What religion am I?

irishconvert · 01-10-2010 10:41am

Festus wrote: »

Ok then do you think the death sentence for crime is wrong?

That has nothing to do with Islam.

I agree with the death sentence under certain conditions. If someone murders someone else then I agree with it. I think the concept is you take one life to save many others. Many murderers are repeat offenders so by allowing them to be released back into society you are putting more people at risk of being murdered.

Festus · 01-10-2010 11:01am

irishconvert wrote: »

I agree with the death sentence under certain conditions. If someone murders someone else then I agree with it. I think the concept is you take one life to save many others. Many murderers are repeat offenders so by allowing them to be released back into society you are putting more people at risk of being murdered.

Well I would disagree with that fundamentally.

Would you not agree that God as the creator and giver of life is the only person entitled to take life away?

Why do you think any human has the right to take the life of another (just war and self defense excepted) ?

Are there any particular forms of execution you prefer? While I disagree with capital punishment if someone is to be murdered under government instruction or permission my preference would be for firing squad.

irishconvert · 01-10-2010 11:11am

Festus wrote: »

Well I would disagree with that fundamentally.

Would you not agree that God as the creator and giver of life is the only person entitled to take life away?

I disagree. God has given us the right to take the life away of one in order to save the lives of others.

Take Larry Murray for example. Ok, I know he has not murdered but he was caught while trying to murder a woman. He is also suspected of murdering other women. He was released recently and people are very worried he will kill. Now if we assume he has murdered before, and he is released and kills again, should the person who decided to release him not be held responsible if he kills again?

Festus wrote: »

Why do you think any human has the right to take the life of another (just war and self defense excepted) ?

How come you are making an exception now, you just said you believe God is the only one who can take life? How do you define just war? Is the war in Afghanistan and Iraq just? Would an invasion of Iran be a just war?

Festus wrote: »

Are there any particular forms of execution you prefer?

Not really, however it should be a public execution. The reason for this is to act as a deterrant to others.

Festus wrote: »

While I disagree with capital punishment if someone is to be murdered under government instruction or permission my preference would be for firing squad.

Why firing squad?

Festus · 01-10-2010 11:39am

irishconvert wrote: »

I disagree. God has given us the right to take the life away of one in order to save the lives of others.

Where?

irishconvert wrote: »

Take Larry Murray for example. Ok, I know he has not murdered but he was caught while trying to murder a woman. He is also suspected of murdering other women. He was released recently and people are very worried he will kill. Now if we assume he has murdered before, and he is released and kills again, should the person who decided to release him not be held responsible if he kills again?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? If there is a case against him he should be arrested and tried before a jury of his peers. If found guilty he should be given a custodial sentence. If the risk warrants it teh key can be thrown away.

irishconvert wrote: »

How come you are making an exception now, you just said you believe God is the only one who can take life? How do you define just war? Is the war in Afghanistan and Iraq just? Would an invasion of Iran be a just war?

The exception to protect innocent life has always existed and is different to the pre-meditated taking of life through murder, execution or unjust war. The Catholic Church has it's definition of just war. While this is not great it is easy to read. This is better.

Going by these links then Afganistan and Iraq are not just. An invasion of Iran would not be just at the moment and pre-emptive actions are not just. There may be reasons in the future if the lives of innocents are being taken.

irishconvert wrote: »

Not really, however it should be a public execution. The reason for this is to act as a deterrant to others.

Has anyone measured the efficacy of this deterrence you speak of?

irishconvert wrote: »

Why firing squad?

Quick and relatively humane.

What's your preference?

antiskeptic · 01-10-2010 12:02pm

Festus wrote: »

Well I would disagree with that fundamentally.

Would you not agree that God as the creator and giver of life is the only person entitled to take life away?

Why do you think any human has the right to take the life of another (just war and self defense excepted) ?

Isn't that slippery ground? Who defines just? For if man able to define what's just, why is he not able to define the death penalty as just?

Are there any particular forms of execution you prefer? While I disagree with capital punishment if someone is to be murdered under government instruction or permission my preference would be for firing squad.

Personally, I'd leave the method to the person being executed.

antiskeptic · 01-10-2010 12:05pm

irishconvert wrote: »

Take Larry Murray for example. Ok, I know he has not murdered but he was caught while trying to murder a woman. He is also suspected of murdering other women. He was released recently and people are very worried he will kill. Now if we assume he has murdered before, and he is released and kills again, should the person who decided to release him not be held responsible if he kills again?

