SHOULD CHRISTIANS SHUN PHILOSOPHY? Every Christian Fundamentalist knows that false theology exists. They are happy to explain that to you. In its place, they desire TRUE theology. On the other hand, many are opposed to philosophy. There exists "philosophy...not according to Christ" (Colossians 2:8), but, similar to theology, it should be subverted by TRUE philosophy -- a love of wisdom and right reason that follows truth. Everyone -- including all who profess to be Christian -- uses philosophy. They just might not recognize it, because they don't know what philosophy actually is, thinking it's always bad. Can anyone seriously divorce true philosophy from the Bible, such as the books of Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon? To attempt this would be utterly unreasonable. Not only does it go against good philosophy, but good theology.

I know we are supposed to be the clay, with Jesus as the Potter. But sometimes I feel like old, dried, cracked, crumbly clay that doesn't want to cooperate or conform to his hands. I have to trust he knows how to (and wants to) rejuvenate the clay of my soul, so that he can smooth out my imperfections and gently bake me in the oven at just the right temperature (in his all-wise and merciful judgment) to make me a piece of art -- rather than a piece of ... something else.

Non-Catholic "Christians" who claim the imagery of Madonna and Child came from paganism (e.g., Nimrod and his mother) don't understand that their argument undermines the biblical account of Mary and Jesus. They care so much about discrediting the Catholic Church as false Christianity that they shoot themselves in the foot while doing it. And they are unaware of their self-inflicted wound.

If there are two separate "God Beings" (Father and Son), then there's no reason to close the door to the idea there could be three or four of them -- or even billions. As reasonable trinitarians, we cannot entertain the possibility of more than one God. That would be nonsensical: there cannot be more than one "First Cause," or more than one all-powerful Being. If the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then these Persons must fully possess the one divine nature. One God (in nature, or "being"), but three in Persons. This is very different from the pagan view of a family of multiple "God beings."

God is indeed a Family. But that doesn't mean God reproduces himself by spawning new "God Beings," because there can only be one God -- one uncreated, Uncaused Cause. A finite creature cannot become the infinite God. Yet we can be "adopted" (to use the biblical term) into God's family and share in his divine life.

As a Catholic, I'm not less mindful, but more mindful of sin compared to my pre-Catholic days, when I would clean out bread crumbs from my home in preparation for the spring festival of Unleavened Bread. In years past, I thought "de-leavening" my home and car was how to prepare for the annual commemoration of Jesus' death. Now, as a Catholic, I understand that fasting, prayers, adoration, and confession are what I need to prepare for the Paschal observances. Something is wrong when people snacking on unleavened brownies make fun of those who solemnly observe Lent .

Christians who are sincere but not well formed in their faith are susceptible to COG media campaigns that actively seek to "sow discord" among Christian families. Often this comes in the form of proclaiming Christmas and Easter as "pagan" or sinful to observe, or that Sunday is the "day of the Sun" and therefore you should worship on the Sabbath (Saturday), or that we were not created with an immortal soul, or that we should not eat "unclean meats" as detailed in Leviticus. The result of believing their message is family division and a distorted view of the fundamentals of the Christian religion. The antidote to this is to prayerfully meditate on Scripture, to read the writings of Early Church fathers as well as saintly Christians throughout the ages, and to study a good, traditional Catholic catechism. If you're ever stumped by anti-Catholic arguments, don't throw up your hands and quit -- go find answers. Seek the help of others. There is hardly a "new" anti-Catholic argument that hasn't been debunked long, long ago.

QUESTION FOR PROTESTANTS: If the apostolic decision at the council of Jerusalem had never been documented in the book of Acts (chapter 15), would their decision still have been true and binding on all Christians? Of course! Christian teaching does not *originate* in the Bible -- it is *reflected* in the Bible in a uniquely inspired way. In other words, the Body of Christ is not a Bible-based Church; rather, the Bible is a Church-based Book! The idea that we are only obliged to believe what we ourselves perceive the Scriptures to explicitly teach is not biblical, is not historical, is not workable. Something can be true and binding even if we don't have a chapter-and-verse prooftext for it -- just as Peter and James and the others had no such "verse" proving Jewish converts do not need to practice ritual circumcision.

