"Christianity" vs. "Roman Catholisism"

1. 59

   Dave Mathewsposted 12 years ago

   Christianity I see as the following of and the belief through faith, in the teachings of Jesus Christ and the acceptance through faith that Jesus is God.
   
   Roman Catholisism embraces most, but not all of Jesus teachings but not all, and then interjects different teachings into the Roman Catholic Dogma.
   
   Which is more correct which is more incorrect and why?

   replyreport
   1. 57

      MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I was unaware that belief that Jesus was God was necessary for Christianity. 
      
      Other than that, Catholicism is a branch of Christianity and is no more/less valid than any other branch of the religion.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Belief in Jesus being the Son of God and also that He died and rose again on the third day are the cornerstones of Christianity.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Not to the gnostic Christians or Christian Deists.
            
            Ever hear of a little book called "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" ?

            replyreport
            1. 57

               MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Don't tell them who wrote it!  Fundies have this need to both 1. Say that non-trinitarians AREN'T Christians and 2. Claim that America was founded as a Christian country.  As it is impossible for them to change their minds about either of these points, learning of that particular bible might cause internal hemorrhaging.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Lol.

                  replyreport
               2. 59

                  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Who did write it?  I'd like to read it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 57

                     MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Thomas Jefferson

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Lol. You said not to tell em.
                        It was handed out to all incoming congressmen till the 1950s. I heard they started handing them out again about 10years ago.

                        replyreport
                        1. 57

                           MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           The same people who tell me that I am not a Christian proudly say that "There has never been a non-christian president"... I find it hilarious that by those standards there have actually been 6 non-christian presidents and fully over half of the original signers of the declaration were also not Christians.  BUT... America was founded on Christianity.
                           
                           I couldn't resist telling... I am human after all.

                           replyreport
            2. 77

               Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Gnosticism and Christianity are inherently antithetical. Either you believe in Grace (a cornerstone of Christianity) or you believe in works (which basically means everything else, including gnosticism.)
               No, I've never heard of that book, but if it depends on the "Gospels" of Mary, Judas or Thomas then there's a reason for it.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Your proving the point of dictating what a Christian is.
                  It doesn't depend on them.
                  Probably should have read the above posts before you did.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't have time to read all the posts. That's not snark, I have a sick wife and a special needs kid. I assumed you would enlighten me if I was wrong.
                     
                     I'm not dismissive either. If it's a book that I might be interested in, then please tell me more.
                     
                     I don't define Christianity, the Bible does.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm glad you said that the cornerstone of Christianity is grace. That is exactly right. It is grace that has given us Christianity, not the Bible. The Bible was compiled by Christians, that is to say, those who were graced with faith were able to verify which, of a large number of texts, were God's truth.
                        Those chosen texts remained together for Roman Catholics, albiet in Latin, until the Reformation when, with the King James English translation, a number of texts were removed.
                        My question to Protestants is, if the Bible is the word of God and is true from cover to cover, why were things removed from it when it was translated?

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Deborah Sextonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           **********************
                           
                           Only the New Testament was written by Christians,
                           But not all. Revelations is Hebrew, not Christian
                           
                           The Old Testament also Hebrew

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              How is Revelations Hebrew and not Christian? That is interesting.

                              replyreport
                           2. 77

                              Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Your point about the NT being written by Christians is somewhat in error. Except for the Gentile Luke, all the books were written by Hebrew men who saw themselves that way. Peter and Paul both at different times protested that they were good, Law-abiding Jews. Paul even argued from OT Scripture about how Jesus fulfilled the prophecies.

                              replyreport
                        2. 60

                           Cassie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           The answer probably lies in the split from the Catholic Church during the Reformation.  Protestants made sure that they are distinct from the Catholic Church and how they did that probably was by reorganizing the Bible.  Look at Jefferson and his Bible as an example.  By the way, not all Protestants sects take the Bible literally.