He hasn't killed anyone (that anyone know of) and although caught attempting to, might himself have stopped before completing the act. Which is short of the point at which you could begin to argue for a just death sentence.

Festus · 01-10-2010 12:08pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't that slippery ground? Who defines just? For if man able to define what's just, why is he not able to define the death penalty as just?

Not really. So far only the Catholic Church has defined "Just War" to my knowledge. If the Holy Spirit had a problem with that we would have heard by now.
The death penalty is not seen as just by Catholics.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Personally, I'd leave the method to the person being executed.

When I decided on the firing squad I was thinking of how I would prefer to be executed.

How would you prefer to be executed?

antiskeptic · 01-10-2010 12:15pm

Festus wrote: »

When I decided on the firing squad I was thinking of how I would prefer to be executed.How would you prefer to be executed?

Sky dive without a parachute. It'd be a hoot of a ride! And definitely painless (if avoiding skydiving over forests and other such relatively soft landings)

antiskeptic · 01-10-2010 12:18pm

Festus wrote: »

Not really. So far only the Catholic Church has defined "Just War" to my knowledge. If the Holy Spirit had a problem with that we would have heard by now.

Plenty of people have defined "just war". They partake of a war and call it just. The Holy Spirit hasn't made his opinion known in any of them (that we can tell)

gbee · 01-10-2010 12:22pm

d.anthony wrote: »

Yeah, big help there. Thanks.

Can anyone give me a less preachy answer?

This is why you don't ask Christians a question.

You are a free Christian, I admire Christ too, but the Catholic Church is in fact not Christ's church, it is the Holy Roman Catholic Church set up by the dying Western Roman Empire.

It's sole motivation was survival of its elite and the dominance of its revolting peoples and used the self imposed power of God to subdue rebels without having to have their own expensive army ~ and army that both revolted itself and was defeated.

Christ is a fair individual, he's a bit of crack and he enjoyed a good life too ~ most religions will have taken some aspect of his life and cemented them into unbending rules and liturgies.

You don't need any of that ~ a free Christian, or follower of Christ is where I'd put you.

Festus · 01-10-2010 12:31pm

gbee wrote: »

This is why you don't ask Christians a question.

You are a free Christian, I admire Christ too, but the Catholic Church is in fact not Christ's church, it is the Holy Roman Catholic Church set up by the dying Western Roman Empire.

Oops!

I'm a Christian and I want to be a member of the One True Church founded by Christ. Which one should I join if I choose to believe you and leave the Catholic Church?

JimiTime · 01-10-2010 12:32pm

gbee wrote: »

This is why you don't ask Christians a question.

Ok.

You are a free Christian, I admire Christ too, but the Catholic Church is in fact not Christ's church, it is the Holy Roman Catholic Church set up by the dying Western Roman Empire.

It's sole motivation was survival of its elite and the dominance of its revolting peoples and used the self imposed power of God to subdue rebels without having to have their own expensive army ~ and army that both revolted itself and was defeated.

Christ is a fair individual, he's a bit of crack and he enjoyed a good life too ~ most religions will have taken some aspect of his life and cemented them into unbending rules and liturgies.

You don't need any of that ~ a free Christian, or follower of Christ is where I'd put you.

Yeah, maybe you SHOULD ask Christians questions. Either that or stop talking sh!te about what you haven't a clue about.

gbee · 01-10-2010 12:42pm

Festus wrote: »

Oops! I'm a Christian and I want to be a member of the One True Church founded by Christ. Which one should I join if I choose to believe you and leave the Catholic Church?

Follow Mary Magdalene, she was given equal rights over Peter and in fact some say she was positioned as Peter's superior, much to Peter's annoyance.

Which is why Peter shoved her in a boat along with Christ's daughter and set her adrift ...

The Holy Roman Catholic Church was not founded by Peter, he did set up a church, and it was gaining a following which gave the Romans the idea, they effectively took his Church, gave it the name ROMAN Catholic and retrospectively installed Peter as its founder, Peter would be dead about 300 years by this time.

irishconvert · 01-10-2010 12:43pm

Festus wrote: »

Where?

