God’s Army: the Truth about Angels

Picture an angel, right now.

Okay, you saw two wings and a halo, right? Perhaps a white robe? Some glowing light?

Where does that mental picture come from? Maybe from a painting you’ve seen, or possibly a movie. Do you know that Scripture doesn’t always depict an angel as having two wings? We see six-winged and four-winged angels even more than angels with just two (Isaiah 6:2, 6; Ezekiel 1:6; Revelation 4:8). We see angels adorned in white and in light, but truthfully, our perception of angels often comes more from the depictions we’ve seen in art or film than from the word of God.

The Annunciation by Henry Ossawa Tanner 1896

People have always had a fascination with angels. Whether in paintings or on television, artists still offer various and varying interpretations regarding angels – what they look like, and how they behave. Some people even think (or “hope”) we will become angels after we die. To be clear, we will not. We can become saints, but not angels. It is important to state that even more emphatically in this modern culture when people so quickly blur the line between tradition, legend, myth, cliché and amalgamations therein. Many “post-moderns,” too, outright dismiss angels and all else “unseen” as untrustworthy, relegating the spiritual life to little more than that which occurs upon a yoga mat.

To be clear, angels absolutely exist. Our Lord Jesus, Himself, attested to this fact repeatedly throughout the Gospels.

A Catholic, Biblical View of Angels

The name “angel” comes via ecclesiastical Latin, from the Greek word angelos or the Hebrew word malakh, both meaning “messenger.” Angels are pure spirit, in other words, they have no physical bodies. Angels do, however, take on human form sometimes, as clarified by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, and as you can read more about in the book of Tobit, for instance.

I find it helpful to go back to the Bible as our obvious primary source to get a more accurate picture of what angels are, what they do, and the purposes they serve. Let’s look at just two of the hundreds of passages in which Sacred Scripture attests to the presence – and activity – of angels:

Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place which I have prepared. Give heed to him and hearken to his voice, do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him. “But if you hearken attentively to his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. “When my angel goes before you … and I blot them out. (Exodus 23:20-23)

Here’s another:

God’s faithfulness is a protecting shield. You shall not fear the terror of the night nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that roams in darkness, nor the plague that ravages at noon. For God commands the angels to guard you in all your ways. With their hands they shall support you, lest you strike your foot against a stone. (Psalm 91:4-6, 11-12)

Now, too often we think of angels, who are heavenly bodies, in earthly, bodily terms. They are not human and therefore not bound by human constraints. They exist to do the will of God, to be His messengers, guides, and defenders – of us and of truth. It’s important, though, to remember that they are not to be worshipped (Revelation 19:10; 22:9); they exist for the sole purpose of praising God and carrying out His will.

Angelic Job Descriptions

One of the areas in which people seem supremely “confused” in their theology of angels is in regards to their purpose. Many people are unsure about the differences between the types of angels, the roles they play, and what makes them different.

It was in about the fifth century or so (most believe) that these different “ranks” of angels or “choirs” of heavenly angelic hierarchy was established. The choirs of angels are as follows:

  • Seraphim
  • Cherubim
  • Thrones
  • Dominions
  • Virtues
  • Powers
  • Principalities
  • Archangels
  • Angels

Of the nine choirs each has different functions:

  • Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones are dedicated to the contemplation of God.
  • Dominions, Virtues, and Powers govern the universe in its totality.
  • Principalities, archangels, and angels are dedicated as God’s messengers.

(You can read more about them in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 327-336.)

The Big Three

Obviously, the three most famous angels (besides Satan, the fallen angel) are Sts. Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. You can read more about each:

St. Michael – Daniel 10: 13, 21; 
Daniel 12:1;
 Jude 1:9;
 Revelation 12:7

St. Gabriel – Daniel 8:16, Daniel 9:21, Luke 1:19, Luke 1:26

St. Raphael – Tobit 5 – 13

It’s interesting to note that names “matter” even to angelic beings without matter. The name “Lucifer,” for instance, means “light bringer” echoing his obvious, prideful desire to be seen in comparison to the true Light, God Himself. Not ironically, however, we see that the name of God’s great warrior “Michael” means, “who is like God?” … a humble and enduring testament to the true source of life and grace.