Has there ever been an ancient pagan religion that believed we have immortal souls which will be reunited with our own bodies, glorified, in a resurrection from the dead? I've never seen evidence of it.

It's weird to say we need a plain Bible verse for all our religious beliefs, insisting we should reject philosophy and "human reasoning," but then say a person can come to know of God's existence by reason alone. We can't separate theology from philosophy. No one can.

Christians must realize that the arguments some people use to say Christmas is nothing but recycled paganism are the same kind of bogus arguments people use to say Christianity itself is nothing but recycled paganism.

Your "Christian" religion is not salvific if its focus is on matching daily headlines with Bible prophecies, or on novel doctrines that Christianity has not known until you or your church's founder came along.

If all a Christian needs is Jesus ("Jesus plus nothing"), then we don't need the Bible, or angels, or the Holy Ghost, or teachers, or anything else. Of course, the truth is that we need Jesus plus whatever gifts he gives us to facilitate our salvation. So when he says on the Cross, "Behold, your mother," I accept. Like John, I'll take her into my home.

This is fine, but it's infinitely better to be in the Book of Life.

CATHOLIC GUILT Sometimes I hear former Catholics justify their separation from the Church by complaining how they suffered from “Catholic guilt.” True scrupulosity is something the Church cautions against, and she tries to assist those who suffer from it. Struggling with imperfections requires patience and understanding. God’s not out to smack us when we don’t live every moment perfectly. He’s our loving Father who understands and leads us to perfection in time. But what about mortal sin? Let’s say a married woman feels guilty for using contraception and wants to clear her conscience. There are three ways she could go about removing her feelings of guilt: (1) Continue the sin until she's calloused to it, making her guilt-resistant. (2) Artificially squash the feelings by justifying it, choosing to believe contracepting is not so bad after all. (3) Repent, confess the sin, and accept God’s loving forgiveness. (This is the only true solution.) Guilty feelings are not our enemy. They can be our best friend if we let them bring us back to the freedom we have in Christ, who frees us not only from guilty feelings, but from guilt itself.

I was in the first grade when I tried to evangelize my teacher. She was unable to grasp the "truth" about Christmas, so in my wisdom I put together this tract for her.

Since our pope wants to hear from so many people from all walks of life so we can listen to what the Holy Spirit is saying, one would think he would also want to hear from faithful Catholics who believe what the Holy Spirit has already said. But he does not listen to, and speaks disparagingly of, such Catholics. Maybe the Holy Spirit has shown Francis that queers and feminists speak with the new voice of the Spirit, finally putting us on the right track after being midguided for so long. Or maybe not. Maybe this pope is currently not listening to the Holy Spirit. Not even Saint Peter, who walked and talked with Jesus, always listened to the Spirit. He acted contrary to the Spirit and had to be publicly confronted.

Whenever I hear someone say Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship, I know they are heavily influenced by their relationship with the Protestant religion.

Back in the late 1990s, we in the Tyler, TX, congregation of the Church of God International invited other congregations to come for a large Bible study weekend entitled "Led by the Bread." That was the name I suggested since it was during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. (Incidentally, I also came up with the name for their TV program, "Armor of God," once Garner Ted Armstrong was no longer associated with CGI.) Anyway, I was just remembering one of the presenters (a minister whom I will not name here) giving a study about the Bible itself. He read 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." What I laughed at in disbelief, even at the time, was how the presenter expounded on the word "reproof." He said we have to prove all things, and after some time passes we need to go back and "prove them again." He thought that's what the word "reproof" meant -- to prove something again. If a person can make such a silly error like this, how much more likely is a person able to be misled about more complex theological issues. I'll take the constant Tradition of the Church any day over amateur, armchair Armstrongist theologians.