Religion
Questions 71-80
Feel free to browse the following questions, some of which may
still await answers. You can then post an answer or counter an answer
that has already been posted. Please read the
guidelines for answering questions
before making a posting.
Previous 10 this topic
area 
Next
10 this topic area
THE
QUESTION:
RE80: Why don't Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood products,
even if it means saving their or a family member's life?
POSTED JULY 26, 1998
Tina S.
<beaniejet27@yahoo.com>,
New Haven, MI
ANSWER 1:
Blood is sacred. We believe God forbid us to commit
murder. Matthew l9:l6-l8 and Exodus 21:22,23 show this. Jehovah God
told Noah and his family that the soul, or life, is in blood, and
forbade them to eat blood. (Gen.9:3,4) Christians today as in the
past are told to abstain from blood (Acts l5:28,29). So out of
respect for the sacredness of blood we do not take blood
transfusions, because God promised good health to us if we did. Yes,
we might die, but we would die faithful to our God Jehovah and His
Son Jesus Christ. Then there is a a hope of resurrection and
everlasting life. We're not willing to sacrifice our relationship
with our God to live temporarily in this system of things. Just as
people take lifegiving nutrition through infusions, so likewise would
taking blood through our veins be the same. We do accept alternative
treatments!
POSTED SEPT. 23, 1998
A faithful Witness of Jehovah
<ruthmcgill@ivillage.com>,
Asheboro, N.C.
FURTHER NOTICE:
Essentially, it is because the Scriptures prohibit the
"eating of blood" (see Acts 15:28,29). We believe this includes
taking blood in any way, including blood transfusions (also including
meat that has not been properly bled). This is done even when it is
possible that a blood transfusion might be life-saving, since we
believe that following God's commandments supercede such
considerations. More complete information may be found at
http://www.watchtower.org/medical_care_and_blood.htm
POSTED JAN. 6, 1999
Kyle, male, Richardson , TX
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
The basic reason is that Jehovah God views blood as
sacred, representing life. He does not want us to misuse it in any
way. He first gave Noah the command that he should not eat the blood
of any animal. He followed that by the command not to "shed blood,"
meaning killing someone. (Gen 9:4-6) Not eating blood was
re-emphasized in the Law Covenant given to Israel. (Lev. 17:14)
During Christian times, the doctrine was broadened to include any use
of blood. At Acts 15:28-29, the "Older men of Jerusalem" rendered
judgment on some rules that Hebrew Christians were trying to make
Gentile Christians adhere to. They stated: "For the holy spirit and
we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except
these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacraficed to
idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication."
This is not limited to eating of blood. It clearly says "abstain from
blood." Of course the Bible does not say, "do not take blood
transfusions" anymore than it does not say, "do not use cocaine." But
the principles apply in either case.
We do view life as sacred and seek any medical care that does not
violate God's laws. But saving a life by disobeying God is like
cutting off your nose despite your face. Many think the blood law
only applies to the eating of blood. Consider this illustration: An
alcoholic is told by his doctor that if he drinks any more alcohol it
will kill him. Is that alcoholic then allowed to take in the alcohol
intravenously? No. Any reasonable person knows what the doctor meant
- "Abstain from alcohol." For further information on this go to
www.watchtower.org
POSTED JAN. 21, 1999
M.A.M., 25, Atlanta , Ga
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
It is really difficult to believe that people would let
their children die because of superstitious beliefs. Freedom of
religion is one thing; murder by neglect quite another.
POSTED FEB. 10, 1999
Ed H., 56, white male <Ed
Ham0132@aol.com>, Silver Springs, FL
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE79: If Christians think their way is the right way, why
would a loving God create people before the beginning of
Christianity, dooming them to eternal damnation?
POSTED JULY 24, 1998
Marissa L., 15, Sault Ste. Marie, MI
ANSWER 1:
Before Christ, not everyone was damned. God gave the
people the laws they had to live by to reach heaven (or
righteousness) through the prophets. The people could not do it.
Abraham was credited as righteous (Gal 3:6,9), but most everyone else
who lived under the law did not obey it. I think if you honestly
think about human nature you'll understand why. God therefore sent
his son to suffer in our place so we could be forgiven for our
sinfulness. We no longer live under the laws - we live under grace.
This, to me, is a truly loving God. Besides, if you're going to
attack Christians for believing in a loving God you need to attack
most of the major world religions as well.
POSTED AUG. 31, 1998
Eric R., 27
<ericandjjrubio@mindspring.com>,
Monroe, GA
FURTHER NOTICE:
Christians believe Christ was the Messiah promised to the
Jews. Therefore, before Christianity, any who practiced true Judaism
were accepted by God. Even non-Jews, like the former prostitute Rahab
mentioned in the Bible, were able to come worship with the Jewish
nation. Abraham, a forefather to this nation, was called a "friend of
God." The Christian Paul discusses the oustanding faith of many of
these faithful men and women in Hebrews Chapter 11. But for those who
never had the opportunity to know God, Acts 24:15 says, "There is
going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the
unrighteous." This will allow all to decide if they want to serve
God. (But this should not be used as an excuse to live however you
want now, because God is under no obligation to include you in that
resurrection.)
POSTED DEC. 18, 1998
M.A.M., 25, Atlanta , Ga
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
The Bible's answer to this mystery is that God did not
create people with the intention of damning them. In exercising our
free will, we invariably choose the course of rebelling against God
in a variety of ways. It is for this that we are destined for
damnation. Salvation is a gift from God, and per Biblical doctrine,
received through faith in Jesus Christ.