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              The only real difference between RC Bibles and Protestant Bibles is the Apocrypha. RC usually has it, Prod usually doesn't. The practices of the RC church that we Protestants disagree with are man-made traditions, not Biblical mandates.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 They're all man-made, since the Bible was assembled by people. We believe the Bible is truth because  the people who put it together told us it that these texts were truth. How can the Bible be both Holy and absolute truth but also fallible? The same Holy people who agreed to the texts as they were, also chose the texts that Protestants removed. How is it possible to say to "this is God's perfect truth.....mostly" ?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 77

                                    Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    The Apocrypha were never part of the Jewish canon (even 1st and 2nd Maccabees) although they were written before Jesus came to Earth. Books like "Bel and the Dragon" and "1st Esdras" contain (sometimes glaring) contradictions or anacronysms. For this reason they were also never quoted by Jesus, nor by Paul or any other NT writer. I'm not sure why RC put them in, but that's why the Protestants took them back out.
                                    Other than that, there has been no real disagreement about which books should be canon. Yeah, there was the Marcionite controversy, but that helped to solidify opinion, rather than what many people want to make out as the "stronger party ramming their opinion down the other groups throat." For that reason, there has also never been any attempt by serious scholars or theologians to include gnostic works like the "gospel" of Thomas in the Bible.
                                    The Bible is not fallible, most people simply don't spend enough time studying it. But then, it does say that God will choose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and boy has He ever!

                                    replyreport
               2. 59

                  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Chris - what do you think is the reason?  Is it Thomas the Doubter or Thomas Aquinas?  (I think Aquinas came later - a catholic saint).  I'd like to hear what you think of the gospels? of Mary, Judas, Thomas.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     That they are all fundamentally at odds with the Synoptic Gospels and the writings of Paul. They put forth a gnostic vision of Jesus and God, where matter is bad and spirit is good, which disagrees with the Bible that holds that creation is inherently good, whether matter or spirit. It's what we do with it that corrupts matter.
                     They also hold that man is inherently good, which again is at odds with the Bible, which states in Jeremiah that the heart of man is desperately wicked and always tending toward sin.

                     replyreport
                  2. 61

                     Valerie Fposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     If I may, the Gnostic texts attributed or alleged to have anything to do with Mary, Judas, or Thomas are early examples of fan fiction- interesting to read perhaps, but completely lacking the veracity and even the quality of canon.
                     
                     Back on topic, no Catholic worships the pope. Not even your Catholic friends, Jane.

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        That's an interesting but thoroughly modern thing to say. Back in the 2nd century, "fan fiction" would have been a very costly and time consuming pursuit. It was more of an attempt to synchretize Christianity with Greek philosophy and Roman mystery religions.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Valerie Fposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Fan fiction back then was no more costly than making up any story and telling it to others. No doubt there were numerous stories circulating about Jesus around the time (much later than the canonical Gospels and the epistles) the Gnostic texts were written that were indeed pure fiction or contradicted canon.

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              True, as far as it goes, but it's still a modern interpretation. There just wasn't a lot of "fan fiction" back in those days.

                              replyreport
                        2. 0

                           Deborah Sextonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           _______________
                           
                           Greeks are Christian, they have no other religion

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Valerie Fposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Ancient Greeks weren't Christian....

                              replyreport
   2. 0

      andycoolposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "All Roman Catholics are Christians but all Christians are not Roman Catholics."
      
      Jokes apart, neither is more correct or incorrect. Only Jesus Christ is correct. But one has to understand the real need of embracing any religion in one's life. If one has a crystal clear idea why religion is required and in which form in one's life, there should not be any such confusion as mentioned in the topic by the OP.
      
      Merry Christmas!

      replyreport
   3. 58

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Neither are more correct or more incorrect because you have presented false premises within the comparison.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, surprisingly, he couched the question appropriately with statements like "I believe" and "through faith"
         
         He isn't arguing proof and evidence. 
         
         Responding with "its a fallacy" is just trolling.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            What? I merely pointed out he offered false premises within the comparison. How is that trolling? Sheesh.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               No, all you did was say the premises are false. You don't say why. From anyone else, I would thinkk it was a troll, but that's just the way you roll.

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh I see, the obvious false premises are not so obvious.
                  
                  Dave's claims of the Catholic Church interjecting teachings are no different than teachings that were interjected into Christianity.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     "Oh I see, the obvious false premises are not so obvious"
                     Glad to see you're finally catching on.
                     Of course, if you really were so much smarter than me you could, you know, actually teach instead of sneer.
                     That would be refreshing.

                     replyreport
   4. 61

      secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Seems like you've answered your own question.
      
      But the fact is, comparing Protestantism and Catholicism is like comparing Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster. Which is more correct?
      
      They both rely, fundamentally, on unprovable, unverifiable, fantastical claims that require blind faith.
      
