Articles

Religion

Can’t everyone just have their own truth?

People usually stop using the excuse “truth is subjective” the moment their life is destroyed by malicious lies. The sun would still exist even if everyone was blind or dead.

Maybe there is no God?

It’s impossible to prove there is no God, which makes atheism an unreasonable belief to hold. But if God were to intervene in human history, we might be able to prove it.

Isn’t all faith blind?

Having blind faith is useful when you’re young, until your understanding and reasoning develops. But by the time you’re 18, blind faith is blameworthy, and you should only believe things you have strong evidence to believe, such as the fact that the sun is made of gas.

Isn’t faith only for things you can’t ever prove?

You don’t know for sure that your dad is your biological father. DNA tests can be faked, people can lie, and maybe your uncle is your real dad. Life isn’t based on 100% proof.

Even the demons believe God exists, and they shudder. Believing in God is more than believing he exists, it also includes believing he is good, that he rewards those who seek him, that he is not out to destroy you but help you, etc.

Isn’t religion for the superstitious and uneducated past?

Many religions were superstitious, but not all. Christianity was vetted in the first century by highly educated, well versed, skeptical, intelligent men such as Luke and Paul.

Isn’t it rude or arrogant to say one religion is true?

It can be done rudely, and I don’t recommend that. But feelings do not dictate truth. If one religion is objectively true, then that’s just a fact of reality. And I’m convinced it’s a basic human right to be able to declare and defend such truths in the public forum.

Aren’t all religions equal?

If one religion says there’s only one God and another says there are multiple gods, they can’t both be true. There may be overlap, but all religions have important differences.

Why be Christian?

There’s overwhelming evidence for Jesus of Nazareth being God in the flesh, doing countless miracles, healing countless people, teaching pure and holy moral teachings, dying on a cross, rising from the dead, founding a Church on his Apostles, and continuing to lead it to this day.

Why not be Muslim?

The claim is that Muhammad received the Quran from the angel Gabriel in a cave, by himself. That’s far less evidence than the countless miracles of Jesus witnessed by tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people for three years.

Islam claims that Allah deceived the people by allowing Jesus to appear to have been crucified when in fact he was not. That makes Allah a deceiver. Plus, the evidence indicates that such a large crowd was present during the whole trial and execution of Jesus that there would be no time for him to be taken to Heaven and replaced with someone else.

Why not be Buddhist or any other religion?

There is historical evidence for Jesus being God. This narrows down the correct religion to some form of Christianity. All other religions are simply philosophies or mythologies, with no proof beyond simply trying them and hoping in them.

Why not be pagan or a witch?

That’s a very good way to lose your sanity, your happiness, your self-respect, your reputation, your mental and physical health, your career and finances, and your eternal soul. And it’s a very easy way to get possessed by malicious demons pretending to like you and help you. The occult is growing openly. Read the book written by Msgr. Stephen Rossetti, or watch his videos online, or read his blog posts.

Christianity

Why is Christianity more true than other religions?

We believe there is more than sufficient evidence that a man called Jesus of Nazareth historically rose from the dead after claiming to be the eternal Son of God. Other religions either have historical claims that can’t be proven true, or no historical claims at all, and are just philosophies or customs.

Why aren’t earlier religions more true?

If three false biographies of someone are written long before the true one is written, does that make them more true?

Isn’t Christianity stolen from other religions?

Similarities between religions doesn’t mean one stole from others. If Christianity is true, then its elements have been around since Adam and Eve, and there’s plenty of time to corrupt these elements, add fiction to them, and write them down before Moses is born and writes Genesis.

Where’s your evidence for Jesus rising from the dead?

We have four separate biographies of Jesus, as well as archaeological evidence that a religion existed in the first century that believed these biographies and acted accordingly. The number of biographies and number of copies of them is unprecedentedly large for any ancient figure.

If Christianity is true, wouldn’t everyone be Christian?

Many people have publicly said that if the Christian God was proven true to them, they would still not worship him.

And not everyone has access to the same information. People have been known to spread misinformation and hide information for their own profit.

