Have you tested what your preachers or religious leaders said?

Pope Francis during a meeting of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Sciences said the scientific account of the beginning of the universe and the development of life through evolution is compatible with the Catholic Church’s vision of creation and he is being attack by some theologians/preachers for saying it.

Christians should reject the idea that the world came into being by chance, but to continue to dispute proven scientific facts makes a mockery of Christianity and the Bible.  Why can evolution not be part of God’s plan?

The author or authors of Genesis were trying to explain something they could not possibly understand at the time. They were not lying, but theologians/preachers today that continue to support the fantasy that everything was created in seven days are lying and I believe they know it. It insults my intelligence, the intelligence that God gave me, for them to continue to try and force me to believe a fantasy in order for them to consider me a Christian.

Just as some theologians/preachers today have a need to think they can explain everything some of the authors of the Bible may have suffered from the same weakness. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but it is not the dictated Word of God. It is time for theologians/preachers to stop trying to force us to believe that the Bible is a science book or history book. The Bible is a book that God used and continues to use to teach us moral values. Unfortunately, some authors of scripture allowed their personal moral values, which were influenced by man’s traditions and culture, to be included in the Bible and we must use our God given intelligences to try and distinguish between what is God and what is man.

I do not need to believe in fictional stories in order to believe in God. I do need to try and understand the lessons that are being taught by those stories in order to have a better relationship with God and to be a better person. Quite honestly, I do not believe God endorsed slavery; I do not believe God endorsed the killing of innocent women and children; I do not believe God endorsed denying women equal rights; I do not believe God endorsed many of the things found in Proverbs and Leviticus and I do not believe theologians/preachers that claim to believe in the literal translation of the Bible believe it either or they would apply them to their personal lives, instead of ignoring them as they do.

A lot of Christians today are making the mistake of listening only to theologians/preachers, instead of listening to the Holy Spirit. The Father sent the Holy Spirit to comfort and guide us. Yes, He instructed the disciples to go forth into all the world baptizing in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but he never said they were to become our god or take the place of the Holy Spirit.  God does not come in confusion and when a theologian/preacher speaks words that cause you confusion you need to get alone with God and allow the Holy Spirit to speak to you.  Do you not inject your personal beliefs into the things that you communicate? If you do then why do you think theologians/preachers do not do the same?

Transubstantiation is the teaching that during the Catholic Mass, at the consecration in Communion, the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine, but they retain the appearance of bread and wine.

 In the year 1215A.D. Pope Innocent III decreed the doctrine of transubstantiation. Five years later in 1220A.D. Pope Honorius sanctioned the adoration and or worship of the wafer and wine as doctrine. Then The Council of Trent re-confirmed the teaching: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."  The Council of Trent began Dec. 13, 1545 and ended on October 11, 1551. Was transubstantiation always ‘the conviction of the Church of God’ or did it come about in 1215A.D.

Saint Thomas said, “No act is greater than the consecration of the body of Christ. In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself. When the priest pronounces the tremendous works of Consecration, he reaches up into heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.” How many times does Christ need to be sacrificed for our sins?

This doctrine gave the men of the church tremendous power. They could do something that no other man or woman could do. People who refused to believe they had this power were killed.

No matter if I do or do not believe the doctrine of transubstantiation it does not make me love the Catholic Mass any more or any less. Regardless of my belief I like the dignity, honor and respect the Catholic Mass gives the Sacrament of Communion. A respect that I do not think most Protestant Churches give Communion and a respect that I believe Communion deserves. I do resent being told I must believe one way or the other in order to be a Catholic.

The Protestants do have a valid argument against transubstantiation. Some of the verses used to substantiate the Catholic teaching are the following: Matt. 26:28, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins," John 6:52-53. "The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, how can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus therefore said to them, '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 yourselves,” 1 Cor. 11:27. “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." One could question are these words spoken literally or not and how could it have been possible for them to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ if He had not yet been sacrificed.

"But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom," Matthew 26:29. Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as "the fruit of the vine", wine, if it was His literal blood? Jesus called it wine. There are many more questions rightly raised by the Protestants.

I have gotten alone with God, pray, meditated, studied and sought direction from the Holy Spirit and I am content with my decision on transubstantiation and other Catholics must do the same.

Catholics are free to understand the story of Jonah and the whale as literal history or fiction to teach a moral lesson. If it happened, it was certainly a miracle. In 1891 a seaman, James Bartley, from a ship named the Star of the East, was found missing after an eighty-foot sperm whale had been caught. He was presumed drowned. The next day, when the crew cut up the whale, Bartley was discovered alive inside. We know that a man can live one day in the belly of a whale, but three days we do not know. Some Protestant theologians/preachers question the faith of Christians that do not believe the story of Jonah happened literally as told in the Bible.

I am content with the lesson we can learn from Jonah and the whale. It should bring comfort to all of us who fall short at times when it comes to obedience and when we attempt to run away from what we know God wants us to do. Jonah’s story should serve as a lesson to all who sometimes possess a short fuse and who at times are guilty of a superior attitude. What is more important, the lesson to be learned or accepting the story to be literally true.  I happen to think the lesson to be learned is more important.  

If anyone asks you do you take the Bible literally be careful how you answer. If you say "Yes," they may quote some Bible verses that, if taken literally, make little sense. For example Mark 9:42-48, which tells Christians if their hand or foot "offends" them, they should "cut it off," and if their eye "offends" them, they should "pluck it out." Do you really take that scripture literally? If you say “No.” they may claim the Bible means whatever the believer wants it to mean. Therefore, any person’s interpretation is as good — or poor — as anyone else’s.

I have found the best reply is, “I take the literal parts literally, the figurative parts figuratively, and I use common sense, my experience, my knowledge of language and grammar, the techniques of hermeneutics (interpretations) and rely on the Holy Spirit for help in knowing the difference.  I do the same thing you do any time you hear or read any statement by anyone about anything."

Knowledge of the Bible is a great thing to have; it can help you defend your faith and to teach others in it. But knowledge alone does not signify spiritual maturity. It is our personal relationship with God that causes us to grow spiritually. It is our personal relationship with God that leads us to right interpretations. It is our personal relationship with God that leads us to a stronger faith.

I think God prefers us to know what we believe and why we believe it rather than being spoon fed religious beliefs without questioning them. I know it makes for a stronger faith and not a weaker faith. Unfortunately the beliefs and faith of the majority of Christians today are based on what the leadership believes and not what the Christian personally believes.