12 Myths Cleared Up (Catholic) (72 views) Subscribe   
  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2003 8:01 am  
To:  ALL   (1 of 17)  
 
  616.1  
 
From :  joycelang@marysremnant.org  
   
Subject :    
1 of 3 12 Myths Every Catholic Should Be Able To Answer  
   
Date :  Sun, 08 Jun 2003   
   
12 Myths Every Catholic Should Be Able To Answer

CRISIS Magazine

Special E-Report

**********************************************

Dear Friend,

Freedom of speech is a great thing. Unfortunately, it comes at an 

unavoidable price: When citizens are free to say what they want, 

they'll sometimes use that freedom to say some pretty silly things. 

And that's the case with the 12 claims we're about to cover. Some of 

them are made over and over, others are rare (though worth 

addressing). 

Either way, while the proponents of these errors are free to promote 

them, we as Catholics have a duty to respond. Hopefully, this special 

CRISIS Magazine e-Report will help you do just that.

Please feel free to forward this to your friends and family. These 

errors are widespread, and it's our responsibility to correct them.

So, at long last, I present to you 12 claims EVERY Catholic should 

be able to answer. 

Talk to you next week,

Deal

*******************************************************



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2003 8:03 am  
To:  ALL   (2 of 17)  
 
  616.2 in reply to 616.1  
 
1. "There's no such thing as absolute truth. What's true for you 

may not be true for me."

People use this argument a lot when they disagree with a statement 

and have no other way to support their idea. After all, if nothing is 

true for everyone, then they can believe whatever they want and 

there's nothing you can say to make them change their minds.

But look at that statement again: "There's no such thing as absolute 

truth." Isn't that, in itself, a statement that's being made 

absolutely? In other words, it applies some rule or standard to 

everyone across the board -- exactly what the relativists say is 

impossible. They have undone their own argument simply by stating 

their case.

The other problem with this statement is that no relativist actually 

believes it. If someone said to you, "There is no absolute truth," 

and you punched him in the stomach, he'd probably get upset. But by 

his own creed, he'd have to accept that while punching someone in the 

stomach may be wrong for him, it might not be wrong for you.

This is when they'll come back with an amendment to the original 

statement by saying, "As long as you're not hurting others, you're 

free to do and believe what you like." But this is an arbitrary 

distinction (as well as another absolute statement). Who says I can't 

hurt others? What constitutes "hurt"? Where does this rule come 

from?

If this statement is made based on personal preference, it means 

nothing for anyone else. "Do no harm" is in itself an appeal to 

something greater -- a sort of universal dignity for the human 

person. But again, the question is where does this dignity come from? 


As you can see, the further you delve into these questions, the 

closer you come to understanding that our concepts of right and truth 

are not arbitrary but are based in some greater, universal truth 

outside ourselves -- a truth written in the very nature of our being. 

We may not know it in its entirety, but it can't be denied that this 

truth exists.

*************************************************




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2003 8:04 am  
To:  ALL   (3 of 17)  
 
  616.3 in reply to 616.2  
 
2. "Christianity is no better than any other faith. All religions 

lead to God."

If you haven't heard this one a dozen times, you don't get out much. 

Sadly enough, the person making this claim is often himself a 

Christian (at least, in name). 

The problems with this view are pretty straightforward. Christianity 

makes a series of claims about God and man: That Jesus of Nazareth 

was God Himself, and that he died and was resurrected -- all so that 

we might be free from our sins. Every other religion in the world 

denies each of these points. So, if Christianity is correct, then it 

speaks a vital truth to the world -- a truth that all other religions 

reject. 

This alone makes Christianity unique. 

But it doesn't end there. Recall Jesus' statement in John's Gospel: 

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the 

Father, but by me." In Christianity, we have God's full revelation to 

humanity. It's true that all religions contain some measure of truth 

-- the amount varying with the religion. Nevertheless, if we 

earnestly want to follow and worship God, shouldn't we do it in the 

way He prescribed? 

If Jesus is indeed God, then only Christianity contains the fullness 

of this truth. 