This is recorded as having happened in the Bible itself, such as when the guards were paid off to lie about the empty tomb in Matthew 28, and when the masons rioted against Christians in Acts 19 to continue profiting off of idolatry.

The Bible

Aren’t you using the Bible to prove the Bible true?

The gospels are the same evidence that atheistic scholars use to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who taught for three years and died on a cross.

How can the gospels be evidence when they’re biased?

If an unbiased, objective, educated, intelligent, credible historian of the time investigated the claims of a supposed God-Messiah who intervened in human history and did miracles, and interviewed eyewitnesses of these events, we would expect him to document his findings very thoroughly and carefully, and to become a Christian. This is exactly what happened with Luke.

How can you rely on unreliable eyewitness testimony?

Even in the court of law, eyewitness testimony can be considered valid evidence as long as it is thorough, not contradicted, and the eyewitness has trustworthy character. This is what we see documented about the Apostles, gospel authors, and other eyewitnesses of the time.

Weren’t the gospels written hundreds of years later?

We have surviving third century manuscripts of the New Testament, and enough second century quotations of it from the early Christians to piece it back entirely, and to prove that the first century copies lost to time are the same as what we still have remaining today.

Aren’t the gospels changed like a game of telephone?

The Apostles publicly preached every day among thousands of eyewitnesses of the same events. They did this for decades straight. The Gospels were written during the lifetimes of the Apostles. There’s no chronological room for a game of telephone to take place.

Isn’t the Bible just mythology?

The four gospels and book of Acts do not fit the character of the literary genre of ancient mythology. Mythologies will explicitly narrate, emphasize, and exaggerate supernatural events. But the gospels tell a story where over 10,000 people were fed with only 4 loaves of bread, everyone present was sufficiently fed and full, and 12 full baskets were left over. This reads like a documentary of facts and events, with the miraculous implication left to the reader to infer.

Aren’t the Old Testament stories just mythologies?

We can look at the New Testament by itself and ask, is this true? And when we come to the conclusion that it is, we can see that Jesus believed the Old Testament to be true in some way. But the Old Testament is filled with many books of different genres. Figuring out how to interpret them is a question for those to resolve who have become Christians.

Hasn’t the Bible been changed countless times?

If it was changed, how would you know it? You can only claim that it’s changed if you had originals before the change, to prove that a change occurred. And if you have those, then a change never really happened, because you have the originals. All you have is an attempt at changing it, which apparently failed, since the originals were maintained and you claim to have them. So no, it wasn’t changed.

Didn’t Constantine create Christianity or Catholicism?

We have writings about Christianity and the gospels, including the phrase “Catholic Church,” from hundreds of years before Constantine was even born. All he did was legalize Christianity.

Aren’t the gospels anonymous?

The earliest copies we have of the gospels all have the authors’ names at the top. There’s complete and very early consensus about the authorship of the gospels, unlike a truly anonymous document like the Letter to the Hebrews.

What about contradictions in the Bible?

There are none. As long as a supposed contradiction has a plausible way to reconcile it, then there’s no contradiction.

For example, if one gospel says there was one angel by the empty tomb, but another one says there were two angels, maybe the stone door was blocking the view of one.

The fact that there’s clearly been no attempt to harmonize the gospel stories indicates that they’re more authentically based on genuine eyewitness accounts.

What about the Ethiopian Bible?

It was not universally accepted in the first century, and the early Church knew about it and rejected it. Why would I disagree with them? Plus, the only people I’ve ever talked to who believe in the Ethiopian Bible also believe in conspiracy theories and think the earth is flat.

Denominations

Isn’t it enough to just believe in Jesus?

Jesus said unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He told his disciples that whatever sins they do not forgive, are not forgiven. The seriousness of these words show that it’s important to figure out what exactly these words means, and then to act on them. The Bible says to work out your salvation in fear and trembling.

Shouldn’t we avoid having divisions and all be one?

Yes. That’s exactly why this book was written.

Shouldn’t we stop fighting over denominations?

Declaring and defending the truth against error and lies has been allowed ever since Jesus said “I am the Truth.” Paul constantly wrote to protect his flock from wolves.

Doesn’t the Bible say God will lead you into all truth?