      There is no way of telling who is right and who is wrong when reason and evidence do not apply. Anything goes.

      replyreport
   5. 59

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Having been both at different times, they both believe from the same book.  Catholics add those appointed sainthood posthumously and of course the pope who makes the laws governing Catholicism.  Otherwise, same religion not including the minor things (such as Church of Christ doesn't allow dancing)
      
      I'm pretty sure - but don't feel like looking it up - that believing Jesus is the son of god, the son of man, the way, the light, the word, the lamb, the messiah - is all tangled up with believing Jesus is god. Catholics are the only ones who name a trinity as The Trinity but the underlying text in OT points to Father, Son, Spirit as one and the same in both branches.
      
      The only requirement for all Christians (at least according to the Bible) is that no one gets to the father but through Jesus so one must believe he is the saviour.  Please don't make me look it up.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, I believe that the "requirement" for Christianity is having a belief system based on Biblical teachings included in the New Testament.
         
         On that note, Satanism is based off of Judeo-Christian beliefs.  Just saying.
         
         It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to argue which is wrong, as most religions actually agree on most things.  It's little quirks that cause all the issues and arguing about a 10 percent difference (or less) in beliefs sounds nitpicky to me.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yes.  I'm not actually promoting one or the other.  I based my comment for requirement on what I was taught in both schools of thought.  They say that you can do everything else right but if you don't believe Jesus is the messiah, you're out.  This is what they mean by getting to the father.

            replyreport
   6. 60

      lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There is a great deal which is misunderstood about the RC church. Much of the misunderstandings are in the visual elements which have evolved over a 2000 year period and are therefore submerged in a historical resonance which isn't always clear to the modern observer.
      Much of what we see are alot simpler than might appear, but everything has a very relevant and particular symbolism of its own, and in keeping with everything we know about scripture. Many people look at the opulence within some bigger churches and mistake it for an exhibition of power and might. The truth behind that tradition is simpler.
      
      Christianity became Catholic, or in other words, Universal, with the conversion of  Roman empire, which dominated 2 thirds of the world at that time. After Rome was Christianised, they converted their giant bathhouses and temples into the churches we now call Basilicas, because they were large enough fit the hundreds of people who could now worship without fear of execution. Constantine's mother Helen, the Empress of Rome, and therefore the worlds richest and most powerful woman also converted to Christianity. After doing so, she decided to pilgrimage around the world, visiting churches and decorating them with her gold and jewels which she no longer wanted, thus starting a tradition of churches being decorated in the same splendor. Her treasure went from being a source of power and status to being nothing more than untouchable beauty. The gold we see in churches is not currency either. It merely has visual appeal.
      
      The tradition of saints and angels is Biblical. Angels are mentioned, sometimes by name, numerous times in scripture. Saints are those, like the men and women chosen by Christ himself, whose faith, good works and sacrifices are an example for us to follow.
      
      Rosary beads are designed to aid meditation and prayer, as are the stations of the cross and statues, which give a focus towards prayer and humility. These are just a few elements which are beautiful when they are understood and imparted with love.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Excellent information.  Well done, you.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you.

            replyreport
2. 60

   LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago

   The Catholics of today teach an interpreted bible vs evangelicals teaching with a fundamental approach.
   
   The catholic method leads to a more pliable and adaptable version of Christianity, one that can include science.
   
   Fundamentalism, well, humans riding dinosaurs 5000 years ago. Need I say more?
   
   I'm not saying one is right over the other.
   One is just extremely ridiculous.

   replyreport
3. 75

   WriteAngledposted 12 years ago

   RCism is Christianity with the addition of a few theological-philosophical dogmatic extras and a lot of guilt.
   
   Mind you, having been brought up very traditional RC and then had brushes with evangelical fundamentalists, I do not think guilt is exclusive to RCism.

   replyreport
4. 57

   Arcjahadposted 12 years ago

   I was told by a Pastor than since I don't believe in the trinity that I wasn't a Christian , so I researched his comment and he is correct but I'm glad that I'm not a Christian because now I can read the bible and see the truth of the scriptures without all the made up crap that man has ruin the the scriptures with like the trinity, hell for humans and the secret rapture . The scriptures are absolutely beautiful when you read the pure word

   replyreport
   1. 59

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Please explain your view of the phenomenon of father, son, holy spirit as anything but a holy trinity? 
      