POSTED DEC. 21, 1998
Dario, 33, Christian
<ballpeen@mailexcite.com>,
San Carlos , CA
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
I believe the reason is that we are accountable for what
we know. People born before Christ, who had never heard about Him,
are no more responsible than those who live in the African bush, cut
off from civilization. People are required to be as good as possible,
to do as much as they can with what is given to them. It is my belief
that God is not merciless, and that if these people honestly sought
Him, He would reveal Himself to them. If, however, these people lived
their lives in defiance of God and all that is obviously good (i.e.
you murder, rape, steal, etc.), then yes, they would probably have
gone to hell.
POSTED DEC. 28, 1998
Isabelle, female
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
I think your question starts from an incorrect assumption:
That Christianity began only with the coming of Jesus, and that no
one except followers of Christianity can be saved. This ignores the
Old Testament w hich is just as much God's word as the New Testament
is. People believed in God and sought His wisdom and guidance long
before the coming of Jesus. Jesus came because society had become
much too secular and had fallen away from God. He came to teach and
guide people back to God's path. All of us are God's children and are
tasked with making choices between His way and the highway. Even if
you lived before the dawning of modern Christianity, the choices were
still the same and God's mercy was still as strong.
POSTED JAN. 6, 1999
Cindy, 42, female, Christian, Portland, OR
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, I have come to believe that God never doomed a soul to an
automatic damnation, as you would believe. Through Moses, I have
learned that even Adam and Eve understood the coming mission of Jesus
Christ. Sacrificial offerings, Adam learned, were a similitude of the
sacrifice of the Only begotten. Adam was baptized in water, received
the Holy Ghost and was taught the Lord's plan of redemption. This
knowledge was taught to their posterity. Enoch was one who "walked
with God" (Genesis 5:22-24) and had a vision of the Savior's
ministry. Paul echoes a similar idea in Galatians 3:8 that Abraham
was taught the gospel (of Jesus Christ). With these teachings of
Jesus Christ existing from the beginning, it would be better to say
that every soul had an opportunity to exercise their faith in Jesus
Christ and attain salvation.
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
David J., male, Mormon
<jachmann@paracel.com>,
Sierra Madre, CA
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE78: I've noticed many Christians view the belief in
reincarnation with strong animosity (calling it "New Age" and
ignoring the historical origins). Is it typical for Christians to
vehemently attack this ancient and cross-cultural belief? Doesn't
their religion profess transcendence also?
POSTED JULY 23, 1998
Wolfe, 22, white, San Diego, CA
ANSWER 1:
Reincarnation is a belief that is contradictory to
Christian belief. Christianity is based on the belief that Christ did
something no one else has ever done: Rose from the dead and defeated
death. If others are capable of such a feat, whether it is as another
person or animal or whatever, then the grounds Christian belief is
founded on do not exist. The Bible is pretty clear about this topic.
In the end, you can't prove reincarnation anymore than I can prove
Christianity. I believe the resurgence of modern belief in
reincarnation comes from perverted psychological studies of hypnotic
suggestion (I have a degree in Psychology and Religion, so I have
studied it some), a growing interest in Eastern religions that
practice this belief, and a yearning in humanity for something
spiritual to believe in. We as Christians have not given a good
example, so many strive to find something else to believe in.
POSTED AUG. 31, 1998
Eric R., 27
<ericandjjrubio@mindspring.com>,
Monroe, GA
FURTHER NOTICE:
I disagree somewhat with Eric R. I am a Christian -
Catholic to be specific - and we do believe in reincarnation.
Incarnate is to give life to, so reincarnate is to bring back to
life. Revelations tells of resurrection, and what is that but the
undoing of death, or reincarnation? I think the discrepancy or
confusion comes into play when some speak of reincarnation as
occurring now, rather than during the Judgment Day. Check out
Revelation 20:12a, 7:2-4, and 1 Peter 4:17.
POSTED SEPT. 4, 1998
Mimi, female, 37, Sunnyvale, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Christian transcendence involves the soul leaving this
earthly plane of existence and going on to another plane of existence
that is different from this world (whether it be heaven, hell,
purgatory, whatever). That is core to the concept of Christian
salvation. Reincarnation implies that one's soul does not escape this
world upon death, but instead is "recycled," so to speak. This is
counter to everything Christians believe in. We believe we are
individual souls, and when our lives are played out here on earth we
go on to another, other-worldly existence. This is not another life,
but a continuation of the same life. Our souls are not given another
body in which to live another life on this earth. On a personal note,
I was raised to have respect and tolerance for other religions.
Though I do not agree with reincarnation, I would not berate you for
your belief in it.
POSTED DEC. 18, 1998
Stephen S., 31, Catholic/Episcopalian, San Antonio, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
Christians are commanded to evangelize all nations, though
attacking them is not an advocated method. As to the issue of
reincarnation, you will find in the Bible in Hebrews 9:27: "Just as
man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement."
Christians believe you get a single shot at life in this world, so
they disagree with the concept of reincarnation.
POSTED DEC. 21, 1998
Dario, 33, Christian
<ballpeen@mailexcite.com>,
San Carlos , CA
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE77: To Muslims: Please comment on the recent attacks of
Muslims on Chinese people in Indonesia, wherein some would shout "God
is great" before doing terrible things such as looting, raping and
killing. Why would they say this?