Additionally, (for those keeping score at home) Gabriel means “God is my strength” and Raphael means “God has healed.” These are but three of the archangels, each one yielding tremendous power, and worthy of an invitation to intercession.

I know that, personally speaking, the St. Michael Prayer has become commonplace within our home and within my daily life. Several times throughout the course of my day, I utter that prayer of protection, bidding St. Michael and his legion of angels to accompany me, or my family, through treacherous situations.

If you don’t know it by heart, commit it to memory:

St. Michael Prayer

St. Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do thou,
O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan,
and all the evil spirits,
who prowl about the world
seeking the ruin of souls.

God’s Army of Light

As you’ve most likely read or learned in your own ongoing studies, angels have played (and continue to play) significant roles in God’s plan of salvation.

Think about it:

  • Angels came to Sodom and warned Lot (Genesis 19).
  • An angel stopped Abraham before he killed his son, Isaac (Genesis 22:12).
  • An angel “wrestled” with Jacob (Genesis 32).
  • An angel appeared to Moses out of the midst of the burning bush (Exodus 3:2).
  • An angel “passed over” Egypt, allowing for Moses and the Jews to escape (Exodus 12:11-27).
  • An angel called Gideon to form an army (Judges 6).
  • An angel brought miraculous news to the (soon to be) mother of Samson (Judges 13).
  • An angel announced God’s hope and plan to the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:26-38).
  • An angel calmed Joseph’s fears about taking Mary as his wife (Matthew 1:18-25).
  • An angel was at the empty tomb, announcing Jesus’ resurrection (Matthew 28:2-7).
  • Angels were responsible for Peter’s divinely-inspired “jailbreaks” (Acts 5, 12).
  • An angel, St. Michael, and his army are waging war for your soul (Revelation 12:7-9).

These are just to name a very few. What do all of these instances have in common? God used His angels to aid in the rescue of His children. Angels are a primary way in which He is constantly delivering us from evil. Angels proclaim the greatness of God, echoing the good news of salvation in the heavens and throughout the earth. Though “higher” than us spiritually, they serve God in their actions toward us. In fact, God loves us so much that He actually “assigns” a guardian angel to each one of us.

Guardian Angels

The Old Testament attests to guardian angels repeatedly (Genesis 48:16, Psalm 34:7; 91:11; Tobit 12:12-15). These guardian angels enjoy constant and intimate “access” to our Father in Heaven. Our Lord, Jesus, gave us tremendous insight into our guardian angels in Matthew 18:10, saying, “See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.”

Note that while our guardian angels are fully “present” to us, they are also completely present to and beholding the face of our heavenly Father (Tweet this). Talk about divinely-inspired GPS, always pointing us back to heaven! This is an unfathomable gift, should we choose to humble ourselves and follow God’s promptings.

Our Church even established a feast day (Oct. 2) to serve as a memorial and celebration even in honor of guardian angels. Nightly, I (as I’m sure many of you do) invoke the Guardian Angel prayer with my own kids as we end our bedtime prayers.

As St. Angela Merici said, “Remember that the devil doesn’t sleep, but seeks our ruin in a thousand ways.” Just because we go to sleep, doesn’t mean the devil rests or stops trying to pull us away from Jesus. As a fallen angel, the devil does not necessitate sleep… on the bright side, our guardian angels don’t need sleep either. There could be no better reminder to our next generation of both the gift and need for our guardian angels – for God would not have given them to us if we did not need them.

Guardian Angel Prayer

Oh angel of God, my guardian dear
To whom God’s love commits me here
Ever this night be at my side
To light and to guard, to rule and to guide.
Amen

Take a minute now to thank God for the gift of your guardian angel and invite that angel to pray with you. Think of them as a sort of heavenly police force; guardian angels protect and serve. They protect (us) and serve (God), but they don’t eat donuts – just to be clear.

It’s impossible to do justice to all we could cover on angels in just one blog post. The more we become aware of the movement of angels around us, however, the more we’ll believe in God’s active presence in our lives.