*************************************************



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2003 8:14 am  
To:  ALL    
 
    
 
3. "The Old and New Testaments contradict one another in numerous 

places. If an omnipotent God inspired the Bible, He would never have 

allowed these errors." 

This is a common claim, one found all over the internet (especially 

on atheist and free-thought websites). An article on the American 

Atheists website notes that "What is incredible about the Bible is 

not its divine authorship; it's that such a concoction of 

contradictory nonsense could be believed by anyone to have been 

written by an omniscient God."

Such a statement is generally followed by a list of Biblical 

"contradictions." However, claims of contradictions make a few simple 

errors. For example, critics fail to read the various books of the 

Bible in line with the genre in which they were written. The Bible 

is, after all, a collection of several kinds of writing...history, 

theology, poetry, apocalyptic material, etc. If we try to read these 

books in the same wooden way in which we approach a modern newspaper, 

we're going to be awfully confused. 

And the list of Bible "contradictions" bears this out. Take, for 

example, the first item on the American Atheist's list:

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Exodus 20:8

Versus...

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every 

day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Romans 

14:5

There! the atheist cries, A clear contradiction. But what the critic 

neglects to mention is something every Christian knows: When Christ 

instituted the New Covenant, the ceremonial requirements of the Old 

Covenant were fulfilled (and passed away). And so it makes perfect 

sense that Old Testament ceremonial rules would no longer stand for 

the people of the New Covenant. 

If the critic had understood this simple tenet of Christianity, he 

wouldn't have fallen into so basic an error. 

The next item on the American Atheist list is similarly flawed:

"...the earth abideth for ever." Ecclesiastes 1:4

Versus...

"...the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and 

the works that are therein shall be burned up."

So, the Old Testament claims that the earth will last forever, while 

the New says it will eventually be destroyed. How do we harmonize 

these? Actually, it's pretty easy, and it again comes from 

understanding the genre in which these two books were written. 

Ecclesiastes, for example, contrasts secular and religious 

worldviews -- and most of it is written from a secular viewpoint. 

That's why we find lines like, "Bread is made for laughter, and wine 

gladdens life, and money answers everything." (Ecclesiastes 10:19)

However, at the end of the book, the writer throws us a twist, 

dispensing with all the "wisdom" he'd offered and telling us to "Fear 

God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man." 

(12:13)

If a reader stops before the end, he'll be as confused as the critic 

at American Atheists. However, since the viewpoint that gave birth to 

the notion of an eternal earth is rejected in the last lines of the 

book, there's obviously no contradiction with what was later revealed 

in the New Testament. (And this is just one way to answer this 

alleged discrepancy.)

The other "contradictions" between the Old and New Testaments can be 

answered similarly. Almost to an item, the critics who use them 

confuse context, ignore genre, and refuse to allow room for 

reasonable interpretation. 

No thinking Christian should be disturbed by these lists.

*************************************************




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2003 8:16 am  
To:  ALL   (5 of 17)  
 
  616.5 in reply to 616.2  
 
4. "I don't need to go to Church. As long as I'm a good person, 

that's all that really matters."

This argument is used often, and is pretty disingenuous. When 

someone says he's a "good person," what he really means is that he's 

"not a bad person" -- bad people being those who murder, rape, and 

steal. Most people don't have to extend a lot of effort to avoid 

these sins, and that's the idea: We want to do the least amount of 

work necessary just to get us by. Not very Christ-like, is it?

But that mentality aside, there's a much more important reason why 

Catholics go to Church other than just as an exercise in going the 

extra mile. Mass is the cornerstone of our faith life because of what 

lies at its heart: the Eucharist. It's the source of all life for 

Catholics, who believe that bread and wine become the real body and 

blood of Christ. It's not just a symbol of God, but God made 

physically present to us in a way we don't experience through prayer 

alone. 

Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of 

the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who 

eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise 

him up at the last day" (John 6:53-54). We're honoring Jesus' command 

and trusting in that promise every time we go to Mass. 