POSTED JULY 15, 1998
I.C. , female, Manila, The Philippines
ANSWER 1:
"God is great" has been a battle cry for Muslims for five
centuries since the original battles were against the "infidels,"
which at that time were the armies determined to smother the new
religion and deny the One God. Modern Muslims who see themselves as
fighting this holy war still use that phrase, though to an outsider
it seems quite horrific. It is, in essence, no different from any
other religious fanatic who believes that by killing the "unbeliever"
he is defending something sacred. There is, however, a great deal of
disagreement within the Islamic world about what constitutes a "holy
war." By no means do all Muslims accept what you are talking
about.
POSTED JULY 20, 1998
Halima B.
<exhiled@yahoo.com>,
Jaén, Spain
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE76: If Catholics believe the unborn fetus has a soul, don't
they believe that soul would go on to eternal happiness with a just
God? If so, isn't that soul in its current state better off than
being born, and risking eternal damnation?
POSTED JULY 15, 1998
Bill K.
<billikin@worldnet.att.net>,
Maitland , FL
ANSWER 1:
If memory serves, Catholic doctrine holds that we are all
burdened with original sin. The infant who dies before being baptized
goes to (I think) purgatory.
POSTED JULY 22, 1998
Al <alarose@ncwc.edu>,
Rocky Mount, NC
FURTHER NOTICE:
Possibly. But that fetus may also be destined to cure
cancer or be the next Mother Theresa. The question is really, Who is
qualified to make that decision?
POSTED JULY 23, 1998
Peter P., Roman Catholic, Redford, MI
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Catholics also believe in original sin, which all
descendants of Adam and Eve bear. This original sin is washed away
with baptism. If a child dies without receiving baptism, the child's
soul is in limbo. Limbo is a state that is not eternal damnation yet
is also not sharing in the eternal grace of heaven. A fetus that
never gets the chance at baptism and sharing in the grace of God is
therefore not "better off than being born." The risk of eternal
damnation that comes with life is worth it if we also have a chance
at salvation.
POSTED JULY 23, 1998
Stephen S., 31, Catholic, San Antonio, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
As a product of 12 years of Roman Catholic school, I found
your question extremely thought-provoking. The Catholic Church
believes the unborn fetus does have a soul; however, it also believes
infants enter the world with original sin (resulting from the sins of
Adam and Eve). Thus they contend that in order for the fetus to enter
heaven, the child must be baptised. Therefore, a fetus that is
aborted is stuck somewhere between heaven and hell.
POSTED JULY 28, 1998
Nicole, 21, NJ
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
The issue here is not really what happens to the child's
soul after death as much as whether the action of abortion itself is
a crime. The Catholic Church feels that a child is an individual life
from the point of conception. Therefore the act of abortion is
"murder," a mortal sin for which the mother's soul will be eternally
damned. Take into account that this is the "murder" of a child by its
parent and it is even more harshly viewed. Personally, I'm
pro-choice.
POSTED NOV. 21, 1998
Agrivaine
<agrivaine@yahoo.com>,
Dublin, Ireland
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
This question crosses over into the taboo-for-Y? Forum
topic of abortion and any response can�t help but be somewhat
argumentative, especially considering the logic used in the question.
I�m not Catholic, and I�ve tried to be as dispassionate as possible,
but there�s no way this question is going to generate the type of
genteel discussion that other topics generate.
The belief that the unborn have souls is not limited to Catholics,
though they may be the largest and most-organized group that holds
that view. And among people of all denominations who do hold to that
belief, not all believe the soul of every child who dies before birth
goes to heaven, regardless of the cause of death.
Having said that, here�s another question: Why not take the
inherent logic of the question and apply it to everyone? Nearly all
religions that believe in some form of heaven also believe that life
in heaven is infinitely better than life on earth. Wouldn�t it be
best to kill everyone who, according to their belief system, is
destined for heaven anyway? An absurd conclusion, yes, but a valid
one given the logic.
The real answer to the question is that those, such as Catholics,
who oppose abortion based on the existence of the unborn�s soul
oppose it not just because the soul exists, but because having a soul
gives the unborn child the same rights as any other human being. A
person�s location (womb vs. outside), stage of development, religion
or eternal destiny doesn�t diminish their basic rights as human
beings.
POSTED NOV. 23, 1998
Chuck O., Christian
<oey@iname.com>, Redwood
City, CA
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE75: In South Louisiana the Catholic church is known as the
Roman Catholic church. If the Romans killed Jesus, why is this
so?
POSTED JULY 1, 1998
Ryan, 18, Catholic white male
<jroosa@hotmail.com>,
Rayne, LA
ANSWER 1:
The Roman Catholic Church got its name after the Great
Schism of 1054. The body of Christian believers at that time was
referred to simply as the Catholic Church. After the split, those who
chose to align with the supreme leadership of the Pope were called
Roman Catholic, because he was (and still is) seated in Rome. The
other groups formed the Eastern Orthodox traditions, a somewhat more
autonomous group. This division occurred more than 1,000 years after
Christ's death, and the religious majority as well as the political
views of Romans had changed considerably in that time.
POSTED JULY 16, 1998
Gypsy, Eclectic Pagan
<gypc@accessus.net>, St.
Louis, MO
FURTHER NOTICE:
The Catholic church is the Roman Catholic church.
Initially, the apostles dispersed and began to run the local churches
in various areas. Peter went to Rome, John went to Ephesus, etc. They
then became "bishops" or recognized heads of the various local
churches. Peter, the bishop of Rome, was recognized as the chief
bishop based on Christ's declaration that Peter was the rock that He
would build His church on. It was also practical because Rome, at
that time, was the center of the civilized world. Obviously, the top
guy should be headquartered at the center of all the action.
