As a Christian science enthusiast, I encourage questions about my faith and my theories. Just as a useful scientific theory is testable, my religious beliefs — which I consider a kind of theory, since I have so little faith — must also stand firm under scrutiny.1 Listed here are the questions I have been asked and have researched. I hope you find this page useful; please tell me if a link becomes outdated or if your question isn't answered. I put this page together before obtaining The Essential Catholic Survival Guide, which appears to contain all these questions and much more. Having this book makes this page redundant.
This page is primarily intended for Protestants and Muslims.2
Note: In general, links will take you away from this page; click your browser's "Back" button to return to this page if that happens.
Note: Although this webpage has been properly programmed, it
does not properly display in the web browser Internet Explorer
versions 7 and earlier.
Most of these questions address Protestant objections to traditional Christianity.
Note: Click your 'back' button after clicking one of these links to return to your previous page position.
father, something Jesus said not to do.
As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15,
Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my
salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).
Quoted from the article Assurance of
Salvation?
See also What is the best answer to the question,
Are you saved?
at Catholic Answers Forums.
Yes. By the way, if you are Protestant (i.e. a "Non-Catholic" Christian):
Christ left us a church and an authority; he didn't leave us with only a
book, saying, Good luck! Hope this makes sense to you!
It's absurd to think that Christ would leave no visible authority;
there are now several thousand denominations of Christianity with different interpretations, all claiming to be guided by the same
Holy Spirit. God's not schizophrenic, and worshipping God is not like buying a hamburger.
No, but the mother of God is far more than just another woman
– God has
given her glory beyond all other humans-that-aren't-Jesus by condescending to live within her and through her become man. There is much that can be said
about Mary, who is the Ark of the New Covenant (and therefore consecrated at her birth and preserved from the stain of sin by Jesus in preparation);
searching might help.
If Mary's not a deity, then why are you praying to her?
See How do I respond to the statement, Mary is dead
? at
Catholic Answers forums.
And why do you say Mary was a perpetual virgin when the Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters?
Because she was; they were not his blood relatives, and this fact is made clear by the Bible itself. See
Did Jesus have siblings?
at the Catholic Answers
Forums. More specifically, from that page see Brethren
of the Lord
at Catholic Answers and Doesn't Scripture imply
that Mary had children other than Jesus?
at Catholic Answers Forums.
Catholics call priests father
, something Jesus said not to do. (See
Matthew 23.)
See Why do Catholics call priests Father
? Specifically,
see the article Call No Man Father
?
Catholics pray to saints, when they should pray only to God.
Read Praying to the Saints at Catholic Answers. This thread at Catholic Answers Forums addresses related comments; I have seen Protestants think that once Christians go to heaven, they have nothing to do with Earth any more, or that the dead are asleep and hear no prayers until the end, which is directly contradicted by the Revelation to John.
These questions, asked by some Protestants, suggest mistakenly that we can somehow "earn" God's grace by choosing baptism, while
instead it is given to us freely of His will
through baptism in accordance with John 3:1~11 (see also Matthew 19:13-15), through which we become adopted sons of God. Anyway, these questions are
answered by the Catholic Answers' Biblical discussions
Baptismal Grace
,
Infant Baptism
and
Early Teachings of Infant Baptism
,
among others. If you disdain clicking, I can readily summarize: There is no reason
to withhold baptism from infants and every reason to baptize them, because through it we are born again of the Spirit, and Jesus speaks of its
necessity for us to enter the kingdom of heaven (see
John 3.1-21).
To quote Baptismal Grace
,
Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.
Jesus was calling Peter a little pebble, not the rock upon which his church would be built.
Among many things, see Peter and the Papacy and Peter the Rock at Catholic Answers.
We're at war, but Seventy-five percent of the USA is supposedly Christian. Isn't that against what Jesus taught?
See Catholic Answers: Just War Doctrine for a discussion of just wars and justice in wars.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not only not found in the Bible, but is contradicted by the Bible. The Bible does not interpret itself; the Holy Spirit must interpret our Biblical canon, else we are guided by our own ideas, which are fallible, since we are humans and we are fallible.
I hope I have permission to quote the following from a cheap booklet I highly recommend purchasing:
— Beginning Apologetics 7: How to Read the Bible by Father Frank Chacon & Jim Burnham.Scripture tells us that Christ founded a Church with divine authority to govern in His name (Matthew 16:13-20, 18:18; Luke 10:16). Christ promised that His Church would last until the end of time (Matthew 16:18, 28:19-20; John 14:16). The Bible also tells us that we must follow Sacred Tradition along with Sacred Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6). [...] The Bible confirms that we must also hold fast to oral tradition, the preached Word of God (1 Corinthians 11:2; 1 Peter 1:25). In 2 Peter 3:15-16, St. Peter warns us that Sacred Scripture can be difficult to interpret, strongly implying the need for an authoritative interpreter. Finally, 1 Timothy 3:15 tells us the Church is "the pillar of bulwark of the truth."
On a related note, see also 2 Peter 1.16-21, noting verses 20-21. The idea here is that the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of Sacred Scripture (see CCC 109-114 for more on this point), and Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church (e.g. John 14.15-31).
