mainly within the true Body of Christ right here in America during the latter-half of the 20th, and 21st century’s, through many of our well-intentioned Young Earth Creationist (YEC) brothers & sisters??

      But this sort of wooden-literal stance about nature’s actual AGE – is nowhere even hinted at in Holy Scripture. Surely the sole omniscient Author of the Word of God, must’ve had good reason(s) for withholding that unnecessary information from our areas of finite human knowledge??

    • Bryan

      I didn’t read what you did in this article. I took it to mean you could go either way on old earth or young earth and it’s not going to change the core of Christian belief.

    • swordfish

      If I were you, I’d be more disappointed with reality than with The Stream. Archeology, biology, cosmology, geology, evolution, plate tektonics, astronomy – every branch of science has evidence which refutes Young Earth Creationism.

  • GPS Daddy

    Science is only able to investigate the physical reality. Because of this I think many scientists that call themselves Christian adopt a core assumption that the physical reality is the only thing that can be known. There are two realities: the physical reality and the spiritual reality. We humans area hybrid being. We are a physical being AND we are a spiritual being. The two realities are sewn together. Even from a biblical perspective I think this is true of all life.

    Given this dual nature, how can a scientific study of life yield accurate results? Science is unable to explain consciousness, love, joy, beauty, etc… If our bodies are unable to live without a spirit then in what other ways does our spirit affect the biology of our bodies? How can we investigate that from the tools of science?

    Unless and until these questions are answered I can’t see how we can take any “findings” as settled from biologists.

    • Howard

      Because of this I think many scientists that call themselves Christian adopt a core assumption that the physical reality is the only thing that can be known.

      Nice, how you feel free to reach conclusions about millions of people without needing to, oh, find out what they really think. At least you haven’t bothered to call yourself a Christian.

      Unless and until these questions are answered I can’t see how we can take any “findings” as settled from biologists.

      Let me know when you are willing to take the circulation of blood seriously.

      • If this were a novel, the next chapter would be where GPS Daddy gets an illness and is denied any treatments that rely on any conclusions from biology.

        Ah, well. One can dream.

        • Howard

          There’s enough suffering in the world without fantasizing about more.

          Besides, GPS Daddy takes for granted countless conclusions from biology every day, particularly relating to food and water safety. He probably forgot that something as basic as the circulation of blood was only discovered a few centuries ago — it’s the sort of thing one might have expected Galen to have known about.

          He would have done better to have simply said that scientists, like singers and actors, may know their professions very well, but this gives no special insight into the “big questions” of life.

          • GPS Daddy

            So, Howard, how do you answer the “big questions” of life?

          • Howard

            Sorry, I don’t have time to answer a question that broad.

          • GPS Daddy

            Thats a cop out, Howard. Its not that hard nor will it take that long.

            Try this:

            What we observe in this life is the following:

            Life always comes from life. Always.
            Intelligence always comes from intelligence, Always.
            Personhood always comes from personhood. Always.

            Life is clearly designed. Design always has a designer.

            Hence,

            This designer behind life is a living, intelligent, personal being.

          • Howard

            No, it’s not a cop out, for two reasons. 1. This is a particularly busy time of year for me. I can only devote so much time to requests from perfect strangers. 2. Have you ever read Summa Theologica? It addresses only SOME of the big questions. It is not a thin book.

            If you have a more narrow, specific question, I’ll try to get to it.

          • GPS Daddy

            >>No, it’s not a cop out

            Sorry, Howard. It is a cop out. I just gave you an example. I’m not asking for a dissertation. But if you have not formed your worldview then I can understand your responses.

          • Howard

            You didn’t ask a question.

          • GPS Daddy

            I gave an example.

          • GPS Daddy

            And for someone who is “sooooo busy” this time of the year you sure are spending a lot of time on The Stream commenting.

          • Phil

            That is a lot of unsubstantiated assertions.

          • GPS Daddy

            Really. Please enlighten me, Phil.

            When have you ever observed life coming from non-life.

            If you can demonstrated that then we can go one to the next ones.

          • Phil

            Duh? You enlighten me. I haven’t made any unsubstantiated assertions.
            Unless you mean you don’t understand your own post?