Eventually, the Bishop of Rome was given the title of Pope and,
currently, His Holiness John Paul is the reigning Bishop of Rome, the
spiritual and authoritative successor to Peter, and the spokesman for
all Bishops of the Catholic church. Because Catholics follow the
Bishop of Rome, they are properly called either Roman Catholic or
just plain Catholic.
POSTED JULY 17, 1998
Peter P., Roman Catholic, Redford, MI
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Each Sunday morning I say in the Apostles' Creed with my
United Methodist congregation that I believe in the "Holy Catholic
Church," meaning the universal church of believers in Christ, not any
one organization. I speak of the Roman Catholic Church to distinguish
that organization, which is headquartered in Rome.
POSTED JULY 23, 1998
Chris, Baton Rouge, LA
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
The Roman Catholic church is called that because the head
of that Church is the Bishop of Rome: The Pope. While it is true that
Roman soldiers crucified Jesus, the responsibility and guilt for that
action falls equally on all persons according to Roman Catholic
doctrine. Simularly, it was in Rome, at the order of the Roman
Emperor Nero and by the hands of Roman soldiers, that St. Peter, the
first Roman Pope, was executed by being crucified upside-down on the
Vatican hill, but because that is where he established the church, it
is called "Roman Catholic."
POSTED AUG. 6, 1998
Rev. Kenneth K., 54, Universalist
<pontiff@mail.sstar.com>,
New Orleans, LA
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
It's not just in South Louisiana. Worldwide the Roman
Catholic church is known to be the church that is headed by the Pope,
John Paul II in Rome. The seat of power is in Rome, so it is known as
"Roman." As for why Rome figures in the equation, let's go back to
the Roman empire. Yes, they crucified Jesus, but Rome ruled most of
the known world in those times. It was the big government that had
the power to conquer and persecute. Consequently, when Christianity
eventually gained a foothold in the Roman world by converting one of
the emperors, the empire became known as the "Holy Roman Empire."
Rome was Christian, and that is where the Pope resides to this day.
Keep in mind that the Church not only includes Roman Catholics, but
also Eastern Orthodox believers. They don't defer to the Pope, but
recognize Roman Catholics as legitimate Catholics, and vice
versa.
POSTED AUG. 10, 1998
Stephen S., 31, Roman Catholic, San Antonio, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
"But the chief priests stirred up the crowd, so that he
(Pilate) should rather (than Jesus) release Barabbas (prisoner who
had committed murder in the rebellion) to them (the crowd)." Mark
15:11. According to this passage, it was the chief priests who wanted
Jesus dead. I am not Catholic, but I do know that it was not the
Romans or the chief priests that killed Jesus. The sin and inequity
of this world is what killed Jesus. I suggest reading the first four
books of the New Testament in order to grasp the bigger picture of
events leading to Jesus' trial, crucifiction, death, burial and his
rise to glory.
POSTED SEPT. 1, 1998
Via, College Place, WA
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
Actually, the larger institution is the "Catholic" Church.
The word "Catholic" comes from a Greek word, katholikos, which
means "universal." Within the Catholic Church, there are nine
different "rites" or practices (religious customs and ceremonies)
that are recognized. All of these rites are in union with the Bishop
of Rome, the Pope, but the rites carry different liturgical and
sacramental practices. There are nine rites: Latin or Roman,
Byzantine, Armenian, Chaldean, Coptic, Ethiopian, Malabar, Maronite
and Syrian. Thus, a church that followed the Latin rite would be a
Roman Catholic Church, while a church that followed one of the
Eastern rites might be Byzantine Catholic.
POSTED SEPT. 7, 1998
C.J.L. (Latin Rite Catholic)
<ProfMokita@aol.com>,
West Bloomfield, MI
FURTHER NOTICE 7:
During the last days of the Roman Empire, the Emporer
Constantine, who had technically converted the entire Empire to
Christianity (some say on a whim), relocated the Empire's capital to
the city of Constantinople (formerly Byzantium), and, in doing so,
gave the city of Rome to the Catholic church. In later years, a war
would brew between the Empire and the new Holy Roman Empire, based on
the Church's headquarters in the Vatican City, Rome. From this point
on, this branch of Christianity was known as Roman Catholic.
POSTED OCT. 13, 1998
Agrivaine
<agrivaine@yahoo.com>,
Dublin, Ireland
FURTHER NOTICE 8:
The qualifier before the name can mean a couple of things.
First, it can be a "national" Catholic church - that is, the
association of all the Catholic dioceses in a particular modern
nation. Thus, we have the "American Catholic Church," the "Irish
Catholic Church," and so on. Second, it can refer to the "rite" - the
collection of liturgical and disciplinary rules - that the Church
follows. In this case, the term refers to Churches that follow the
Roman Rite. The Roman Rite is the one that follows the rules
established in the Roman Church by Peter and his successors. If the
term bothers you, Latin Rite means the same thing. FYI, there are
also Greek, Armenian and Anglican Rite Catholics, all of whom are in
full Communion with the Roman Rite, and all of which acknowledge the
Pope as head of the Church.
POSTED NOV. 10, 1998
Cecil, male, 30, "Cradle" Catholic, TX
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE74: Much of the Bible was written long after Christ's death,
and religious dogma is still being written today, as is evident by
the recent Southern Baptist revision. Why do religious people put
faith in the writings of normal people?