      Also, it's my understanding that the rapture is written in Revelation.  Is this not your view of it?

      replyreport
5. 57

   Jeramiposted 12 years ago

   We shouldn't ever forget that the R.C. church is the mother of all forms of organized religions which call themselves Christian.
   
   As the old saying goes, Like Mother like daughter. The same in many ways and different in others.
   
      The limbs of a tree look different than the trunk and is still one with the roots. Catholicism is the root system of Organized religion as it is today.
   
      At least; that is the way that I see it.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      cheaptrickposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I beg to differ.Your analogy of Christianity[with its many branches]having its"root"in Catholicism is incorrect.
      The thing is,a tree has many roots,Catholicism is the trunk of Christianity...but not the root or roots.
      The diversity of vastly different beliefs and writings after Christs death[if he was,in fact,a human and not a symbol for some metaphysical wave washing over humanity]would be the roots of Christianity.
      Out of hundreds of books and at least thirty established sects only 27 were chosen for what became the catholic church.I find that rather odd.
      
      "These are only a few of the things Christ said and did.If you put them all into books I suppose they would fill the whole world" 
      The end of the book of John
      ...what do you suppose he was telling us?We should search for the rest so we have a clear understanding?Was he speaking of such great volume because Christ symbolised this jump in human spiritual evolution?

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I didn't see this last night when I checked in for a few.
         
           You do have some good points in your reply of which I could agree.
         The key word in my statement above was ORGANIZED religion.
         
          
           The roots of our faith in God go all the way back to the beginning.
           The roots of organized religion (Christianity) as we know it today go back to 326AD.
           Faith in religion is one thing and faith in Jesus Christ is a another.
         
            I may not be expressing myself properly?
         
         
         Gotta run off for a while; again.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            cheaptrickposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Again,at the risk of incurring your wrath,I beg to differ.
            There were many large organised sects with their version of canonical works.
            It's an illusion to think that random scattered books circulated,then were drawn together to form the 326CE canonical bible[which,by the way,was and still is changed all the time]of the RC church.
            The 27 books selected had already been deemed canonical by the bishop of Alexandria two hundred years before.
            It's a fact that Constantine rammed the 27 through the council of Nicea which was a rubber stamp affair.The whole thing was for political expediency.
            The RC church hijacked Christianity and turned it into something entirely different to serve political ends.That move[along with the destruction of all other sects,cause now They had the power]effectively severed all"Roots"and allowed the RC to dictate what Christianity was.
            The protestant movement began,as most reformations do,as a purification when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door.
            The first thing on his list was:You don't need buildings or another person to worship,you need your direct relationship with God....it's curios that that is the core of Gnosticism[the early churches most dangerous competitors] as well.
            Look around and see what people have done with what he said.Huge churches,massive clergy,and Tithe,Tithe,Tithe.
            True Christianity can not be represented by that.If Christians really want to follow Christ they should live the way he did in every way,don't see much of that.
            Sorry about the length of this post.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Again,at the risk of incurring your wrath,I beg to differ.
               =====================
               
                 I have no wrath left in me ...   thank God it has all been spent!
               
               ====================================
               It's a fact that Constantine rammed the 27 through the council of Nicea which was a rubber stamp affair.The whole thing was for political expediency.
               ========================================
               
                 Then we agree ??
               ========================================================
               
               The RC church hijacked Christianity and turned it into something entirely different to serve political ends.That move[along with the destruction of all other sects,cause now They had the power]effectively severed all"Roots"and allowed the RC to dictate what Christianity was.
               ============================================================
               
               I agree,  Just as it was predicted by John in Rev. 13
               ============================================
               
               
               The protestant movement began,as most reformations do,as a purification when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door.
               The first thing on his list was:You don't need buildings or another person to worship,you need your direct relationship with God....it's curios that that is the core of Gnosticism[the early churches most dangerous competitors] as well.
               =====================================
               
               Exactly!  Just as John said that it would be! But the organization (catholisism) Killed all oposition. As it is written , and then told us to interpret scripture as we like. ?
               ======================================
               Look around and see what people have done with what he said.Huge churches,massive clergy,and Tithe,Tithe,Tithe.
               True Christianity can not be represented by that.If Christians really want to follow Christ they should live the way he did in every way,don't see much of that.
               Sorry about the length of this post.
               ========================================
               
                 Don't be sorry!   Just think about what you wrote.
               I couldn't have expressed it better myself.

               replyreport
6. 57

   Jeramiposted 12 years ago

   lizzieBoo, Dave Mathews;
   In my opinion; You both are absolutely correct.
   