The Qur'an

Festus wrote: »

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? If there is a case against him he should be arrested and tried before a jury of his peers. If found guilty he should be given a custodial sentence. If the risk warrants it teh key can be thrown away.

Ok, Larry Murphy is not a good example because as you say, he did not actually kill (or it has not been proved). But if you take a similar person who has killed, and was likely to kill in the future, I believe they should be executed.

Festus wrote: »

The exception to protect innocent life has always existed and is different to the pre-meditated taking of life through murder, execution or unjust war. The Catholic Church has it's definition of just war. While this is not great it is easy to read. This is better.

Going by these links then Afganistan and Iraq are not just. An invasion of Iran would not be just at the moment and pre-emptive actions are not just. There may be reasons in the future if the lives of innocents are being taken.

And it is not God who defined what is a just war, it was a man, is that correct?

Festus wrote: »

Has anyone measured the efficacy of this deterrence you speak of?

Not sure about that but i am speaking from my experience. I think I would be much less likely to commit a crime if I was aware of a severe punishment and had seen it carried out.

Festus wrote: »

Quick and relatively humane.

What's your preference?

Letheal injection would be my personal preference.

irishconvert · 01-10-2010 12:44pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

He hasn't killed anyone (that anyone know of) and although caught attempting to, might himself have stopped before completing the act. Which is short of the point at which you could begin to argue for a just death sentence.

I agree, Larry Murphy was a bad example. Consider someone else who has murdered many people. I believe they should be executed.

Festus · 01-10-2010 12:58pm

gbee wrote: »

Follow Mary Magdalene, she was given equal rights over Peter and in fact some say she was positioned as Peter's superior, much to Peter's annoyance.

Which is why Peter shoved her in a boat along with Christ's daughter and set her adrift ...

The Holy Roman Catholic Church was not founded by Peter, he did set up a church, and it was gaining a following which gave the Romans the idea, they effectively took his Church, gave it the name ROMAN Catholic and retrospectively installed Peter as its founder, Peter would be dead about 300 years by this time.

Would you care to answer the question I asked?

Seaneh · 01-10-2010 12:58pm

gbee wrote: »

Follow Mary Magdalene, she was given equal rights over Peter and in fact some say she was positioned as Peter's superior, much to Peter's annoyance.

Which is why Peter shoved her in a boat along with Christ's daughter and set her adrift ...

The Holy Roman Catholic Church was not founded by Peter, he did set up a church, and it was gaining a following which gave the Romans the idea, they effectively took his Church, gave it the name ROMAN Catholic and retrospectively installed Peter as its founder, Peter would be dead about 300 years by this time.

Wanna show us a Biblical basis for these claims?
You really should stop reading Dan Browne books.

Festus · 01-10-2010 12:59pm

irishconvert wrote: »

I agree, Larry Murphy was a bad example. Consider someone else who has murdered many people. I believe they should be executed.

Osama Bin Laden?

antiskeptic · 01-10-2010 1:34pm

irishconvert wrote: »

I agree, Larry Murphy was a bad example. Consider someone else who has murdered many people. I believe they should be executed.

Fortunately, as a Christian I've the luxury of locking them up for the rest of their lives and sidestepping the responsibility of killing them. Either God will extract fullest vengence or he'll do precisely the same as he did with me: forgive all my sin.

In God's eyes, I too was guilty of murder.

antiskeptic · 01-10-2010 1:35pm

irishconvert wrote: »

Lethal injection would be my personal preference.

Preferably kicked off with a decent dose of heroin. Drugswise I understand it to be King.

Festus · 01-10-2010 1:37pm

irishconvert wrote: »

The Qur'an

Well, it would, wouldn't it

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok, Larry Murphy is not a good example because as you say, he did not actually kill (or it has not been proved). But if you take a similar person who has killed, and was likely to kill in the future, I believe they should be executed.

A person who has been proven beyond any doubt to be a murderer is one thing. Proving they are likely to kill in the future is an entirely different matter.
Should people be executed for thought crime?

irishconvert wrote: »

And it is not God who defined what is a just war, it was a man, is that correct?

That would be incorrect - see my previous post

irishconvert wrote: »

Not sure about that but i am speaking from my experience. I think I would be much less likely to commit a crime if I was aware of a severe punishment and had seen it carried out.