POSTED JUNE 28, 1998
Tom A., atheist
<tanderso@stevens-tech.edu>,
Hoboken, NJ
ANSWER 1:
I pray constantly; that is, I maintain a relationship with
God in which I both speak and listen. I observe that there are some
individuals who seem to have a better relationship with God than I
do. I would describe them as inspired. I believe the people who wrote
the various books of the Bible and the people who selected the books
we designate as Canon were inspired. Some people today, though, also
seem to have particularly close and clear relationships with God;
therefore what they write is of special value to me in bettering my
own relationships, both with God and with others. You might think of
medicine: Doctors still take the Hippocratic oath; they think
Hypocrates got that right. But they also study modern ethical
dilemmas and listen to the opinions of other modern doctors.
POSTED JULY 23, 1998
C.A.G., 50, Methodist, Dallas, TX
FURTHER NOTICE:
Southern Baptists did not revise dogma; they simply added
something that was always in the Bible to their "platform," or church
principles, because they feel our society is going downhill morally
and the family needs shoring up. As for the Bible's origins, it is
believed the Bible is the Holy Word of God as given to humans to
write down.
POSTED JULY 26, 1998
Sara, Oakland, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Actually, the final books of the Bible were completed in
98 A.D. These were the Apostle John's gospel and his letters. I would
not call this "long after Jesus" died. I cannot speak for Baptists,
but I do not take anything but the Bible as sacred writings. I do
read religious material in an effort to educate myself, but the
content is always checked against the Bible. This is the example that
was set by the ancient Boreans, who verified what Paul preached to
them. True religion is not about having blind faith in what men say.
It is about knowledge and accepting the truth from the Bible.
POSTED JULY 27, 1998
M.A.M., 25, Atlanta, GA
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
I remember my physics classes in college. I struggled with
them but ultimately perservered. I am not a math wizard, and that
sort of abstract thought is difficult for me. When I first opened my
physics textbook, I was intimidated by the arcane symbols. I had
faith in my teachers and in the scientists and other men and women
who developed the discipline. I could not derive the equations for
myself. I had to trust in their wisdom and sincerity. That is it in a
nutshell. We Christians believe that 12 terrified men experienced
something never before seen in the world and that they gave their
lives as martyrs for that testimony. This leads me to trust them and
their testimony.
POSTED AUG. 13, 1998
Elaine C.
<eoder1@compulinx-net.net>,
Columbus, OH
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
People want to believe and will do almost anything to
prove their faith is not misplaced. In America, the prominent
religion is Christianity. In the world, the prominent religion is
Christianity. If people really lived their lives like their adopted
religion says they should, our world would be dramatically different.
People will make excuses for their inadequacies (re: I'm not perfect,
just forgiven). Above all else, they want to feel they are doing
good. Some get that feeling from religion.
POSTED AUG. 28, 1998
Joe A., Phoenix, AZ
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
I'm not sure of the Southern Baptist revision you mention.
If it was on submission then it was straight out of the Bible. The
Bible was written through God's spirit (even in English it is called
inspiration) as given to men. If you wish to research it, there are
multiple Christian web sites that lay out the divine nature of the
Bible. But, in terms of your question, the Bible is not "the writings
of normal people." Other religious dogma (or more properly doctrine)
that is written by people should be examined by the faithful of that
religion. Generally it is accepted if it confirms the tenets of the
religion. Generally it is rejected, no matter how authoritative and
public it was, if it conflicts.
POSTED SEPT. 7, 1998
Craig, 40, male, MO
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
As a Catholic, I believe that the Bible is the inspired
Word of God. God placed the thoughts and words into the minds of the
writer, who placed them on paper. I can understand your confusion.
There are many writers whose human insights can be inspiring, but
this is not the same as the Inspired. There are visionaries who claim
to be receiving messages from God, Mary and other saints. In the
Catholic church, it is the Bible and tradition - ways that have not
changed since the first church - that are the basis for the way we
worship. All else is open to investigation, which means for us that
you read, research and pray. There is no requirement to believe in
anything else, even if it has been approved by the Church. As for the
different Bibles, remember that all have been translated. The removal
of a "the" or adding a qualifier that did not previously exist can
change the original meaning.
POSTED SEPT. 9, 1998
Lynn G., 36, Catholic, Jacksonville, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 7:
Religous people do not (or should not) put faith in
writings of normal people. The Bible (New Testament), although
written after the death of Jesus, is believed to be written by men
who were writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In other
words, what they wrote is the word of God. Therefore, Christians
believe the Bible to be the word of God given through man but not by
man. As for the new revisions of the Baptist Church, these are not
given as the word of God but are statements of belief or doctrine of
the church. They do not claim to be adding to the Bible. The Bible is
the word of God, whole and complete.
POSTED SEPT. 11, 1998
Mark, 35
<Mark1k@sprynet.com>,
Dallas, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 8:
First, many Christians (myself included) believe the
writers of the Bible wrote under inspiration from God and that their
writing is thus the word of God. We put our faith in what they wrote
because of that belief. Second, things like what the Baptist
Convention wrote are usually considered that group's interpretation
of the Bible rather than the word of God. Interpretation of scripture
is often no different from any reading comprehension example:
Different people see different things and get different meanings from
the same paragraph. So those who comprehend the same as the Baptist
leaders will put their faith in that interpretation. Those who see
something differently will put their faith in what they see
instead.
POSTED SEPT. 22, 1998
W. Lotus, 29, non-denominational Christian
<wlotus@dreamscape.com>,
Syracuse, NY
FURTHER NOTICE 9:
People's faith in religion is dependent on their belief in
the existence of a higher power, which, in most cases, they feel is
capable of communicating directly to "chosen" followers. The faith
people place in writings such as the Bible is based on this belief
that the authors have either personally received a "vision" from this
higher power or are recording the insights of one who has. As such
the collected writings are seen as the most concrete example of their
God's will that they will ever have access to in this lives (unless
of course they too become visionaries).