For more on angels, see:

  • Genesis 18:1-10, 22:11-12 and 24:20
  • Judges 13:21-25
  • Psalm 29:1, 91:9-12 and 104:4
  • Daniel 6:22 and 9:20-21
  • Matthew 4:6, 11 and 13:41-42
  • Luke 1:5-38 and 15:10
  • Acts 5:17-20 12:11, 15
  • 2 Corinthians 11:14-15
  • Hebrews 1:4-8 and 13:2
  • Jude 6
  • Revelation 1:1, 3:5, 5:11-12, 12:7-12, 18:1, 19:10 and 20:1-3

And be sure to check out the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, most specifically the Summa Theologica, in which he devotes substantial space to the reality of angels, their abilities, “limitations,” and purpose.

What are your thoughts? Have you ever experienced the presence of your guardian angel, or any other angel, in your life? If so, in what way?

 

You May Also Like …

Comfortably Uncomfortable: The Challenge of Evangelization

Four Sides of the Same Coin: When the Gospels Disagree

Texting Was God’s Idea: The Bible and Modern Teens


 

Mark Hart

Mark Hart serves as Executive Vice President for Life Teen International. A graduate of the University of Notre Dame and a twenty-year veteran of youth ministry, Mark is a best-selling and award-winning author (or co-author) of over a dozen books and one of the most sought-after speakers serving in the Catholic Church, today. Mark hosts his own weekly satellite radio show, “Fired Up!”, for The Catholic Channel, Sirius XM 129 and is a Research Fellow for the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. Additionally, his weekly audio podcast (Sunday, Sunday, Sunday) and HD video spots (Beyond Words) are helping youth groups, families and classrooms in over two dozen countries enter more deeply into the Sunday Mass readings. Mark’s humor and his passion for Scripture —as experienced in his DVD Bible Study Series, “T3” and “Encounter” — are helping hundreds of thousands of Catholics, young and old, begin to read and study the Bible in engaging and relevant ways. Mark and his wife, Melanie, and their children live in Phoenix, Arizona.

Follow on Twitter Like on Facebook

  • Wayne Jaeschke

    The nations that condone homosexuality will be destroyed utterly by Jehovah, our Lord in Heaven unless they change their ways as there is no other way. Also as Jehovah through Jesus Christ loves us all and wishes all to be saved and wishes us to love our enemies, then if Lucifer and his Demons are our enemies then should we not love them also as Jehovah commands us to do so. There can be no other way don’t you think or does someone else know better?

  • Maureen Green

    Thank you. It answered my question, why did Jesus say he could call Legions of Angels, if they are spirit? How would they get anything done? If the source that they can take on human form is Aquinas, I’m satisfied. It’s the only answer that makes sense. Great post!

  • Kkr

    Hi, I was in an head on collusion last week. My son was in the car with me. We both suffered injuries, but survived this accident. I know that my and my son’s guardian angels with us that day. Bad things happen to Christians, too. But it’s to glorify and praise God in all situations in our lives.
    Here’s the story on how my guardian angel came to my mom:
    My mom said: An hour before my accident, an old woman the age of my grandmother gave her a little blue angel praying glued on a popsicle stick made into a cross. She said to my mom: I would like to give this to you.
    She gave me the angel on Sunday.
    I cried because I knew God and my guardian angel was there.

  • Christo Chiramukhathu

    Our first priority is praising and praying to God, not to angels. It God who sends angels to us.

  • Meddi

    Where did u get this from? And why did you write and explained it just like this: Okay, you saw two wings and a halo, right? Perhaps a white robe? Some glowing light? 🙂

  • Meddi

    Hey!

  • Solange bach

    I have in angel with in me .!
    Lift me of my feet.
    I Dint understand in beginning, all i know i should of ben in church . My name is solange bach im in Phoenix az ..
    I went to mormon church but they lef it me …

  • Jason Vincent

    How can I smell the Fragrance applied to mostly Angels of light (all of us at death)… then pick up a camera and see an Angel of Light standing there since my eyes cannot see them directly?

    Why does every bar of soap I pick up to wash my body, smell of a multi world region of specific ingredients from around the world (Eucalyptus canes from Egypt, Myrrh from Syria, light cinnamon…)?