What's more, the Eucharist -- along with all the other Sacraments -- 

is only available to those in the Church. As members of the Church, 

Christ's visible body here on earth, our lives are intimately tied up 

with the lives of others in that Church. Our personal relationship 

with God is vital, but we also have a responsibility to live as 

faithful members of Christ's body. Just being a "good person" isn't 

enough.

*************************************************



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2003 8:52 am  
To:  ALL    
 
    
 
5. "You don't need to confess your sins to a priest. You can go 

straight to God."

As a former Baptist minister, I can understand the Protestant 

objection to confession (they have a different understanding of 

priesthood). But for a Catholic to say something like this...it's 

disappointing. I suspect that, human nature being what it is, people 

just don't like telling other people their sins, and so they come up 

with justifications for not doing so.

The Sacrament of Confession has been with us from the beginning, 

coming from the words of Christ Himself:

"Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has 

sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed 

on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive 

the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, 

they are retained.'" (John 20:21-23)

Notice that Jesus gives His apostles the power to forgive sins. Of 

course, they wouldn't know which sins to forgive if they weren't TOLD 

what sins were involved.

The practice of confession is also evident in the Letter Of James:

"Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, 

and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the 

Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord 

will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 

Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, 

that you may be healed." (James 5:14-16)

It's interesting that nowhere does James (or Jesus) tell us to 

confess our sins to God alone. Rather, they seem to think that 

forgiveness comes through some means of public confession.

And it's not difficult to understand why. You see, when we sin, we 

rupture our relationship not just with God, but with His Body, the 

Church (since all Catholics are interconnected as children of a 

common Father). So when we apologize, we need to do so to all parties 

involved -- God AND the Church. 

Think of it this way. Imagine you walk into a store and steal some 

of their merchandise. Later, you feel remorse and regret the sinful 

act. Now, you can pray to God to forgive you for breaking His 

commandment. But there's still another party involved; you'll need to 

return the merchandise and make restitution for your action.

It's the same way with the Church. In the confessional, the priest 

represents God AND the Church, since we've sinned against both. And 

when he pronounces the words of absolution, our forgiveness is 

complete.

*************************************************




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2003 8:53 am  
To:  ALL   (7 of 17)  
 
  616.7 in reply to 616.5  
 
6. "If the Church truly followed Jesus, they'd sell their lavish 

art, property, and architecture, and give the money to the poor."

When some people think of Vatican City, what they immediately 

picture is something like a wealthy kingdom, complete with palatial 

living accommodations for the pope and chests of gold tucked away in 

every corner, not to mention the fabulous collection of priceless art 

and artifacts. Looking at it that way, it's easy to see how some 

people would become indignant at what they think is an ostentatious 

and wasteful show of wealth.

But the truth is something quite different. While the main buildings 

are called the "Vatican Palace," it wasn't built to be the lavish 

living quarters of the pope. In fact, the residential part of the 

Vatican is relatively small. The greater portion of the Vatican is 

given over to purposes of art and science, administration of the 

Church's official business, and management of the Palace in general. 

Quite a number of Church and administrative officials live in the 

Vatican with the pope, making it more like the Church's main 

headquarters.

As for the impressive art collection, truly one of the finest in the 

world, the Vatican views it as "an irreplaceable treasure," but not 

in monetary terms. The pope doesn't "own" these works of art and 

couldn't sell them if he wanted to; they're merely in the care of the 

Holy See. The art doesn't even provide the Church with wealth; 

actually, it's just the opposite. The Holy See invests quite a bit of 

its resources into the upkeep of the collection.

The truth of the matter is that the See has a fairly tight financial 

budget. So why keep the art? It goes back to a belief in the Church's 

mission (one of many) as a civilizing force in the world. Just like 

the medieval monks who carefully transcribed ancient texts so they 

would be available to future generations -- texts that otherwise 

would have been lost forever -- the Church continues to care for the 

arts so they will not be forgotten over time. In today's culture of 

death where the term "civilization" can only be used loosely, the 

Church's civilizing mission is as important today as it ever was.

*************************************************




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2003 8:55 am  
To:  ALL   (8 of 17)  
 
  616.8 in reply to 616.7  
 
7. "Dissent is actually a positive thing, since we should all keep 

our minds open to new ideas."