POSTED OCT. 14, 1998
Agrivaine
<agrivaine@yahoo.com>,
Dublin, Ireland
FURTHER NOTICE 10:
I am a Christian and feel a personal connection with God
that I probably cannot explain, and I too do not know why many people
place such faith in human-written works often written and revised by
committees with big agendas. I find much wisdom in the Bible, but I
also find much to question. So I guess I'm as perplexed as you
are.
POSTED OCT. 14, 1998
Midori, 38, white
<midorichan1@juno.com>,
Orlando, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 11:
Because it is believed that these people were chosen by
God to record his message. Many of the Christian Protestant faiths (I
can't speak for others) believe that because these words were
recorded by humans (divinely selected and inspired, but still human),
the writings are not perfect, and they choose to view them as
representations of the word of God.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Tara, 24, Christian
<tarakennedy@yahoo.com>,
Washington, DC
FURTHER NOTICE 12:
The answer has three elements. Concerning the Bible
specifically, it is generally accepted that original texts from which
modern translations come (although the New Testament was written down
after Christ's lifetime) are generally accurate, written captures of
oral tradition dating to that time (most "literature" then was oral;
written Hebrew Scriptures pre-date Christ. We know of very few other
written texts that old.) Secondly, concerning Scripture, humanity
constantly evolves its skills to correctly translate original texts
(in Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew, I believe). In addition, light shed on
unclear text by disciplines like archaeology improves, leading to
revised translations. On more recent developments, a central
Christian belief is a tri-person, monotheistic God (three-in-one).
The third entity, the Holy Spirit, continues spiritual revelation
through numerous mechanisms, chiefly community consensus within a
denomination, as the Southern Baptist revision. The very nature of
such consensus is taken as indicative of Holy Spirit guidance.
POSTED NOV. 27, 1998
Krista Jo; female, Roman Catholic, mid-40s, North Reading , MA
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE73: Why do people who want religious clubs in schools get
upset if some students wish to start, say, a Wiccan (Witch) club? If
it is student-initiated, doesn't it deserve the same respect as a
Christian or Jewish or Muslim club?
POSTED JUNE 27, 1998
MarchHare, 33, Wiccan mom
<marchhare32@webtv.net>,
Fairfield, OH
ANSWER 1:
If the only exposure school officials and parents have had to
paganism is negative, the fear is very real to them, and they
perceive such a club as a threat and danger to their "impressionable"
children. They may also see a club as threatening the status quo and
their way of life. I experienced similar reactions from my parents in
high school when I began to learn about Wicca and they had no idea
what it meant. I think the only way to dissolve the obstacle would be
to communicate clearly with anyone opposed to the idea, offer to
supervise and invite interested parties to sit in on meetings and
educate themselves a little.
POSTED JULY 24, 1998
Amie, 20, Wiccan, raised Mormon,
<january-girl@juno.com>,
Las Vegas, NV
FURTHER NOTICE:
I am a Pantheist. This religion, like Wicca, is considered
a part of Paganism. In my school, which is public, we're not allowed
to have any sort of religious clubs, even for Christians or Jews.
Therefore, it would be impossible for me to start any sort of club
that's affiliated with the school. There are alternatives, like
forming a group that can learn more about its religion (like Wicca,
Buddhism or whatever) on their own time. This way the kids could also
not have to worry about a teacher's interferrnce in the conversation,
which could make some of them uncomfortable.
POSTED AUG. 21, 1998
Soma, Pantheist teenager
<Soma3355@yahoo.com>,
Hartford, CT
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I am a high school teacher in California. This past year,
a Christian club decided to hold a prayer meeting outside at lunch.
Many posters invited students to attend. Many were a bit
controversial. In response, many students decided to hold their own
meetings, similar to what you referred to" Witches, devils, etc. The
response of the school was to limit the rights of the students
wanting to hold "their meetings." They were not allowed to tape up
posters about their meetings, nor were they allowed to hold the
meetings during school time. The bottom line at my school was
politics. There is a growing element of fundamentalists in my
school's community, and that is why the Christian club was allowed to
conduct its meeting. Although, after faculty concerns were expressed
re: the messages on the Christian club posters, the meetings were
toned down. Schools are political vehicles, and religion is
intrinsically enmeshed in politics these days on the local level of
government. I feel we need to separate church and state and actively
do so, as the U.S. Constitution dictates. Free speech is our most
fundamental freedom, and arbitrary decisions about who has free
speech and who doesn't need to be addressed by all of us.
POSTED SEPT. 5, 1998
Sue
<obriens@vcss.k12.ca.us>,
Thousand Oaks, CA
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE72: I would like to better understand the Catholic faith.
It's curious to me that Catholics pray to statues representing
saints. Isn't this a form of idolatry that the Bible speaks against?
What is the reason for this practice?
POSTED JUNE 27, 1998
Nancy H., 31, white
<hahnel@wrightwood.net>,
Inland Empire, CA
ANSWER 1:
Catholics (at least Roman Catholics) do not really pray to
saints. We pray that the saints (who are supposed to be closer to
God) will intercede for us. We ask the saints to talk to God on our
behalf and relate our prayers to God. I don't think this is
considered idolism or polytheism because we don't believe the saints
are gods, nor do we believe the statues have any magical power.