          • GPS Daddy

            Phil, your on the hook for showing me that life can come from non-life. You claim that our observation that life always comes from life is an “unsubstantiated assertion”. Ok, then you have evidence that life comes from non-life.

            I’m waiting.

          • Phil

            Oh you are demanding evidence of my non-assertions. When you don’t provide any evidence of your assertions. That is weird.

          • GPS Daddy

            Phil,

            >>What we observe in this life is the following:

            By this statement I am claiming the what follows is what is observed.

            >>Life always comes from life. Always.

            This is what I claim we observe. We NEVER see life come from non-life. In response to this you accused the following:

            >>That is a lot of unsubstantiated assertions.

            Ok. You say that this is an unsubstantiated assertion. Really? Then please do tell how you have observed life coming from non-life.

            In order to deny my claim to what is observed (PS – this is the substantiated part) you are now on the hook to show that its not true.

          • Phil

            Who is this “we” you keep talking about? I personally am composed of 90% water and a load of other minerals, so life does come from non-life.

          • GPS Daddy

            >>I personally am composed of 90% water and a load of other minerals, so life does come from non-life

            Oh my. Phil, you were born of water and minerals? Wow, your the first person I’m meant that does not have human parents. Was this done in a lab? It must have been expensive. What corporation paid for the research to make this happen? Was there some sophisticated lab equipment invoked or did they just throw some minerals into some water and pow, you came out?

            Please to tell this story.

          • Phil

            Your really are a crazy person. Plucking random assertions out of thin air.

          • GPS Daddy

            So you were not born from a vat of water and minerals, Phil?
            Was I mistaken in my understanding of your reply to me?

            Lets recap:

            I claim that: What we observe in this life is the following: Life always comes from life. Always.
            You said: That is a lot of unsubstantiated assertions.
            I responded with explaining what this means and showed you that you have the burden of proof to show this is not true.

            Then you gave this as proof:

            I personally am composed of 90% water and a load of other minerals, so life does come from non-life.

            In order for this to be a claim that shows life does not come from life (ie – life comes from non-life) then you must not have had human parents.

            Please explain this to me.

        • GPS Daddy

          Well, Bob, is not life like a dream?

          If the physical world is all there is then a dream is nothing more that chemical reactions… ultimately having no meaning.

          If the physical world is not real then a dream is far more “real” than our waking hours.

          In either case, biology is irrelevant.

          • If the physical world is all there is, it sure sounds like biology is relevant to me.

            No smallpox? Thanks, biology!

          • GPS Daddy

            Right on queue there Bob. Not even spending a moment to consider what I wrote. I think you need to read Tom Gilson’s latest article on “The Atheist Who hasn’t Learned To Read”. In fact, why not comment on that article and tell Tom why he is wrong.

            But lets consider your response, Bob. I wrote that the physical world is all there is then all of life is nothing more than just chemical reactions. And from this that there is ultimately no meaning in life if all life is, is a chemical reaction.

            Do you agree with this, Bob?

            Ok, tell me how chemical reactions have meaning, Bob? How can a chemical reaction know anything about meaning, Bob?

          • Tell me if a single molecule of water has the property of fluidity. Or pH. Or salinity.

            These are emergent properties. Waves on the shore, tsunamis, and hurricanes are things that have to do with water that are inconceivable when you look at the molecule.

            Perhaps meaning is also an emergent property. Or consciousness. Or morality.

            Take a brain with 10^11 neurons and separate out a single neuron. That neuron doesn’t think 10^-11 times as fast as the whole brain; it doesn’t think at all.

          • GPS Daddy

            Thats a big bunch of gibberish as a response to my post.

            >>Perhaps meaning is also an emergent property

            You can’t even say that there is meaning in life, Bob. Are you that dense? Those “emergent property” are still just elections, protons and neutrons, Bob. The same “stuff” that a rock is made out of.

            The big picture/ultimate meaning then is that there is no meaning. Those “emergent properties” will eventually stop. In fact, on the timescale of the universe they are only here for a very brief moment NEVER to be seen again.

          • Rick

            How do you define “emergent property?” Sounds like you are talking about cumulative effects of having a multitude of molecules forming an ocean and waves. Your other points are similarly exaggerated. They have nothing to do with the point made in the original post. How is that relevant to ignoring the importance of science, or not?