    How come I have said the the same 5 Catholic Prayers…near lightly for over 35 years…the last being the Angel of God Prayer…Warrior Arch Angel Micheal IS THE ANGEL OF GOD #1…HOW COME WARRIOR ANGEL ARCH ANGEL TOOK MY HAND OVER AND GIFTED ME A WARRIOR ANGEL UNIFORM METALLICA SHIRT?

    TO INFORM OF MY ETERNAL ROLE FOR GOD PERHAPS…WARRIOR ANGEL…TO HONORABLY CARRY THE WRATH OF GOD…CARRY CARRY GOD’S WRATH.

    WHY DID I PRAY ALONE IN SILENCE…GOD SINCE I AM ABLE TO SMELL THE ANGELS OF LIGHT…BUT NOT SEE THEM…EVEN CAMERA CANNOT IDENTIFY AN ACTUAL PERSON, WOULD I EVER KNOW WHO THESE ANGELS OF LIGHT ARE?

    I ALSO JOKED WITH BIG G AS I NEAR DAILY DO…ABOUT MAKING A HOTTY RAIN DAY SINCE I AM SUFFERING LOSS OF 8 YEAR RELAYSHAYSHAYSHAYSHAYSHAYSHAYSHAYSHAY.

    I SAW A LETTER ONLINE…HOLLY BUTCHER…27 YEARS OLD…DIED OF CANCER…I HAVE ALREADY LOST 7, INCLUDING A CHILD…8 COUNTING HOLLY…BY BEDSIDE ENTIRE TIME…AS MUCH AS POSSIBLY FOR AT LEAST HALF…UNTIL THE END..
    FUNERAL.

    I POSTED HOLLY’S DEATHBED LETTER ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE AND INVITED HER OVER TO MY HOME…MENTIONED ANGELS HANGOUT HERE OFTEN BECAUSE A) GOD IS INVITED IN 1ST AND IS KEPT 1ST (1ST THING I say when opening eyes in morning and looking outside is “Good morning Big G…beautiful day..thank you”)…as soon as I posted…the fragrance was there…

    I also prayed wondering since I can smell the fragrance of Angels of light, could they also smell same fragrance on me that God makes my soap same.

    Well..

    Since I just invited Hotty Hotty Angel on post…smell the fragrance not 30 seconds after post (have similar
    experience WITH ONE’S NOT of hodposted demons to educate…both bathrooms IMMEDIATELY HAD BACKWARDS SATANAINC DISPLAYS…TUBS FILLED UP FROM DRAINS…NASTY WATER…BOTH TOILETS FILLED UP FROM DRAINS, NEARLY OVERFLOWED, THEN BROWN NASTY WATER WAS SPILLING INTO TILE…OPENED SHOWERS DOOR…AT LEAST 4 INCHES OF WATER…

    Smelling Angel fragrance immediately after posting Hotties Holly Angels letter inviting…
    My Prayers are Anwered…by

    Hotty Holly Blonde Sexy Messenger Angel of Light, carries God’s Answer

  • mfrunyan

    This just in…angels are imaginary…now let’s get back to what we were doing.

    • Carrie

      Your brain (or lack thereof) is what’s imaginary here. I love how you gaytheists think your opinions are right and everyone else’s is wrong. Narcissistic, much? But then again, what would you expect from Satan’s minions?

  • Bert Clayton

    Very good article, very well thought out and written. It’d been nice if you could reference someone sane who had a divine experience. But, faith is well enough, it’s just God allows divinity to be realized today too. Might be hard to find someone, but they have to be.

  • Sophie Fernandes

    Can we Bodily say IN CHRIST ALONE? That’s what the CROSS is ABOUT HIS LOVING GRACE IS AT THE CROSS !!! LOVING JESUS CHRIST IS THE GIFT WE HAVE RECEIVE THOUGH CHRIST OUR LOVING GOD FOREVER & EVER AMEN HALLELUJAH !!!