POSTED JULY 15, 1998
Nicole, 21, NJ
FURTHER NOTICE:
Catholics do not pray to statues. They view saints as
intercessors between humans and God. Each saint represents a very
particular aspect of the sacred. For example, if a Catholic feels the
need in his/her life for the courage to stand up for his/her
convictions, one may pray directly to God for courage. Additionally,
one may study St. Joan of Arc. Her story is an example of human
behavior that elevates courage to the highest degree. Church leaders
have agreed that her actions in some way have glorified God, and
deserve to be held up as exemplary Catholic behavior. Therefore,
Catholics can reflect on her life to help them find ways of being
more courageous in a way that would please God. The statue or picture
simply serves as a visual reminder to help focus one's thoughts, much
as the cross does to Protestants.
POSTED JULY 17, 1998
Gypsy, Eclectic Pagan
<gypc@accessus.net>, St.
Louis, MO
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I am Roman Catholic, Mexican and pray to the saints. With
candles lit and my rosary in hand, I pray to la virgin and Saint
Francis, Saint Miguel, etc. It is tradition, and it is part of
everyday life.
POSTED JULY 26, 1998
Mexican, San Antonio, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
Asking the Saints to intercede for you with God is,
unfortunately, against Bible teaching as well. The Bible teaches that
we have only one mediator with God: Jesus Christ. The Scriptures also
refer to God as "The Hearer of Prayer." He listens to our prayers
Himself; He does not delegate this to anyone else.
POSTED JULY 27, 1998
M.A.M., 25, Atlanta, GA
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
Sainthood was instituted by the Catholic Church for two
reasons: 1) To foster the belief that individuals have influence
after death and 2) To build reliance on the Church for your
relationship with God. Catholics pray to and for others who have
passed on. I feel this is demeaning to the "Godhood" of Jesus because
he stated in the New Testament that He was the only intercessor for
men. If a Catholic prays to a Saint, he or she is praying to someone
that "may" help them. My belief is that since the Bible never
mentions or supports praying to others besides God, the prayor is
never certain, so this is a very subtle way of making sure the person
continues to rely on the Church for its assurances. The Bible never
mentions anything about the Church being the way to God.
POSTED AUG. 28, 1998
Joe A., Phoenix, AZ
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
I was raised in the Catholic church, and while the
churches had statues and paintings, at no time do I feel I was ever
praying to the statue. The symbols are there to help keep us focused,
especially if we are contemplating the life of Jesus. The saying, "A
picture is worth a thousdand words" applies here. Think how easily a
seven-year-old is distracted. Pictures and statues helped me! I do
have some difficulties with the concept of praying to a saint to ask
for their help. I always figured why not pray to the Big Guy himself.
Non-Catholics have difficulties with this sometimes, but only God
himself can see into their hearts, and He knows who is being prayed
to.
POSTED SEPT. 5, 1998
D.D., 37, male, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
I am Catholic and do not pray to statues of saints. If you
did this, it would be a form of idol worship. The statues are to put
your mind in the direction of thought (something to visualize).
Example: If you know what the person you are talking to on the phone
looks like, your thoughts are more focused on what you are talking
about. If you do not know what that person looks like, your thoughts
tend to wander. Statues just help you think deeper when praying.
POSTED SEPT. 23, 1998
Bob, 58, white Catholic male, Sarasota, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 7:
I am a Catholic who has had 12 years of Catholic
schooling. While I am no expert on the religion, that same question
has been answered for me as follows: The Catholic faith and religion
are full of symbolism - when someone prays to a Saint, they are not
praying to the statue - that is just a symbol or representation of
who they are praying to in heaven. In addition, praying may be
thought of as a conversation. Therefore, praying to a saint is not
considered "worshipping" that Saint, only having a conversation with
a holy person. I believe some people (Catholics as well as those of
other faiths) do not view this type of prayer in the same way and may
in fact be worshipping the Virgin Mary or other Saints. If this is
the case, they are violating the first Commandment (I am the Lord
your God, you shall have no other gods before Me).
POSTED OCT. 5, 1998
Michelle, 26, white Catholic
<wxjon@minor.stlnet.com>,
St. Louis, MO
FURTHER NOTICE 8:
God's directive is that we should worship no other gods.
Catholics worship neither statues nor the saints represented by the
statues. Catholics believe that the Saints can intercede on our
behalf with God. A Catholic prayer to a saint is made in the belief
that the Saint will carry the prayer to God, adding the Saint's voice
to that of the person making the prayer. This is one way in which
Catholics are different from other Christians, who feel there is no
role for saints as intercessors. Catholic faith is clearly focused on
God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the only objects of worship, but
individual Catholics may choose to befriend a saint and use that
saint as a spiritual ally. This is similar to any Christian who prays
intercessory prayers for someone else, e.g., "Lord, please keep my
children safe on their trip." Also, Catholics honor certain saints,
most notably Mary, who, as the mother of Jesus, is adored by
Catholics. Her prayer, the "Hail Mary," is a prayer of adoration, not
of worship.
POSTED OCT. 9, 1998
Vince K. <vak@home.com>,
Scotch Plains, NJ
FURTHER NOTICE 9:
I'm a practicing male Catholic. Recently when teaching my
third-grade religious education class, I was asked the same thing
from one of my students. I used to think the same thing - Catholics
pray to statues - after all, we seem to kneel in front of them to
pray. I realized, however, through the years, that praying to or
"idolizing" statues is not what we Catholics do. Have you ever sought
out a place of seclusion to help you concentrate? Going to the
library or going to a quiet park are ways to enhance your thoughts.
Or perhaps lighting a candle in darkness sets the mood. Does this
mean we're making idols out of books or candles? Certainly not. What
better way to talk with Jesus in prayer and to thank him for giving
his life for us than to find a quiet place in the presence of a
Crucifix? Sure we can pray to the Virgin Mary anytime, but having a
statue of her near us enhances the feeling of having her presence
with us - in our hearts - and enables us to concentrate on what we
want to say in prayer.