You might hear this argument a lot today, especially in the wake of 

the abuse scandal in the Church. Everyone wants to find a solution to 

the problem, and in doing so some people are advocating ideas that 

are outside the pale of our Catholic faith (i.e., women priests, 

being open to homosexuality, etc). A lot of people blame the Church 

for being too rigid in its beliefs and not wanting to try anything 

new.

The truth is, a lot of the ideas for reform that are floating around 

today aren't new. They've been around for a while, and the Church has 

already considered them. In fact, the Church has spent its entire 

life carefully examining ideas and determining which ones are in line 

with God's law and which aren't. It has discarded heresy after heresy 

while carefully building up the tenets of the Faith. It should come 

as no surprise that there are thousands of other Christian churches 

in existence today -- all of them had "new ideas" at one point that 

the Church had decided were outside the deposit of faith.

The Church has an important responsibility in protecting the 

integrity of our Faith. It never rejects ideas out of hand, as some 

dissenters would claim, but has two thousand years of prayer and 

study behind the beliefs it holds to be true. 

This doesn't mean that we can never disagree on anything. There's 

always room to discuss how best to deepen our understanding of the 

truth -- for example, how we can improve our seminaries or clergy/lay 

interactions -- all within the guidelines of our Faith.

*************************************************




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2003 8:57 am  
To:  ALL    
 
    
 
8. "Properly interpreted, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. 

Rather, it weighs against promiscuity -- whether homosexual or 

heterosexual. Therefore, we have no reason to oppose loving 

homosexual relationships."

As homosexual activity gains greater acceptance in our culture, 

there'll be more pressure among Christians to explain away the 

Bible's clear prohibition against it. It's now the standard liberal 

party line to claim that the Bible -- when understood correctly -- 

doesn't disallow homosexual activity. 

But this claim flies in the face of clear passages in both the Old 

and New Testaments. The first, of course, is the famous story of 

Sodom and Gomorrah. If you recall, two angels were sent by God to 

Sodom to visit Lot:

"But before [the angels] lay down, the men of the city, the men of 

Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded 

the house; and they called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you 

tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.' Lot went out 

of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, 'I beg 

you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two 

daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and 

do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have 

come under the shelter of my roof.' But they said, 'Stand back!' And 

they said, 'This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge! 

Now we will deal worse with you than with them.' Then they pressed 

hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door. But the 

men put forth their hands and brought Lot into the house to them, and 

shut the door." (Genesis 19:4-10)

The message of this passage is pretty clear. The men of Sodom were 

homosexuals who wanted to have relations with the men inside the 

house. Lot offered them his daughters, but they weren't interested. 

Shortly thereafter, Sodom was destroyed by God in payment for the 

sins of its people -- namely, their homosexual acts. This fact is 

confirmed in the New Testament:

"Just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which 

likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an 

example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 7)

But these certainly aren't the only passages in the Bible that 

condemn gay activity. The Old Testament contains another unambiguous 

condemnation: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is 

an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22).

And these statements aren't reserved to the Old Testament alone.

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their 

women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise 

gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion 

for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving 

in their own persons the due penalty for their error." (Romans 

1:26-27)

It's awfully hard for a liberal Christian to explain this away. 

There's simply no mention here merely of gay promiscuity or rape; 

rather, Paul is weighing against ANY homosexual relations (which he 

describes as "unnatural," "shameless" and "dishonorable"). 

Liberal Christians are in a bind. How, after all, does one harmonize 

homosexuality with the Bible? Their solution, it appears, is to strip 

the Bible of its moral power, and run in rhetorical circles trying to 

escape its clear message. 

*************************************************




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2003 8:58 am  
To:  ALL   (10 of 17)  
 
  616.10 in reply to 616.8  
 
9. "Catholics should follow their conscience in all 

things...whether it's abortion, birth control, or women's 

ordination."

It's true -- the Catechism says quite plainly, "Man has the right to 

act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral 

decisions. 'He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. 

Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, 

especially in religious matters'" (1782). This teaching is at the 

heart of what it means to have free will.