That doesn’t mean by direct inspiration to understand the Bible. Maybe it means God leads you to the right denomination, for example by reading a book on the subject.

Doesn’t the Bible say you need no one to teach you?

Then why do people go to Bible colleges or write books on what the Bible means or even listen to a pastor on Sunday?

Why listen to men rather than the Word of God?

Catholics listen to the teachings of the Apostles, as written down in the Bible, and handed on through word of mouth, in an unbroken chain for 2,000 years. In reality, it’s every other denomination that’s following the words of man. Lutherans follow Luther, Calvinists follow Calvin, etc.

Isn’t Jesus against religion?

He himself said that the scribes and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses, and that we must therefore listen to them and obey what they tell us, even if they’re hypocrites.

Don’t all Christians worship the same God?

The Bible and life experience both show that the god you worship is manifest through your morals put in action. I do not worship the same god as those who practiced child sacrifice throughout history. In the same way, my morals as received by Catholicism are significantly different than every non-Catholic I’ve ever met or read about.

Why not be Protestant?

• It only started 500 years ago,
• it was unprecedented in Christian history,
• it was invented and preached by very cruel men,
• its invention led to violent Catholic persecutions,
• its inventors created it to sin with impunity,
• it doesn’t match up to the Bible,
• it doesn’t match up with the Church Fathers,
• it doesn’t match up with life experience,
• it has never produced saints,
• it inherently has absolutely no unity,
• it literally matches the pattern of cancer cells,
• it encourages Christians to become lukewarm,
• it inherently allows redefining sin,
• it has fallen almost completely to secular morals,
• no credible miracles are associated with it, and
• it universally hates and insults the Mother of God.

Why not be Orthodox?

They reject the Pope’s authority, despite it being biblical. The Bible is thoroughly for obedience and against disobedience, from the dragon leading Eve to disobey, to the Antichrist being called “the lawless one.”

They reject Purgatory, Original Sin, and the Immaculate Conception, all of which are biblical, and which shows that their understanding of grace and salvation is flawed.

They don’t pray the Rosary, which I see as very good and useful. Along with rejection of the Immaculate Conception, this shows a merely primitive devotion to Mary.

There is no inherent unity among all the Orthodox churches in either rite or teaching. There is no official Catechism of the Orthodox Church. In fact, there is no Orthodox Church, there are only Orthodox Churches. They are not found everywhere, but are regional, as their names indicate.

Why not be Anglican?

The Church of England, and Episcopal denominations, derive from King Henry VIII. Honestly, I don’t know of a single person who would defend that man’s actions. One year, he wrote A Defense of the Seven Sacraments, and was given the brand new title Defender of the Faith by the Pope. Shortly after, he split from the Catholic Church in order to grant himself a divorce. You can literally trace all the changes to their teachings to that exact moment. Watch “A Man for All Seasons,” both 1966 and 1988 versions for a history on this, as well as an inspiring testimony to Thomas More.

Why not be Mormon?

Their religion started by Joseph Smith, who claimed to have a miraculous revelation. The moral fruits of its beginnings were very obviously bad for decades, unlike the pure and holy first centuries of Christianity. Mormon teachings have deviated from the Bible so far that Mormon baptisms are not valid, and Mormons who convert to Catholicism need to be re-baptized.

Why not be other types of Catholic besides Roman?

The name Roman Catholic refers to a rite, as opposed to other rites like Maronite Catholic or Byzantine Catholic. The different rites all believe the same things as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The only difference is in worship style, things like what kind of prayers and clothing and music and incense they have at Mass.

Why not be Old Catholic, Folk Catholic, etc?

They’re not part of the Catholic Church, in other words, they’re not “in communion with Rome.” They each split off from the Catholic Church at various points of its history. Sometimes these religions mix paganism and other occult elements into Catholicism, becoming officially demonic.

Since Catholic means Universal, aren’t we all Catholic?

It’s common for people outside the truth to draw the line of truth wider so that it includes themselves as well as those actually within the truth.

Every century since the Apostles, Christians have been writing what they received from the previous generation, and every century from the first until today, their beliefs fully align with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and with no other denomination or interpretation of the Bible.