POSTED OCT. 13, 1998
Michael
<Safeteeguy@aol.com>,
37, Catholic male, Tulsa, OK
FURTHER NOTICE 10:
We pray to the saints, not the statues. We believe the
saints still live in heaven and are part of the church. We can ask
them for guidance and protection as well as intercession just like we
would ask our living mothers or friends for prayers in time of
sickness or advice on raising our kids. We look to thier lives for
inspiration and guidance on how to live holy lives, and we strengthen
our recollections and rememberances with statues and other artifacts,
but we don't pray to the objects.
POSTED NOV. 10, 1998
Peter P., male, Roman Catholic, Redford, MI
FURTHER NOTICE 11:
The short answer is that we don't. For the longer answer,
start by asking what Saints are. Saints are souls believed to be with
God in Heaven. Would you ask a friend to pray for you, to ask God to
help you? Catholics ask Saints to include us in their prayers
to God the same way. Why believe they care? Because Jesus "loved
mankind as himself," and Saints, by definition, emulate Jesus's love
as best they can. Still - why ask Saints to pray? The idea is that
since they're with God, their prayers may have a better chance to be
heard. So what about the statues? Statues are a form of "Sacramental"
- an object without spiritual value itself, that is used to help us
remember, and meditate on, spiritual values - like those the Saint
lived. FYI, In the Litany, the usual formula is "Saint N, pray for
us."
POSTED NOV. 10, 1998
Cecil, male, 30, "Cradle" Catholic, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 12:
This is a frequently misunderstood (even by Roman
Catholics) practice. Consider the idea that many people in your own
family may be people your parents would like for you to emulate. In
that case, they tell you stories of that relative, and you have
pictures of them to look at to remind you of their existence. As was
mentioned before, the prayers are for intercession, not of worship.
This practice is no more blasphemous than people who like
celebrities, and political leaders and great figures of history. The
difference between them and those who have been honored with the
title "Saint" is that the saint has lived his/her life doing things
that are supposed to be great examples of worship, often including
martyrdom.
POSTED NOV. 21, 1998
Apryl P., black female
<apryl@mail-me.com>, Oak
Park, MI
FURTHER NOTICE 13:
As a twice-lapsed Catholic, I would say 1) The official
line is that we ask saints to intercede for us to God, making prayer
to saints an "indirect" way of praying to God on a matter, depending
on what the saint is the "patron" of. There are patron saints for all
manner of things, e.g. St. Marcula is the patron saint of skin
diseases! 2) The reality is more complex. The idea of patron saints
resembles the polytheism of pre-Christian peoples who were converted
to Catholicism. I'm sure the reason for all the patron saints was to
make these people feel comfortable with the new religion. Instead of
a god for each area of human life, a saint was substituted. And while
one could not see God, there were statues of saints. Some Catholics
are essentially idolatorous in their prayer to saints, touching the
statue for a blessing, etc.
POSTED NOV. 24, 1998
Ben S. 30, lapsed Catholic
<bscaro@hotmail.com>,
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
FURTHER NOTICE 14:
Asking a Saint to intercede with God is like going to a
specialist for a problem. For a hopeless situation, one would pray to
St. Jude, for example.
POSTED NOV. 29, 1998
John, 26
<johnpatrick79@hotmail.com>,
Tampa Bay, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 14:
To MAM (Further Notice 3): Unfortunately, prayers to
saints are very Biblical. Rather than debate the intricacies of
Biblical interpretation, let me give you a practical example: A woman
I know has a son who is dying of cancer and has only weeks to live.
While there's comfort in the fact of his salvation, the woman looks
for strength while facing a child's death. The most obvious example
of a mother who loses a child in the Bible is Mary, Jesus' mother.
Since we believe Mary is still "alive" eternally in heaven, as are
all the saints, and they are still part of the Church and accessible
to us here on earth, would it not be reasonable to pray for comfort
from Mary? Particularly since she is in heaven and has a much more
perfect understanding of God and eternity than we do? Since God
granted Mary the special privilege of bearing Christ, would He be
upset by those petitions and refuse to have compassion on this poor
woman because she is appealing to Mary and not Jesus? Would He not
allow Mary to comfort and minister to a faithful servant in time of
dire need? That would contradict the idea of a merciful God.
POSTED JAN. 29, 1999
Peter P., Roman Catholic, Redford , MI
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE71: Why don't Zoroastrians permit new converts?
POSTED JUNE 26, 1998
John, Chicago, IL
ANSWER 1:
This question requires clarification. Hopefully what I'm
saying is accurate since I don't follow Zoroastrianism. My
understanding is that specifically Parsis do not permit conversion.
Parsis are the decendants of Zoroastrians who fled from Persia
(present-day Iran) about 1,000 years ago due to persecution from the
Muslim regime then in power there. The Parsis arrived on the west
coast of India at Sanjan, and as one of the conditions of acceptance
into Indian/Hindu society, the local king proclaimed that the Parsis
should not convert anyone. I believe this is recorded in the Parsi
chronicle called the Kissah-i-Sanjan. However, I don't think
Zoroastrians who remained in Persia were ever against conversion,
although the religion has never actively prostelytized. Thus, at
least in the West, it seems there is disagreement and debate between
"Parsi" Zoroastrians and "Iranian" Zoroastrians over conversion.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Mihir, Indian/Jain, 25
<mishah@vt.edu>, Skokie,
IL
To respond
BACK TO TOP