I describe myself as an Evangelical Anglo Catholic. I am also somewhat on the Charismatic side, believing in the gifts of the spirit. To explain this hybrid belief structure let me put it this way - I am catholic in that the sacraments are integral to my faith, especially the Eucharist where we experience the true presence of Jesus among us, and I accept the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. I am evangelical in that I am passionate about the importance of scripture and the study of God's Word, and about spreading the news about the gift of salvation as far and wide as I can. I am Charismatic in that I accept that the gifts of the spirit are alive in the Church, including tongues and prophesy - though I don't accept the widely held view among the charismatic movement that Tongues are always the first sign of receiving the Holy Spirit.
The missing link !!
This is of no consequence to me as I learnt to accept that faith and science have nothing to fear from each other!14 AnswersReligion & Spirituality1 decade ago
what gives the Roman Catholic Church any more claim to the title "The Church Jesus founded" than the ?
Eastern Orthodox, or Anglican Traditions? All three have an unbroken line of Apostolic succession, and all three have mainteained the three fold ministry of Bishop, Priest and Deacon.
Before anyone mentions it, Yes I know that the RCC disputes the validity of Anglican orders on the basis that there is no reference to the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist - However, if this invalidates Anglican orders it also invalidates Roman Catholic orders as the earliest ordination rites also omitted reference to sacrifice.11 AnswersReligion & Spirituality1 decade ago
why is it that the US in particular and western countries in general refuse to give genuine financial aide to ?
poorer nations, but when banks start to fail they are prepared to throw a trillion dollars at it? Is this just another example of the growing greed and self centredness that is infesting western society?
In her interview Ms Palin didn't rule out war with Russia and referred to the recent conflict in Georgia as something that Russia did unprovoked... Now even the most uneducated or biased people know that it was Georgia - not Russia - that started the conflict by entering South Ossetia and killing Russian peace keaping troops and civilians.10 AnswersPolitics1 decade ago
How is it that the United States administration can condemn Russia for invading another nations sovereign territory, while they are doing the same thing in Pakistan?
I know there will be people saying its a different situation, but the fact of the matter is that Pakistan (an allie of the US) has refused permission for US forces to conduct operations inside its border -ignoring that order from the Pakistani government and conducting military assaults inside Pakistan is tantamount to invasion.
Instead of making threatening and pointless tirades about 'evil' Russia why doesn't the US administration?
actually sit down and have a descent diplomatic conversation with the Russians over the whole Georgian debacle? Why is it left to the French and the EU to negotiate a Russian withdrawel while the Bush administration continues to do nothing but bad mouth the Russians?
When you study the facts Georgia has no-one to blame for the Russian incursion But themselves - It was the Georgian military that fired the first shots - killing several Russian peace keepers as well as civilians. Russia responds and all of a sudden they are made out to be the aggressor?
I bought a GPS unit recently with Route 66 Maps. I tried it out on the weekend, and it was WAY off! I told it I wanted the fastest route from point A to point B and it told me that it was going to be a 845km trip. I ignored its advice and took the roads I usually do and the trip was only 457km. I know that the longer route can sometimes be faster, but not when its 400km longer!!
How could it get this so wrong? Should I return it and demand a refund, or should I just upgrade to better maps?2 AnswersOther - Electronics1 decade ago
For protestants. When were the books of the Bible decided to be scripture, who made the decision, and how many books did they declare to be the word of God?11 AnswersReligion & Spirituality1 decade ago
By refusing to accept anything but the Bible as the revelation of God, and declaring you can't be saved unless you believe in the Bible alone, are fundamentalist sola scriptura adherants actually turning the Bible into an Idol?
It seems that way to me. How often do we hear these people say 'the answer is in the Bible', or 'turn to the bible' instead of 'turn to God' and 'the answer is Christ'.14 AnswersReligion & Spirituality1 decade ago
I am currently running a Celeron D 2.6Ghz processor in a LGA 775 socket, can I upgrade to a core 2 Duo without upgrading my motherboard?4 AnswersOther - Hardware1 decade ago
Why do atheists assume all Christians are anti science, believe in a young earth and interpret every other story in the Bible as a literal account. All it means to be a Christian is that you believe in and follow Jesus Christ. I personally accept scientific explanations for how we arrived here. The Bible is not and was never intended to be a scientific text book.34 AnswersReligion & Spirituality1 decade ago
For Atheistic Big Bang Adherants, how do you explain from a scientific view point how the universe and time?
itself created themselves from nothing, without an external cause (God). For if time itself didn't exist prior to the Big Bang, wouldnt that require somthing existing outside of time to initiate things? If not, doesn't that contradict science which tells us nothing can be in motion, unless something first puts it in motion?20 AnswersReligion & Spirituality1 decade ago