But that doesn't mean that our conscience is free from all 

responsibility or can be ignorant of God's law. This is what the 

Catechism refers to as having a "well-formed conscience."

The Catechism assigns great responsibility to a person's conscience: 

"Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at 

the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil.... It bears 

witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to 

which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. 

When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God 

speaking" (1777).

In other words, our conscience isn't just "what we feel is right" - 

it's what we judge to be right based on what we know of the teachings 

of God and the Church. And in order to make that judgment, we have a 

responsibility to study and pray over these teachings very carefully. 

The Catechism has a section dedicated entirely to the careful 

formation of our conscience -- that's how important it is in making 

right decisions.

And in the end, whether right or wrong, we're still held accountable 

for our actions: "Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for 

the acts performed" (1781). When properly formed, it helps us to see 

when we've done wrong and require forgiveness of our sins. 

By seeking a fully-formed conscience, we actually experience great 

freedom, because we're drawing closer to God's infinite Truth. It's 

not a burden or something that keeps us from doing what we want; it's 

a guide to help us do what is right. "The education of the conscience 

guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart" (1784).

*************************************************

 



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2003 9:00 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (11 of 17)  
 
  616.11 in reply to 616.10  
 
10. "Natural Family Planning is just the Catholic version of birth 

control."

Natural Family Planning (NFP) has enemies on all sides. Some believe 

that it's an unrealistic alternative to birth control (which they 

don't think is sinful anyway) while others think that it's just as 

bad as birth control. NFP has had to walk a fine line between both 

extremes.

First of all, the main problem with birth control is that it works 

against the nature of our bodies -- and nature in general. It aims to 

sever the act (sex) from its consequence (pregnancy), basically 

reducing the sacredness of sex to the mere pursuit of pleasure. 

NFP, when used for the right reason, is more of a tool used for 

discerning whether a couple has the means (whether financially, 

physically, or emotionally) to accept a child into their lives. It 

involves understanding your own body, taking careful stock of your 

situation in life, discussing the issue with your spouse, and, above 

all, prayer. Rather than cutting yourself off from the full reality 

of sex, you are entering into it with a better understanding of all 

aspects involved.

People who favor birth control point to those people who can't 

afford more children, or whose health might be at risk from further 

pregnancies. But these are perfectly legitimate reasons to use NFP -- 

situations where it would be perfectly effective -- and the Church 

allows its use.

Other people think that taking any sort of control over the size of 

your family is like playing God, rather than letting Him provide for 

us as He sees fit. It's true that we must trust God and always accept 

the lives He sends us, but we don't need to be completely hands-off 

in that regard. 

For example, rather than throwing money around and saying that "God 

will provide," families carefully budget their finances and try not 

to overextend their means. NFP is like that budget, helping us 

prayerfully consider our situation in life and act accordingly. It's 

part of our nature as humans to understand ourselves and use our 

intellect and free will, rather than passively expecting God to take 

care of everything. We're called to be good stewards of the gifts 

we're given; we must be careful never to treat those gifts 

carelessly. 

*************************************************




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2003 9:02 am  
To:  ALL   (12 of 17)  
 
  616.12 in reply to 616.10  
 
11. "Someone can be pro-choice and Catholic at the same time."

While this may be one of the most common myths Catholics hold 

regarding their faith, it's also one of the most easily dispelled. 

The Catechism minces no words when talking about abortion: It's 

listed with homicide under crimes against the fifth commandment, 

"Thou shalt not kill."

The following passages make this clear: "Human life must be 

respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception" 

(2270). "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral 

evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and 

remains unchangeable" (2271). "Formal cooperation in an abortion 

constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical 

penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life" (2272).

It can't be stated more plainly than that. Some people might argue, 

however, that being "pro-choice" doesn't mean being in favor of 

abortion; lots of people think abortion is wrong but don't want to 

force that opinion on others.

There's that "what's true for you might not be true for me" argument 

again. The Church has an answer to that, too: "'The inalienable 

rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil 

society and the political authority. These human rights depend 

neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a 

concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature 

and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from 

which the person took his origin'" (2273).