          • Phil

            I never understood this emphasis on ‘meaning of life’. It is taken for granted that there must be meaning. Why?

          • GPS Daddy

            Yea, atheists do take for granted that life has meaning. But meaning does no follow form an atheistic view. Richard Dawkins shows that he understands this:

            “There is at bottom no design, no good, nothing but pointless indifference”

          • Phil

            Your point being?

          • GPS Daddy

            Really, I have to make that point more? Atheists that assume life has meaning do so in antithesis to their worldview.

          • Phil

            First you say “atheists do take for granted that life has meaning” which plainly means all atheists. Now you say “Atheists that assume life has meaning” which is a subset of all atheists. Then the only thing I have heard any atheist say is that the meaning of life is what you make it. So yes you do have to make your points more clearly and coherent.

      • GPS Daddy

        LOL… Its clear from your response you have no idea what I am talking about.How about this, Howard, get the book “Transparent” by David Richardson, sit down and read it (an important step here) and then get back to me.

        • Howard

          I could (and still can) see clearly what you wrote. Perhaps you lack the writing skill to accurately represent what you meant. If so, take it up with your grade school teacher.

          • GPS Daddy

            No, Howard, you have not engaged what I wrote. Still waiting for your worldview.

          • Howard

            Of course not. I’ve engaged the evil person who hacked into your account and wrote, “Unless and until these questions are answered I can’t see how we can take any ‘findings’ as settled from biologists.” Clearly only an idiot would write that, and you are not an idiot, so obviously someone else wrote that line.

  • Luminous

    Over on another thread, I posted statistics that show that all liberal churches are shrinking. Someone who claims to be a liberal told me that liberal churches are shrinking because conservative churches are turning people off on religion. In other words, he says people are leaving liberal churches because they hate conservative churches.

    Folks, the left does NOT like facts or data. They are about as unscientific as you can get.

    • Tim Pan

      I disagree they do like facts and data, but only their own.

    • They are shrinking because of the fact they have no solid doctrine and they distort the scriptures.

  • I believe in 6,000 years old earth but I could be wrong and its not an essential doctrine to me so I don’t go heretic hunting over it. Part of my idssue is dating methods are based on a bias from the beginning. Thanks for the info though I as a Christian believed the flat earth myth, the most people believed the earth was flat, so I am glad to be corrected about that.

  • davidrev17

    Discussion on The Stream 4 comments
    The Humiliation Tactic: It Won’t Work This Time, Either
    davidrev17
    davidrev17 2 minutes ago
    “…For this finds God’s favor, if because of conscience toward God someone endures hardships in suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if you sin and are mistreated and endure it? But if you do good and suffer and so endure, this finds favor with God. For to this you were called, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving an example for you to follow in his steps.

    “He committed no sin nor was deceit found in his mouth. When he was maligned, he did not answer back; when he suffered, he threatened no retaliation, but committed himself to God who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we may cease from sinning and live for righteousness. By his wounds you were healed. For you were going astray like sheep but now you have turned back to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.” (1 Peter 2:19-25/NET)

    “Although he [Jesus] was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.” (Hebrews 5:8/ESV)

    Edit View
    Discussion on The Stream 24 comments
    Who’s Being Anti-Science Now?
    davidrev17
    davidrev17 Cortney Alexander a day ago
    Detected as spam Thanks, we’ll work on getting this corrected.
    “…disagreeing with the settled conclusions of mainstream science relating to Genesis 2 (e.g., God’s creation of mankind as male and female…”

    Dear Cortney, if you’d read the Genesis text very carefully (chapter’s 1 & 2), you’ll notice first and foremost that in Genesis 2:1-3 alone, it’s stated in no less than four (4) places, that “God had finished, ended, completed, and rested from all his work which God had created and made.”

    (BTW: I’m and “Old Earth creationist,” who flatly/stringently denies any room in nature for these whimsically described, hand-waving [creative] materialistic processes of unguided, unintelligent, thus “instant-gratification” mechanisms believed by faith to be at work in neo-Darwinian evolution…aka “Darwin’s Designer Substitute.”)