Doesn't the Spanish Inquisition demonstrate that the Church is no different from anything else?
An Inquisition Primer at Catholic Answers can be a good starting point for discussion.
Aren't all sins equal?
Please see Mortal Sin
and The Forgiveness of Sins
from
Catholic Answers. Referenced in particular are 1 Peter 3.21, Matthew 10.33, among others. Striking to me in
particular is 1 John 5.13-21; note verses 16-17. (Verse 18 appears then to contradict verses 13-17, but it seems to
me to refer specifically to Jesus. Also, I've never heard of a Christian who claims that he does not sin.)
Where in the Bible does Jesus claim to be God?
First, a little clarification: Jesus is believed by Christians to be the Son of God, consubstantial (i.e. of the same essence)
with the Father (who alone Muslims recognize) and the Holy Spirit. Christians believe God is one God, and there is no other God,
but that this God is three persons while remaining one God: the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit. So, Jesus as God the Son
does not replace
God the Father, nor are they two
different gods; they are two persons, and with the Holy Spirit together they are one God.
Hopefully I have permission to quote an excerpt from Beginning Apologetics 7: How to Read the Bible by Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham, for a starting point for more study:
Jesus performed miracles for several reasons:
- To prove His divinity and His teachings. Jesus' miracles demonstrate that He has divine power. It's true that Jesus' disciples also performed miracles. But no disciple ever performed miracles in his own name. His disciples never claimed to be God, as Jesus did in so many ways. He claimed not merely to have, but to literally be, "the way, truth, and life." Jesus declared, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Jesus accepted divine worship when doubting Thomas declared, "My Lord and my God!" Instead of chastising Thomas, Jesus went on to praise those who would believe without having to touch (John 20:28-29). Jesus cured the crippled man to prove "that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matthew 9:6-8).
I have written more on this topic, bringing up examples like Jesus commanding nature of his own authority (and it obeying him), that demonstrate his divinity, consubstantial with the Father. I have removed it for the time being, because I want someone with more authority to proofread it.
Where is the Biblical basis for purgatory?
For an example, see 1 Corinthians 3.9-17. See
the Catholic Answers article Is Purgatory Found in the
Bible?
(Note that purgatory is a process of purification and perfection before entering heaven, not a temporary hell
. It is
thought by some that the description of fire refers to the burning desire to finally be with God, but you're sitting there in purgatory, so close
but not yet.
)
There is another Catholic Answers article that brings in Old Testament connections, such as David's adultery with Bathsheba: God
forgives David after he repents, and through Jesus' salvific passion, David may go to heaven – since Christ died that all might be saved.
However, despite this forgiveness and salvation, God still requires that David suffer the death of his first-born son with Bathsheba.
Catholics call this idea the temporal consequences due to sin
, which God has chosen his Church to remit from us with what Catholics call an
indulgence
(under certain circumstances: and that's what the Protestants got angry about back then: those circumstances were being abused by
certain corrupt clergy).
Why don't you worship God on Saturday?
See From Sabbath to Sunday: How the Church Moved Its Holy Day for starters.
See Good News about Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teaching by Christopher West. It is something every Christian teenager should read. I read it this year and wish I'd read it back in 2001; I had seven badly confused years, missing out on this information. I recommend reading it in order with the annotations, rather than jumping to specific chapters and skipping annotations. It's meant to be read in order, with some information making more sense when considering previous chapters, and the annotations are typically supplemental or explicative.
If you want something else to read while this book ships through the mail, see
Why can't Gays be married in the Church?
at Catholic Answers
Forums. (I've only read the first three of Devon's links.)
Note also that some contraceptives
are actually abortifacients in that they prevent embryos from implanting in the
uterine wall. So the contraceptive
does not prevent conception, but rather implantation. The embryo is thus flushed out,
and since science tells us that human life begins at conception, this result is an
abortion. These abortifacients are labeled contraceptives
by people not wanting the truth to be known about how the product
actually works, because sales would decrease. There is also a movement by people wishing to redefine life not at the moment of
conception, but at some later period of gestation.
Quoting from the Natural Family Planning (NFP) How-To Manual, Chapter One, page 15:
All the hormonal (chemical) kinds of birth control have the potential to allow ovulation and conception to occur but to prevent implantation of the newly conceived baby in the uterus. [...] Non-hormonal IUDs may also prevent implantation but the evidence is not always clear.
What are the potentially abortifacient kinds of birth control?
These methods are:
- The Pill
- The morning-after pill
- Hormonal patches
- Implants
- The shot
- The intra-uterine device (IUD)
Read about NFP, and use it rather than any contraceptive. God-given birth control: 99 percent
effective at preventing pregnancy;
it's not the same rhythm method
of the 1930's. It's practically free and uses your body naturally, as God intended.
Why can't gays adopt children?
Once I understood the answers to the previous questions, the answer to this one follows. You can probably guess it: Children are to be raised in a family, and families are formed by married couples. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 3.2.2.63 for a few notes on human sexuality:
2333 Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.