The sanctity of life is a universal truth that can never be ignored. 

Advising someone to get an abortion, or even voting for a politician 

who would advance the cause of abortion, is a grave sin, because it 

leads others to mortal sin -- what the Catechism calls giving scandal 

(2284). 

The Church stands forcefully and clearly against abortion, and we as 

Catholics must take our stand as well.

*************************************************



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2003 9:19 am  
To:  ALL    
 
    
 
12. "People's memories of their past lives prove that reincarnation 

is true...and that the Christian view of Heaven and Hell is not."

As society becomes increasingly fascinated with the paranormal, we 

can expect to see claims of "past life memories" increase. Indeed, 

there are now organizations who will help take you through your 

previous lives using hypnosis. 

While this may be convincing to some, it certainly isn't to anyone 

familiar with the mechanics of hypnosis. Almost since the beginning, 

researchers have noted that patients in deep hypnosis frequently 

weave elaborate stories and memories...which later turn out to be 

utterly untrue. Reputable therapists are well aware of this 

phenomenon, and weigh carefully what the patient says under hypnosis. 


Sadly, though, this isn't the case with those interested in finding 

"proof" for reincarnation. Perhaps the greatest example of this 

carelessness is the famous Bridey Murphy case. If you're not familiar 

with it, here's a quick outline: In 1952, a Colorado housewife named 

Virginia Tighe was put under hypnosis. She began speaking in an Irish 

brogue and claimed to once have been a woman named Bridey Murphy who 

had lived in Cork, Ireland. 

Her story was turned into a bestselling book, "The Search For Bridey 

Murphy," and received much popular attention. Journalists combed 

Ireland, looking for any person or detail that might confirm the 

truth of this past-life regression. While nothing ever turned up, the 

case of Bridey Murphy continues to be used to buttress claims of 

reincarnation. 

That's a shame, since Virginia Tighe was exposed as a fraud decades 

ago. Consider: Virginia's childhood friends recalled her active 

imagination, and ability to concoct complex stories (often centered 

around the imitation brogue she had perfected). Not only that, but 

she had a great fondness for Ireland, due in part to a friendship 

with an Irish woman whose maiden name was -- you guessed it -- 

Bridie. 

What's more, Virginia filled her hypnosis narratives with numerous 

elements from her own life (without revealing the parallels to the 

hypnotist). For example, Bridey described an "uncle Plazz," which 

eager researchers took to be a corruption of the Gaelic, "uncle 

Blaise." Their enthusiasm ran out though when it was discovered that 

Virginia had a childhood friend she called Uncle Plazz.

When a hypnotized Virginia began dancing an Irish jig, researchers 

were astounded. How, after all, would a Colorado housewife have 

learned the jig? The mystery was solved, when it was revealed that 

Virginia learned the dance as a child.

As the Bridey Murphy case shows, the claims of past-life regression 

are always more impressive than the reality. To this day, not a 

single verifiable example exists of a person being regressed to a 

former life. Certainly, many tales have been told under the control 

of a hypnotist, but nevertheless, evidence for reincarnation (like 

that for the Tooth Fairy) continues to elude us.


**** YOU'LL KNOW THE INSIDE STORY BEFORE ANYONE ELSE! ****

With the FREE CRISIS Magazine e-Letter, you'll get inside stories, 

the latest news, and immediate responses to anti-Catholic attacks.

To subscribe to the FREE CRISIS Magazine e-Letter, click here:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/freeletter.htm

**************************************************************

To learn more about CRISIS Magazine, visit 

http://www.crisismagazine.com/subscribe.htm

**************************************************************

+ + + + + +

 

May the Holy Cross be to you light and health, 

the benediction and the Will of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Amen. 