  • Georgeta Antonela Bucur

    They exist and many of them reincarnated into human form starting from the 80’s to stop the future disaster coming. I m archangel Raguel and I warn you to stop the deforestations and all the conflicts otherwise you will self-destruct. The government has to release the magnetism technology for the humans to start traveling in the sky. The principles are simple and you have to follow Searl generator project and improve it. People have to stop eating all the animals. Angels reincarnate into animals sometimes and their suffering is covering all the planet with a negative force that feeds all the demons.
    The angels must unite to stop the big challenge that is coming.
    The Internet is a gift for the humanity and for the angels to meet, share information and organize. Use it to regroup and fight back!

    • Emmanuel Cortes

      Reincarnation condemned according to Christian belief. Angels cannot alter thier nature to be human, only assume human form. Whether this comment was just a hoax, I don’t know, but almost everything you just stated does not conform to traditional Christian belief in any way, shape, or form.

  • Nicole Dunndurham

    I just discovered this it’s helped me a lot my grandson Atticus past a month ago and my daughter was crying , questioning asking me questions I could not really answer so I decided to find out the answers that I thought may help ease her some THANK YOU THIS IS REALLY A GREAT THING ..

  • gill

    Excellent article, although as a Christian from the Protestant stream I wouldn’t necessarily pray directly to angels but I would anticipate a prayer to God being responded to by an angel and would co-operate with that angel. I think you’re doing a fantastic work for the Lord within the Catholic Church. Thank you. Many blessings

    • Emmanuel Cortes

      I understand your discomfort with praying directly to the angels, and your reasoning for not doing such is probably very valid. However, I do simply want to clarify that prayer to an angel or human (in Heaven, of course) is really no different than asking a favor from a friend or family member. With that comes to mind, “How can they hear me, if only God is omnipresent, and for them to hear me would require them to be omnipresent?” Well, in Matthew 28:20, we see Jesus says, “I am with you always, until the end of the age.” We normally interpret that as saying that our Lord will always be willing to help us and be there for us, however we can also see that He may be hinting at his allowing our being to be present wherever HE goes, as well, and that privelidge could very well be given to angels as well. Now, let’s assume that is false; even if a “limited omnipresence” does not exist, the human soul is also not bound by physical limits, therefore an angel (or demon, in fact), having at his disposal divine powers, can hear or at least sense when someone is calling out to him, and instantly travel to the physical location of the person in need. Believe it or not, spiritual being (angelic or human) can travel at the speed of thought. That is technically faster than even the speed of light, as light is a tangible, “physical” element that does take time to travel distances. Thought, on the other hand, is controlled by the soul rather than the brain, therefore the form of transportation utilized by angels can be seen almost as some sort of “teleportation”.

      A very lengthy explaination, I admit, but I hope this clarifies to some degree as to why Roman Catholics pray directly to angels on occasions, rather than directly to God. If you are not really convinced, that is fine; your form of prayer is absolutely acceptible as well. The real goal here is to avoid idolatry.

  • el-sig

    Beautiful!

  • Jason Vincent

    Say outloud with Truth in heart, mind & soul (there is no lying to God) to see if “God is real” (God says BRING IT!!!):

    1) God I need your love and protection. I will never doubt or question.

    2) I reject evil and lies.

    Warrior Angels
    —————————————————–

    1) Never doubt God’s love and protection.

    2) Must be crazy.

    Warrior Angels
    —————————————————–

    1) Never doubt God’s love and protection.

    2) Must be crazy.

    Warrior Angel’s Rules -> evil / dem^ns
    —————————————————–
    1) No rulez

    Note: ^ is supposed to be a triangle and is a blessing of the Holy Trinity on Angels (Warriors) and patterns of 3 in our lives, 2 failure followed by a success are not failures at all. Blessings by God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit throughout our lives as His Angels come to Him upon earthly death -> Flip side.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b04412e44273a6b23e240b40170506118db5b252409efe0b0a638dbae4808a20.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1dab6e405a8c38f74a165c393d51dda14f0d2c4d6795b89b684199663794867d.jpg

  • Jason Vincent

    Say outloud with Truth in heart, mind & soul (there is no lying to God) to see if “God is real” (God says BRING IT!!!):

    1) God I need your love and protection. I will never doubt or question.

    2) I reject evil and lies.