    Thus Almighty God alone IS THE NON-PHYSICAL Who, What, & How undergirding this entire created order, by his fashioning, and sustaining all things physical, material, and spiritual upon this planet, and throughout this (his) universe, through and by His omnipotent [“powerful Word”] alone. (That’s Bible!)

    And you’ll see this unambiguously stated too, in the few following passages: Deut. 8:3b; Job 32:8; 33:4; 34:14-15; Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 40:8; 42:5; 45:18; Jeremiah 10:12; Zechariah 12:1; Matthew 24:35; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-18; Hebrews 1:1-4; 11:1-3; 1 Peter 2:22-25; Revelation 4:11.

    (Also, what is one to make of what’s called the “physical sciences,” by which we specially-created spirit creatures Homo sapiens’ probe what appears to us to represent our environmental “reality” – when in fact, according to both Old/New Testament’s, Homo sapiens’ reality itself is comprised of both the physical, and the non-physical???)

    Anyway, then lastly please notice the following Genesis 1:26-27 text, whereby you’ll see that what most faulty interpretations have erroneously assumed was a “second creation day,” were in fact the additional details and/or expanded commentary provided by the human writer Moses – no doubt Divinely-conveyed, since Moses wasn’t alive at that time – with specific regard to many of the activities that had transpired on “DAY SIX” of the so-called creation-week, found in chapter two, yet left unmentioned in Genesis 1:

    “Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.” God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:26-27)

    ☆ ☆ ☆

    It seems like to this “ignorant and unlearned” (Acts 4:13) individual, that if God had wanted his creatures to certifiably know the AGE of the universe – and this his planet – then we would have all been apprised of this clearly in Scripture; just like in those other areas of NON-NEGOTIABLE doctrinal/creedal “truth’s” that’ve long-since been regarded as uniquely associated with Orthodox historical Christianity.

    It’s really quite easy to “see” the folly in any finite human person – specially-created on “day six” at that – trying to even ballpark assess the AGE of this universe and earth, by simply imposing such upon the end of: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Just WHEN, or at WHAT “point” in cosmic history, did that momentous event take place??? I humbly submit to you, that ONLY our Creator knows that.

    Yet tragically, it’s almost like the “adversary of men’s souls” has masterfully employed this otherwise evangelical “red herring,” as some sort of a “one-and-only authoritative,” religiously pioused interpretation “against the brethren” themselves; and I mean mainly within the true Body of Christ right here in America during the latter-half of the 20th, and 21st century’s, through many of our well-intentioned Young Earth Creationist (YEC) brothers & sisters??

    But this sort of wooden-literal stance about nature’s actual AGE – is nowhere even hinted at in Holy Scripture. Surely the sole omniscient Author of the Word of God, must’ve had good reason(s) for withholding that unnecessary information from our areas of finite human knowledge??

    davidrev17
    davidrev17 2 days ago
    Detected as spam Thanks, we’ll work on getting this corrected.
    “The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.”

    — Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel laureate in physics, in an interview with the New York Times, March 12, 1978.

    ▪ ▪ ▪

    “I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a
    lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.”

    — The non-Christian, Dr. Erwin Schrodinger, [i.e., the famous “Schrodinger Equation”], Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1933.

    ▪ ▪ ▪

    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

    “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

    “Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”

    — Marxist/Atheist Emeritus Professor of Evolutionary Biology, Dr. Richard C. Lewontin, Harvard University, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997.

    ☆ ☆ ☆

    “But is it Science?” Plus, I hope it’s not against Stream policy, but I’d like to recommend a recent powerfully compelling (2013 – Second Edition) book in this precisely correlative area, by world-renowned Professor of Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia, the evangelical Christian Dr. Henry F. “Fritz” Schaefer, entitled “Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?”

  • patrick healy

    Good article Mr Gilson – to say that the (British) Royal Society is one of the most prestigious scientific organisations is nowadays high comedy.
    It’s been hijacked by a bunch of global warming activists and I among many science realists would not give it the time of day.
    This same realist has long subscribed to the important role of the Catholic Church in fostering science.
    The role of the Celtic monks in maintaining the light of civilisation in ancient pagan Europe should not be forgotten either.
    Look at the Book of Kells as an example.