What of a crime of passion? You are so overcome with anger and vengence that you are prepared to murder.
None of us knows the future and none of us can say for certain how we might react in certain circumstances. In Gethsemany the Apostles carried swords and used them. Thankfully only an ear but it could have been worse.

irishconvert wrote: »

Letheal injection would be my personal preference.

Perhaps you should consider this. It is not always clean or painless or swift

Festus · 01-10-2010 1:40pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Preferably kicked off with a decent dose of heroin. Drugswise I understand it to be King.

You'ld want to smoke it. Some of the technicians administering the injections don't know what a vein is or where to find them. Best take enough to knock you rself out for a few hours if not overdose just ot be on the safe side

irishconvert · 01-10-2010 2:37pm

Festus wrote: »

Osama Bin Laden?

If you can prove he murdered or is responsible for the murder of anybody, of course. Why would he be exempt?

irishconvert · 01-10-2010 2:40pm

Festus wrote: »

Well, it would, wouldn't it

Hmmm.

Festus wrote: »

A person who has been proven beyond any doubt to be a murderer is one thing. Proving they are likely to kill in the future is an entirely different matter.
Should people be executed for thought crime?

Ok, let me clarify, the execution should only be applied to people convicted of murder.

Festus wrote: »

What of a crime of passion? You are so overcome with anger and vengence that you are prepared to murder.
None of us knows the future and none of us can say for certain how we might react in certain circumstances. In Gethsemany the Apostles carried swords and used them. Thankfully only an ear but it could have been worse.

Murder is murder.

Festus wrote: »

Perhaps you should consider this. It is not always clean or painless or swift

Link not working.

PDN · 01-10-2010 2:46pm

Moderating Note

Let's keep it on topic please guys.

Address the OP's concerns if you want - but this forum is not the place for Muslims to start picking "My religion is better than yours" willy-waving contests. I would also ask Christian posters not to respond to this kind of low-level trolling as it only messes up what could be intertesting threads.

georgieporgy · 01-10-2010 6:34pm

d.anthony wrote: »

Hi guys, quick question really.

I was born and raised Catholic but as I've grown (I'm 23 now) I've really started to disagree with bits of it. For example I don't believe God will be angry if I have sex before marriage, use a condom, not go to mass every week, etc. I guess I've become disillusioned with it.

My idea of religion now, is that just I believe in Jesus and God but don't agree with the rules or a lot of the beliefs of the Catholic church.

So, my question is, what is my religion? I don't know how to define it.

Thanks.

I've read most but not all of the thread so apologies if I am repeating;

Anthony, if you want to be accurate,you are a lapsed catholic.

Like a lot of others you have come to the conclusion that sin is not sin. This generally leads to a complete loss of Faith over time as you get used to living your new life. Once you live steadily in a state of sin it doesn't take too long to think up arguments to justify the situation. If you were attracted to another religion in the future and joined that one, you could then use that label.

irishmotorist · 02-10-2010 1:21am

Festus wrote: »

Ok then do you think the death sentence for crime is wrong?

IMO, death sentence is wrong. Both from the religious/moral point of view and also the everyday "realistic" point of view. N.B - "realistic" is in no way meant to be offensive or dis-regarding. Hopefully the explanation below will explain this.

Religiously/morally - no man should take the life of another. OK, Man A took a life - taking another (Man A's) does not make the original crime right or OK.

Everyday/realistic - Birmingham 6/Guildford 4 are examples. Decisions on sentences are made by man, based on evidence produced by man. Man makes mistakes (accidental or otherwise). Man has made mistakes. Killing somebody is not a mistake that can be made.

Edit - apologies if I've strayed back off topic.

Festus · 02-10-2010 8:27pm

Real Catholic TV are doing a series of The Vortex especially for those who would fall under the "lapsed Catholic" or "born and raised a Catholic but prefer a life of immorality however still want to believe in Christ" banners.

http://www.realcatholictv.com/free/index.php?vidID=vort-2010-10-01

gbee · 02-10-2010 8:41pm

Festus wrote: »

under the "lapsed Catholic" or "born and raised a Catholic but prefer a life of immorality however still want to believe in Christ" banners.

I take objection to this statement. Just because I want to live OUTSIDE as a lapsed or other Catholic, it does NOT give YOU or the programmes writer the right to call me immoral.