     It is so easy to see the dogma that others posess.
   Kinda like dirt on the back side of our own knee caps.  It takes  lot of effort to see our own.
   
     The NT is but a very small percentage of that which ws being taught in the first half of the first century.
     Let us "assume" that everything which is written in the NT WAS true at that time, around 55 AD.
    
     Where I disgree with religion is concerning those things that happened after that time.
   
      Speciftclly the "Rapture"  and "second coming".
      People say that these could not have happened yet or it would be documented in history. And we would know it.  Really?
   
      During a time when  war is going on and 10s of thousands of Hebrew rebels are being hunted and killed, followed by Millions being relocated throught out the rest of the Roman Empire, that 144,000 individuals couldn't just vanish without everyone knowing about it??   Really ??
   
       What were the names of the Indians that died on the "Trail of Tears" and what was the exact number of them that laid on the side of the trail?
   
      As I have been saying for two years now! 
   We can NOT even begin to understand prophesy when we refuse to attempt to understand there being a timeline established that these prophesy are/were to be fulfilled.
      We can't even bake a biscut without having some kind of understand as to how much time must pass before we take them out of the oven.
   
      And prophesy is MUCH more complicated than baking biscuts!
    
      This is when and where organized religion fell off of the narrow path.
   
      I agree with the song that says "Jesus loves me this I know cause the bible tells me so" 
     But I do not agree with organized religions Interpretations of scripture.

   replyreport
7. 60

   bettybarnesbposted 12 years ago

   Hey Dave: I truly do not know a great deal about Roman Catholic beliefs. I can only comment by what the HOLY BIBLE tells us. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law of God and he didn't change any parts of the Old Testament. What he did was fulfill it. The entire Bible is written about Jesus; therefore, God will just the heart of mankind in "that day." I believe only God knows.
   
   Be blessed...

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Deborah Sextonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      _______________________
      
      The Old and New Testament was written about and contains only God, No one else

      replyreport
8. 60

   whoisbidposted 12 years ago

   Beliefs are not something that people claim with their mouths. What you do in your life and how you treat others is the word of your belief.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Good and excellent thought.  What we think about (or believe) becomes our philosophy and our philosophy is what dictates our lives.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Amen!

      replyreport
9. 61

   Jane@CMposted 12 years ago

   I did not know there was a Gospel of Mary and I was raised RC.  I have 4 different versions of the BIble & the Gospel of Mary is not in any of them.  Who wrote it & is it only in a Catholic Bible?

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Chris Nealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The Gospel of Mary is gnostic, so you won't find it in any Bible RC, Protestant or Eastern.
      
      No one knows who really wrote it. Most scholars agree it is from the 2nd century.

      replyreport
10. 61

    Jane@CMposted 12 years ago

    On Christianity vs. RC the one thing I see is that Christians do not worship any idols but the Lord God, many of my Catholic friends worship the pope.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       RC doctrine is not to worship the pope. He represents St. Peter, not God.

       replyreport
    2. 51

       tonka21posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       they don't worship the pope but they do reverence him

       replyreport
11. 51

    tonka21posted 12 years ago

    I was brought up catholic but I now consider myself a christian, the RC church is christain & does believe in all of Jesus Christ teachings but they also have alot of man made rules that I don't really believe in, I'm not saying their bad just not nessacary as a christian, I also believe it doesn't matter where you worship as long as your praying in your heart to the one true God you can be in any church or anywhere, anytime, anyplace

    replyreport
12. 50

    paarsurreyposted 12 years ago

    "Christianity" vs. "Roman Catholisism"
    
    Truthful Christianity of Jesus and Roman Catholicism are poles apart.

    replyreport
    1. 82

       Mark O Richardsonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       Christianity is very broad and there are various denominations. Roman Catholicism is one denomination and I feel that it has some truth.

       replyreport
       1. 75

          Castlepalomaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          There are 30000 christian denominations. Most Christains, are Catholic and you state they have some truth. The Bible says they are the Universal truth and knowledge.
          
          Pope Francis believes in the Big Bang, evolution, Aliens are our Saviors and Dogs go to heaven. I will go more with the Pope, he is less one-sided and diverse.

          replyreport