  • swordfish

    That’s odd. I must have imagined reading that anti-evolution, pro-intelligent design article on here a few days ago.

  • davidrev17

    Discussion on Israel Today 50 comments
    Report Hints at Trump’s Frustration Over Israeli Settle…
    davidrev17
    davidrev17 Brother Raoul 2 minutes ago
    And may our Heavenly Father continue to bless you and yours immensely brother Raoul!

    I’ve been reading some anti-Semitic literature of late, whereby even so-called evangelical Christian’s have been aggressively piling-on with the same type of Israel-bashing right here in the United States – with no sense of shame, or concern either.

    And this specifically implicates their staunchly defending the apparent IN-defensible position, that the geographical boundaries mentioned in the Genesis 15:17-21 “land promise,” granted and/or ratified by God alone through this ancient Near Eastern covenantal practice – i.e., see also Gen. 13:14-17; Psalm 105:7-12; Jeremiah 23:5-8; 31:31-37; Matthew 19:28; Revelation 21:11-12; Leviticus 26:44-45; 2 Samuel 7:10-16; Amos 9:11-15; Zephaniah 3:8-20; Zechariah 14:9-21; Isaiah 11:1-13 etc. – was in fact long-ago fulfilled during the days of David & Solomon”? What say you?

    Yet finding this perspective soundly supported in Holy Scripture is a serious challenge indeed. What am I missing here, kuz, many reputable scholars are just as adamant that this was certainly NOT the case during the reigns of David & Solomon; indeed, that the “everlasting” stipulations in the unilaterally presented, and unconditionally ratified Abrahamic Covenant [by God] has NOT been abrogated, or thwarted by Israel’s continuing sin, rebellion, idolatry etc. (see Psalm 89:19-37; esp. vv. 30-37), but does in fact still await its ultimate fulfillment during the inexorable establishment of the Millenial Kingdom on this planet at some future date…headquartered in the then VERY JEWISH “city of the Great King.” (i.e., Matt. 23:37-39)

    I’ve found that sustaining, thus advancing this additional anti-Semitic position successfully, is a highly problematic task to maintain on a consistent basis. Also, it is so very strange how this issue seems to have become a “stumbling-block” of sorts, for many of these so-called “Zionist Christians” during these days; and I don’t know if this issue alone was/is necessarily premised in “Preterist” theology, or maybe just certain aspects of your run-of-the-mill Replacement Theology??

    Do you have anything helpful, or particularly illuminating to offer on this? Thanks and God bless you brother “R”!

    Shalom!

    Edit View
    davidrev17
    davidrev17 Brother Raoul 3 hours ago
    Detected as spam Thanks, we’ll work on getting this corrected.
    And may our Heavenly Father continue to bless you and yours immensely brother Raoul!

    I’ve been reading some anti-Semitic literature of late, whereby even so-called evangelical Christian’s have been aggressively piling-on with the same type of Israel-bashing right here in the United States – with no sense of shame, or concern either.

    And this specifically implicates their staunchly defending the apparent IN-defensible position, that the geographical boundaries mentioned in the Genesis 15:17-21 “land promise,” granted and/or ratified by God alone through this ancient Near Eastern covenantal practice – i.e., see also Gen. 13:14-17; Psalm 105:7-12; Jeremiah 23:5-8; 31:31-37; Matthew 19:28; Revelation 21:11-12; Leviticus 26:44-45; 2 Samuel 7:10-16; Amos 9:11-15; Zephaniah 3:8-20; Zechariah 14:9-21; Isaiah 11:1-13 etc. – was in fact long-ago fulfilled during the days of David & Solomon”? What say you?

    Yet finding this perspective soundly supported in Holy Scripture is a serious challenge indeed. What am I missing here, kuz, many reputable scholars are just as adamant that this was certainly NOT the case during the reigns of David & Solomon; indeed, that the “everlasting” stipulations in the unilaterally presented, and unconditionally ratified Abrahamic Covenant [by God] has NOT been abrogated, or thwarted by Israel’s continuing sin, rebellion, idolatry etc. (see Psalm 89:19-37; esp. vv. 30-37), but does in fact still await its ultimate fulfillment during the inexorable establishment of the Millenial Kingdom on this planet at some future date…headquartered in the then VERY JEWISH “city of the Great King.” (i.e., Matt. 23:37-39)

    I’ve found that sustaining, thus advancing this additional anti-Semitic position successfully, is a highly problematic task to maintain on a consistent basis. Also, it is so very strange how this issue seems to have become a “stumbling-block” of sorts, for many of these so-called “Zionist Christians” during these days; and I don’t know if this issue alone was/is necessarily premised in “Preterist” theology, or maybe just certain aspects of your run-of-the-mill Replacement Theology??