    Warrior Angel Rules
    —————————————————–

    1) Never doubt God’s love and protection. Doubting is for pussies. No pussies.

    2) Must be crazy.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1dab6e405a8c38f74a165c393d51dda14f0d2c4d6795b89b684199663794867d.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b04412e44273a6b23e240b40170506118db5b252409efe0b0a638dbae4808a20.jpg

  • Jason Vincent

    Uhm. I know this may sound hard to believe but my hands were recently taken over and I was gifted with a Warrior Angel shirt that looks more like a uniform, not in my handwriting and when it was happening about a month ago my Facebook posts were in words I had never heard anyone speak nor did I read in a book and I now have knowledge of Angel types for example. Healing Angels, Praying Angels, Angels for the Sick, Angels for drug addicts, Angels for the Dying, Angels for Prisononers, Humorous Angels, Artistic Angels, Angels of Lost Things, Gaurdian Angels to grow up with a person since birth just to name a few. I know it was ArchArngel Michael that took over my hands and I was gifted with Devine Intervention. I know lucifer is called names like redhornshitforlies & neckbreakcomingsoulbucketdeathbreath by Warrior Angels. Based on the fact that I was given a uniform of my Eternal job as a Warrior Angel and now understand that we are all Angels to God in His eyes that are in training and coming to Him. This is why we have the commandment “Thou shall not kill” especially his most cherished, smallest Angels…children. Also Angels in training found in dark places are very special to God because of the strength and courage it takes to make it ALL the way back to God and will be among the strongest and most fierce Angels if they do. Angels tag team up to reduce pain and suffering caused by evil and that is pleasing to God. Warrior Angels are the punishers, destroyers of evil and dem^ns. Angels in dark places are dangerously close to becoming dem^ns if not turned back to God before death.
    Oh and I did go to Catholic School for 9 years, CCD through High School and went through all of the Catholic sacraments with the exception of marriage before beginning my professional Engineering career.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b04412e44273a6b23e240b40170506118db5b252409efe0b0a638dbae4808a20.jpg

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1dab6e405a8c38f74a165c393d51dda14f0d2c4d6795b89b684199663794867d.jpg

    • Emmanuel Cortes

      It does sound very sketchy. I have to point out that there are no angels in training left, the last angel to finish his training was roughly 13.7 billion years ago, very possibly more. It’s impossible for humans to become angels, as we are a completely different race of beings from them, and God never alters an individual’s office of existence. The name “angel” is an office, or title, based on one’s spiritual species, much like our office is that of “Man” or “Human”. I’m sorry, your experience described here does not conform to the current reality. I must dismiss your story as false; I don’t dare determine whether your experience was actually the act of a demon or a pyschological condition that you are unaware of, but the explanation you provide for these events definitely do not seem possible through angelic means.

  • I think that angels are mentioned in other religions as well maybe by different names. I as a non Christian also believe they exist. Informative post
    Thanks

  • Randy Wanat

    “To be clear, angels absolutely exist.”

    If “it says so in this old story” is your evidence, you can’t say they “absolutely exist” and be intellectually honest. You could say you BELIEVE they exist because of that old story, but stating it as fact with nothing but a story to support it is sloppy thinking, and not an honest way to address your religious beliefs.

    To be clear, knowledge isn’t a degree of sincerity of belief. It is a belief that is congruent with reality and demonstrable. Facts aren’t assumptions that you think are super important. Facts are observations of the universe that are not reliant upon cultural, religious, or geographical factors. For example, the speed of light in a vacuum is a fact. The force of gravity at sea level on Earth is a fact. These are observable things that can be demonstrated as true, and one’s culture, religion, or place of origin has no bearing upon them The existence of angels is nothing like that. It is not a fact, and it is not known.

    You should, to salvage some integrity, change this passage of yours to be more accurate. Trying to bolster belief dishonestly should not be necessary if you have thd truth.

    • Emmanuel Cortes

      Well, your reasoning here would probably work just fine under secular circumstances, however I believe that you should keep in mind that because this is a religious article, specifically a Roman Catholic Christian article, any quote/excerpt taken from Christian Scriptures (aka the Holy Bible) will be taken as absolute, unquestionable FACT. For that reason, our brother Mark Hart states that “angels absolutely exist”, because in the Christian community Holy Scriptures are just as much a reliable, authoritative source as an article from Harvard University professors about the human anatomy.