I left so I could ENJOY sex without feeing guilty.

bad2dabone · 02-10-2010 9:02pm

So Festus, what you're saying is if you want to be called a Christian you must follow all of Christs teachings, and all the teachings of the Bible even the ones you don't like?
Fair enough.

Its a bit like Sunday dinner. You have to eat it all, even the brussel sprouts and the fatty bits if you want to get your jelly and ice cream for desert.

There are very few people who can call themselves true Christians in Ireland i think.

Festus · 02-10-2010 10:11pm

gbee wrote: »

I take objection to this statement. Just because I want to live OUTSIDE as a lapsed or other Catholic, it does NOT give YOU or the programmes writer the right to call me immoral.

So me where I or the programmers called YOU immoral?

gbee wrote: »

I left so I could ENJOY sex without feeing guilty.

Funny thing that. I came back from being lapsed so I could enjoy sex without feeling guilty

Festus · 02-10-2010 10:18pm

bad2dabone wrote: »

So Festus, what you're saying is if you want to be called a Christian you must follow all of Christs teachings, and all the teachings of the Bible even the ones you don't like?
Fair enough.

Its a bit like Sunday dinner. You have to eat it all, even the brussel sprouts and the fatty bits if you want to get your jelly and ice cream for desert.

There are very few people who can call themselves true Christians in Ireland i think.

No, not saying that at all. Anyone who claims to follow Christ, are baptised and have given up sin can call themselves Christian.
Those who follow most of Christs teachings can call themselves Christian.
Those who try to follow all of Christs teachings, even the ones they don't like probably fall into the Catholic category.
Those who fall in to the latter category know that if they fail they can return to a state of grace through confession and have anotehr go at being a better Christian.

The goal here is heaven and to get into heaven the requirement is to follow all of Christs teachings, not just the bits you like.
We all have crosses to bear - that might be having to deal with some of Christs teachings which you don't like.

gbee · 02-10-2010 10:49pm

Festus wrote: »

We all have crosses to bear - .

Please speak for yourself now. It is a stupid and illogical statement to say we all, most of us don't know about crosses until someone like you says we have to have them.

I have no cross to bear.

Fanny Cradock · 02-10-2010 11:51pm

bad2dabone wrote: »

Its a bit like Sunday dinner. You have to eat it all, even the brussel sprouts and the fatty bits if you want to get your jelly and ice cream for desert.

There are very few people who can call themselves true Christians in Ireland i think.

This is exactly the type of understanding I would hope to discourage. Forget the idea that God handed down a bunch of arbitrary laws, and that by meticulously keeping them - even the ones we find nasty - we hope to get a tread and maybe avoid an awful fate.

The whole point of Christianity is that Torah - the teachings and instructions given in the first 5 books of the (Hebrew) Bible - and all of God's interactions with the Israelites were pointing towards the coming of the Messiah, and that through him, and not by keeping theses laws of Moses, we receive the gift of salvation as an act of pure grace.

This is not to say that there are no demands placed upon the believer - there are many. The two most important commandments for all Christians are given by Jesus in Matthew 22:34-39 - "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself".

Other demands will flow from this foundation, of course, and consequently you might have noticed that some Christians spend an awful lot of time discussing and arguing exactly where the the boundaries of those demands lie. However, all of this is not to be confused with the very basic commands given in Matt 22, which I suggest are about entering into relationship with a loving creator, and not about obeying rules given to a specific people at a certain time in history.

Fanny Cradock · 02-10-2010 11:52pm

Festus wrote: »

The goal here is heaven and to get into heaven the requirement is to follow all of Christs teachings, not just the bits you like.

I disagree on many counts.

antiskeptic · 03-10-2010 1:21pm

Festus wrote: »

Anyone who claims to follow Christ, are baptised and have given up sin can call themselves Christian.

Since there is no one who has given up sin there is no one in this particular category. If any man says he is without sin then he is a liar.

Those who follow most of Christs teachings can call themselves Christian.

Could you put a figure on 'most' and which of that most are vital. I'm thinking Mormons and Jehovahs Witness' will follow most of Christs teaching. I'm sure there are even atheists who'll follow many of Christs teaching.

Those who try to follow all of Christs teachings, even the ones they don't like probably fall into the Catholic category.