    Do you have anything helpful, or particularly illuminating to offer on this? Thanks and God bless you brother “R”!

    Shalom!

    Discussion on The Stream 9 comments
    When Christian Conservatives are Compared to the 9/11 Terro…
    davidrev17
    davidrev17 a day ago
    “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20/ESV)

    ☆ ☆ ☆

    “Wail, for the day of the Lord is near; as destruction from the Almighty it will come! Therefore all hands will be feeble, and every human heart will melt. They will be dismayed: pangs and agony will seize them; they will be in anguish like a woman in labor. They will look aghast at one another; their faces will be aflame. Behold, the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it.

    “For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light. I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant, and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless.

    “I will make people more rare than fine gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir. Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at the wrath of the Lord of hosts in the day of his fierce anger.” (Isaiah 13:6-13/ESV)

    ☆ ☆ ☆

    “The Lord, the God of their fathers, sent persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place. But they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words and scoffing at his prophets, UNTIL THE WRATH OF THE LORD ROSE AGAINST HIS PEOPLE, until there was no remedy.” (2 Chronicles 36:15-16/ESV, emphasis added.)

    1 Edit View
    Discussion on The Stream 54 comments
    Who’s Being Anti-Science Now?
    davidrev17
    davidrev17 2 days ago
    Detected as spam Thanks, we’ll work on getting this corrected.
    BTW: I’m an “Old Earth creationist,” who stringently denies any room in nature for these whimsically described [i.e., hand-waving], so-called “creative” materialistic processes of unguided, unintelligent “instant-gratification” mechanisms, believed by faith alone to be at work in neo-Darwinian evolution – aka “Darwin’s Designer Substitute” – whose dubious theoretical history has always been strangely lacking in any sort of a confirmable, authoritative, thus unified paleontological “voice” of scientific consensus from the dead…meaning this planet’s ENTIRE fossil record.

    Nor do I subscribe to any form of what’s called theistic evolution – replete with its own version of philosophically laden “naturalism of the gaps arguments”; which is basically secular “evolutionary” science – only this “theistic,” or rather syncretistic gospel of naturalism, has been heavily baptized with a curious immersion into a confusing presentation of biblically Christianized godspeak??

    ▪ ▪ ▪

    “The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.”

    — Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel laureate in physics, in an interview with the New York Times, March 12, 1978.

    ▪ ▪ ▪

    “I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.”

    — The non-Christian, Dr. Erwin Schrodinger, [i.e., the famous “Schrodinger Equation”], Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1933.

    ▪ ▪ ▪

    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

    “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

    “Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”

    — Marxist/Atheist Emeritus Professor of Evolutionary Biology, Dr. Richard C. Lewontin, Harvard University, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997.

    ☆ ☆ ☆

    “But is it Science?” Plus, I hope it’s not against Stream policy, but I’d like to recommend a recent powerfully compelling (2013 – Second Edition) book in this precisely correlative area, by world-renowned Professor of Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia, the evangelical Christian Dr. Henry F. “Fritz” Schaefer, entitled “Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?”

    davidrev17
    davidrev17 Cortney Alexander 3 days ago
    Detected as spam Thanks, we’ll work on getting this corrected.
    “…disagreeing with the settled conclusions of mainstream science relating to Genesis 2 (e.g., God’s creation of mankind as male and female…”

    Dear Cortney, if you’d read the Genesis text very carefully (chapter’s 1 & 2), you’ll notice first and foremost that in Genesis 2:1-3 alone, it’s stated in no less than four (4) places, that “God had finished, ended, completed, and rested from all his work which God had created and made.”