JOHN OF THE LIGHT 




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
Message 14 of 17 was Deleted    



  From:  pianomaster   6/18/2003 4:19 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (15 of 17)  
 
  616.15 in reply to 616.1  
 
We are Catholic and have raised our kids that way, too. We've allowed our 12 y/o daughter to attend a local Baptist church w/her friend for almost a year. 
The other day she came home and said a boy she liked at school is really nice. I told her she should invite him to the weekly youth group at the Baptist church. She said no way, "he's not Christian." I asked her what she meant by that. Then she said that "he's Catholic". I was floored...so we had to go into a lecture how Catholics are Christian, too and that I couldn't believe she actually said that in our home. We are very tolerant of all religions and for her to say that, I'm beginning to wonder what they've said in those "fun" youth group meetings. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     6/18/2003 4:52 pm  
To:  pianomaster   (16 of 17)  
 
  616.16 in reply to 616.15  
 
Hello Pianomaster,

I can well understand your trouble.  I was raised Catholic too and I adopted another faith in my late thirties.  In studying the word, I understand that many denominations do not believe that Catholics are born-again and spirit filled.  Indeed it is a matter of words between the faiths.  Confession was my time of being born-again, others it was the first Holy Communition and still others at Confirmation.  However, there were many that never became born-again.  Why?  I don't know.  But this problem is not unique to Catholics but to many faiths as their children do not grasp the teachings of the word.

As a youngster we were commanded not to read the Holy Bible, whereas today the Catholic faith has encouraged their members to read it.  The gap of differences is amazing to me.  

A child of 12 is not going to discern the differences between the doctrines nor be able to discern which part of the faith is applicable in doctrine.  Some of both faiths have added responsibilities through their doctrine which is not supported by the Bible.  This condition is not unique to these two faiths either.  It seems many Christian doctrines from various faiths have doctrine that does not line up with scripture.  It is the individuals responsibility to search this out for themselves and live according to the Holy Bible precepts and ignore the unbiblical doctrine. 

As a parent, you research the Baptist and your Catholic doctrine and compare it to the Holy Scriptures.  Teach your child to do this and then have your child follow the Holy Scriptures.  We call this eating the meat and spitting out the bones...in Christian circles.  We just have to realized that no faith is perfect except that which is taught by His word.  Give grace to the Baptist for their willingness to preach and teach the bible to your child.  And give mercy for the Catholic doctrine of not having the buzz words of today's knowledge and understanding of the Holy Bible.

Both sects of Christianity have the born-again belief, but not necessarily the same buzz words.

Both sects believe in being Spirit filled and speaking in tongues as evidence of the infilling.  However, in both sects a portion of each deny the power of the Holy Spirit's ministry in their lives and reject the infilling of the Holy Spirit which is contrary to the word and promise of God.

My parents are born-again and spirit filled Catholics.  My mother was 85 this past month and it took her 84 years to figure it out.  Finally, she got it and has received the gift of the Holy Spirit.  But up until that time, she denied the power of the Holy Spirit's ministry.  

What is lacking in sects that don't believe is the true teaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit's ministry. 

Hope this helps you somewhat in understanding what the differences and similarities are between the two religions.  God bless ~Minister Falcon



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/19/2003 4:27:10 PM ET by OSMFALCON 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/19/2003 4:27:22 PM ET by OSMFALCON 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/18/2003 5:55 pm  
To:  pianomaster   (17 of 17)  
 
  616.17 in reply to 616.15  
 
Hi Pianomaster,

 

Thank you for the informative post.

 

I grew Baptist and those fun youth group meetings Really are fun.

 

Of course everyone has an opinion and almost everyone uses it right or wrong.

 

The tendency or trend in Christianity is towards one united Christian body as opposed to the strict denominationalism of the past.

 

Im all for Christians uniting in the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus. The problem I have is when non-Christians redefine who Jesus is and then want us to adapt to them. Some cults even go so far as to write new covenants and that is wrong.

 

A note there are 7 letters to 7 Church types written by Jesus in the book of Revelation. I should have a major article finished on it in about a month or two. Included in the Church types are both the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church and by the way the Catholic Church gets Praise from Jesus for their works, while the Protestant Church doesnt get any praise from Jesus.

 

Thyatira  Catholic

Sardis  Protestant

 

God Bless you,
David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/18/2003 8:58:11 PM ET by David (DAVIDABROWN) 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