...
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The
supreme gift of marriageis a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an allegedright to a childwould lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the rightto be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,andthe right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.1692379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.
Footnotes:
169 CDF, Donum vitae II, 8.
Same-sex couples cannot be spouses, and are not called to the same vocation as spouses. (I talk in a theological sense in this page, not in a secular legal sense.)
The problem I had with this question was that I wanted to invent all kinds of hypothetical situations to support gays adopting.
Surely a loving homosexual couple is better than living with an abusive married couple!
But what if the child is
neglected in a bad orphanage?
But these questions presuppose, among other things, that there are no good married couples available to adopt
children, and my understand is there is a waiting list (and otherwise abundance) of them, as well as a long screening
process. However, we may need adoption reform: I have heard some married couples are denied without good reason, or else made to wait inordinately long
for unknown reasons.
No good Christian ever says love is forbidden, because God is the source of love. The two problems here are misunderstandings both about sexual intercourse and marriage. Read Good News about Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teaching by Christopher West.
You don't need sex to live together in a loving relationship – and two of the same sex can live together without sin. See Same sex couples living in the state of grace? at Catholic Answers Forums.
Why can't I receive communion at a Catholic Church? Why are they so exclusive?
See the discussion at Catholic Answers Forums. My understanding is that it's actually to stop you from sinning; for example, see 1 Corinthians 11.23-32. They want to be sure you understand what it is you're actually doing; the body and blood of Christ is sacred. Furthermor, receiving Holy Communion is a physical sign of unity, and if you are not in union with that church, to give this physical sign of unity would be dishonest.
But the communion is only a symbol...
Actually, it isn't symbolic at Eucharistic celebrations. See
the Gospel According to John 6.53 — Jesus meant what he
said. There are numerous articles about Transubstantiation
if you search for them. It is actually for this reason Catholics may not participate in Protestant celebrations of
communion
either: to participate in actions that mimic the Eucharist but deny its reality and meaning is sacrilege (just
like contraception). For a Catholic to participate in protestant communion
is an insult to Jesus' body and blood. In every
instance in the Bible the text says this is
, not this is a symbol of
. To
inject this is a symbol of
into Christ's speech is an egregious instance of
eisegesis.
This question is similar to the question, Why can't men bear children?
The latter is against the natural order and is easier to accept,
since we are of the natural order. The former is against the supernatural order and thus is harder to accept, as we are in the
process of putting on Christ
to follow God's ways (cf.
Galatians 3.27), which are not our ways (as the
Old Testament likes to remind us...) See
the thread Why are women not allowed to be priests?
, and
the thread referenced there, Why can't women be
priests?
I was tempted to think that the Catholic Church's insistence on this alleged supernatural order
is a
medieval machination
, but bear in mind it is also Biblical (like everything else in the Church...).
Why do Catholics baptize infants?
Because it's the right thing to do; see the Infant Baptism article at Catholic Answers. (Once again, note that all Catholic doctrine is rooted in Sacred Scripture.)
Why do Catholics have more books in their Bibles than Protestants?
My understanding is that the Catholic Church compiled all the authentic apostolic writings, those used by the early Christian
communities (within the first two centuries of Jesus' death and resurrection). These writings make up the New Testament, the Old
Testament consisting of the older Jewish tradition affirmed by these early Judeo-Christians. When Martin Luther broke off from
the Church, he rejected certain writings affirmed by these early Christian communites, preferring instead a different Jewish
tradition (specifically affirmed by those Jews who rejected Jesus!) See
How did the Church arrive at present books of the Bible?
at Catholic Answers Forums for more details, including dates, names and resources.
Why do you go to a priest to confess sins, when you can simply talk directly to God?
See the article The Forgiveness of Sins
from
Catholic Answers. Certainly, the New Testament tells us to pray unceasingly and with
thanksgiving. We additionally see priests for the forgiveness of sins because Jesus told us to
.
Why do Catholics say Peter was the first pope?
See Peter and the Papacy at Catholic Answers.
Why is the crucifix more popular than the risen Jesus? (Protestants focus on Jesus' resurrection, while Catholics appear to focus on his crucifixion.)
See the thread No Crucifix in my church
at Catholic
Answers Forums and the catholic.net article
Why Crucifixes Not Crosses?
In the Bible, Saint Paul places heavy emphasis on the crucifixion, not an empty
cross,
and it is this sacrifice which is celebrated in Eucharist at Mass. Indeed, the crucifixion is the only thing that gives an empty
cross meaning. In this life we share in Christ's suffering and his death in order that we may share in his resurrection (as Paul writes; see
Romans
6.3-4. CCC 1213-1284 discusses the Christian approach to baptism).
(Click your browser's 'back' button to return to your previous page position.)
[...] Catholicism, but by
CatholicismI mean traditional Christianity. Given that many online know so little about Christianity that they think
Catholicismis distinct from
Christianity(e.g. Yahoo's Chat Rooms), and that I've begun adding questions thrown out by Muslim proselytizers, I feel the current title more suitable.
This page was last modified Friday, 11-Dec-2009 19:05:09 EST.