I try to follow all of Christs teaching but there are none I don't like - which means I'm not a Catholic

Those who fall in to the latter category know that if they fail they can return to a state of grace through confession and have another go at being a better Christian.

n/a to me so.

The goal here is heaven and to get into heaven the requirement is to follow all of Christs teachings, not just the bits you like.

There are many Catholics who deny that R.Catholicism is a works based religion. You seem to be clearly underscoring the fact that it is.

Mr.David · 04-10-2010 12:24am

Festus wrote: »

The goal here is heaven and to get into heaven the requirement is to follow all of Christs teachings, not just the bits you like.

The requirement isn't to follow all of Christ's teachings. The requirement is to know Jesus, to have a relationship with Jesus and to give your life for him.

It's not about what you do/don't do, its about loving Jesus and once you do that the rest will follow.

OP: Regarding your comment about using a condom, that is a Catholic belief not a Christian belief. Many Christians would condone the use of contraception.

Fanny Cradock · 05-10-2010 6:10pm

No cross forum discussion, please.

ISAW · 06-10-2010 4:49pm

Mr.David wrote: »

T

OP: Regarding your comment about using a condom, that is a Catholic belief not a Christian belief. Many Christians would condone the use of contraception.

So would the Pope. the issue isn't about just contraception. The MAIN media issue is about preventing AIDS spreading. If one of a couple has HIV the Church as far as I know is not opposed to condom use. Their main opposition is to extra marital sex. POarticular non monogamous relationships. So called "Safe sex" i.e. for a one night stand with a stranger is opposed even if no condom is involved and condoms are used as a reason to allow something the church would be opposed to anyway.

prinz · 07-10-2010 7:36pm

ISAW wrote: »

So would the Pope. the issue isn't about just contraception. The MAIN media issue is about preventing AIDS spreading. If one of a couple has HIV the Church as far as I know is not opposed to condom use. Their main opposition is to extra marital sex..

AFAIK the Pope hasn't come out one way or the other on marital condom use where one spouse is infected, but several high ranking folk (cardinals IIRC) have condoned it in those circumstances.

ISAW · 07-10-2010 8:06pm

prinz wrote: »

AFAIK the Pope hasn't come out one way or the other on marital condom use where one spouse is infected, but several high ranking folk (cardinals IIRC) have condoned it in those circumstances.

Fair enough ill stand corrected on that. The point is it is a Vatican position that condoms are not evil per se but that sex with multiple partners or sex outside of the sanctity of marriage is abusing the whole point of sex which is to encourage families. That is also not to say that the Vatican believe sex can only be in order to get pregnant. they don't hold that position either.

lmaopml · 07-10-2010 11:59pm

d.anthony wrote: »

Hi guys, quick question really.

I was born and raised Catholic but as I've grown (I'm 23 now) I've really started to disagree with bits of it. For example I don't believe God will be angry if I have sex before marriage, use a condom, not go to mass every week, etc. I guess I've become disillusioned with it.

My idea of religion now, is that just I believe in Jesus and God but don't agree with the rules or a lot of the beliefs of the Catholic church.

So, my question is, what is my religion? I don't know how to define it.

Thanks.

d.anthony, I hope you know where you stand after the discussions.. I don't think anybody can tell you or explain to you exactly what 'category' of Christian you fit into; only you can know that......perhaps you already know to an extent what you want or don't want, reject or accept? Perhaps you want confirmation in some ways of those things...I don't know..

That doesn't negate truth though..., and I think the most important quest is for truth, so long as we do our best at that..

Anyways, some don't like d 'rules' of the Catholic church, and some see a lot of sense in them and a beautiful continuity and something unchangeable....

I have no idea about a lot of things, but I am a Catholic. Does that mean that I think I'm the most superdedooper christian or person ever? certainly not! I have no idea, I'm just a human being finding the way, and there are fabulous people who post on here who come from every denomination for sure....

What it means to me is something far more than whether the 'rules' fit in with me...

Anyway, people will say we're working our way, others will disagree...and yet nobody actually knows ones personal faith.....sooo..

..if I were you I would weigh how important your question is to you, and then go and find out for myself the if, buts, whys and and's...

Don't let anybody tell you, find out for yourself and use every resource if you are really interested.

Very best of luck.

What religion am I?

Comments