    (BTW: I’m and “Old Earth creationist,” who flatly/stringently denies any room in nature for these whimsically described, hand-waving [creative] materialistic processes of unguided, unintelligent, thus “instant-gratification” mechanisms believed by faith to be at work in neo-Darwinian evolution…aka “Darwin’s Designer Substitute.”)

    Thus Almighty God alone IS THE NON-PHYSICAL Who, What, & How undergirding this entire created order, by his fashioning, and sustaining all things physical, material, and spiritual upon this planet, and throughout this (his) universe, through and by His omnipotent [“powerful Word”] alone. (That’s Bible!)

    And you’ll see this unambiguously stated too, in the few following passages: Deut. 8:3b; Job 32:8; 33:4; 34:14-15; Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 40:8; 42:5; 45:18; Jeremiah 10:12; Zechariah 12:1; Matthew 24:35; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-18; Hebrews 1:1-4; 11:1-3; 1 Peter 2:22-25; Revelation 4:11.

    (Also, what is one to make of what’s called the “physical sciences,” by which we specially-created spirit creatures Homo sapiens’ probe what appears to us to represent our environmental “reality” – when in fact, according to both Old/New Testament’s, Homo sapiens’ reality itself is comprised of both the physical, and the non-physical???)

    Anyway, then lastly please notice the following Genesis 1:26-27 text, whereby you’ll see that what most faulty interpretations have erroneously assumed was a “second creation day,” were in fact the additional details and/or expanded commentary provided by the human writer Moses – no doubt Divinely-conveyed, since Moses wasn’t alive at that time – with specific regard to many of the activities that had transpired on “DAY SIX” of the so-called creation-week, found in chapter two, yet left unmentioned in Genesis 1:

    “Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.” God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:26-27)

    ☆ ☆ ☆

    It seems like to this “ignorant and unlearned” (Acts 4:13) individual, that if God had wanted his creatures to certifiably know the AGE of the universe – and this his planet – then we would have all been apprised of this clearly in Scripture; just like in those other areas of NON-NEGOTIABLE doctrinal/creedal “truth’s” that’ve long-since been regarded as uniquely associated with Orthodox historical Christianity.

    It’s really quite easy to “see” the folly in any finite human person – specially-created on “day six” at that – trying to even ballpark assess the AGE of this universe and earth, by simply imposing such upon the end of: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Just WHEN, or at WHAT “point” in cosmic history, did that momentous event take place??? I humbly submit to you, that ONLY our Creator knows that.

    Yet tragically, it’s almost like the “adversary of men’s souls” has masterfully employed this otherwise evangelical “red herring,” as some sort of a “one-and-only authoritative,” religiously pioused interpretation “against the brethren” themselves; and I mean mainly within the true Body of Christ right here in America during the latter-half of the 20th, and 21st century’s, through many of our well-intentioned Young Earth Creationist (YEC) brothers & sisters??

    But this sort of wooden-literal stance about nature’s actual AGE – is nowhere even hinted at in Holy Scripture. Surely the sole omniscient Author of the Word of God, must’ve had good reason(s) for withholding that unnecessary information from our areas of finite human knowledge??

    davidrev17
    davidrev17 4 days ago
    Detected as spam Thanks, we’ll work on getting this corrected.
    “The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.”

    — Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel laureate in physics, in an interview with the New York Times, March 12, 1978.

    ▪ ▪ ▪

    “I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a
    lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.”

    — The non-Christian, Dr. Erwin Schrodinger, [i.e., the famous “Schrodinger Equation”], Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1933.

    ▪ ▪ ▪

    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

    “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

    “Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”

    — Marxist/Atheist Emeritus Professor of Evolutionary Biology, Dr. Richard C. Lewontin, Harvard University, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997.

    ☆ ☆ ☆

    “But is it Science?” Plus, I do hope it’s not against Stream policy, but I’d like to recommend a recent powerfully compelling (2013 – Second Edition) book in this precisely correlative area, by world-renowned Professor of Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia, the evangelical Christian Dr. Henry F. (“Fritz”) Schaefer, entitled “Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?”

  • Rick

    It is worth noting that Galileo was not burned at the stake… He was under house arrest, but as you stated it was for insulting the Pope, not for his stance on astronomical science.

Inspiration
Don’t Let a Pit Become a Grave
James Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us