      To put this into context, the same situation occurs when you attempt to convince a Creationist (evolution-rejecting) Christian of the existence of intelligent life forms on other planets using sources from leading astronomists and astrobiologists. Sure, the information might be 100% credible, but because a Creationist has no visible (or rather, tangible) proof of such a thing, they will refuse to believe that any life forms, much less intelligent life forms, exist outside of our solar system. Even if YOU consider those scietists authoritative sources, They might not; even if WE consider the Bible as a valid historical/theological source, YOU might not.

      • Emmanuel Cortes

        So, technically speaking, Mark is in fact making a VERY accurate statement, based on a 2,000 year-old theological document (and depending on which book of the Bible we are discussing, a credible historical document as well).

        • Randy Wanat

          Accuracy is based on consistency with reality. The Bible, neither in whole nor in part, is demknstrably factually accurate. The claim itself is not evidence of the claim’s veracity. Circular reasoning is not a valid basis for a rational belief.

          • Clueless Gearhead

            Oh, trust me on this one, even atheist scholars and historians have shown with near absolute certainty that CERTAIN (not all) events described in the Bible are historically accurate. I am not asserting the theological aspects of it, such as “God said this”, and “God said that”, but rather things such as population counts of the Israelite people in the book of Numbers, or the numerous conquests of Israel by foreign civilizations (such as the Assyrians, Macedonians/Greeks, or Romans). Although the majority of the Scriptures are perhaps “inaccurate” by secular standards, there are still many aspects of Scripture that are in fact consistent with reality. Circular reasoning is not relevant here. Simply look at through the eyes of your opponent; remember Herodotus’ emphasis on studying research through both sides of the story, not just your own personal upbringing. In this case, look at this situation from both the secular mindset and the Catholic mindset. If you wish, do so from the Buddhist or Muslim mindset as well. The point is, our brother Mark made a valid statement based upon an alledgedly credible source, assuming the Bible is in fact credible in its entirety.

          • Clueless Gearhead

            Side note: Please forgive the change in profile name. I was forced to post as a Google user rather than a guest. It is still I, Emmanuel Cortes, though.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            UPDATE: Profile name corrected. Ignore previous comment about change in profile name.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Oh, trust me on this one, even atheist scholars and historians have shown with absolute certainty that CERTAIN (not all) events and details described in the Bible are historically accurate. I am not asserting the theological aspects of it, such as “God said this”, and “God said that”, but rather things such as population counts of the Israelite people in the book of Numbers, or the numerous conquests of Israel by foreign civilizations (such as the Assyrians, Macedonians/Greeks, or Romans). Although the majority of the Scriptures are perhaps “inaccurate” by secular standards, there are still many aspects of Scripture that are in fact consistent with reality. Circular reasoning is not relevant here. Simply look at through the eyes of your opponent; remember Herodotus’ emphasis on studying research through both sides of the story, not just your own personal upbringing. In this case, look at this situation from both the secular mindset and the Catholic mindset. If you wish, do so from the Buddhist or Muslim mindset as well. The point is, our brother Mark made a valid statement based upon an alledgedly credible source, assuming the Bible is in fact credible in its entirety. To assume otherwise and try to debunk an arguement from there is like attempting to reverse a stellar Supernova explosion. It can certainly attempted, but don’t expect to get any useful results out of it; it’s quite simply humanly impossible. Cosistency with reality is not an issue here (please forgive me if I keep restating the same point over and over again in the same post, I’ll try to avoid doing that again).

      • Randy Wanat

        Well, that’s simply not true. You assert it, but not every Christian, nor every Roman Catholic, shares that opinion about the historicity of the Scriptures. In fact, I’ll bet that most, if dealing with the issues without peer pressure involved, would say they little, if any, of it as factual.

        • Clueless Gearhead

          Well then, we can’t just make the assumption that they are truly Roman Catholic or even Christian simply because they call themselves such, correct? For future reference, Randy, anyone who dissents even in the slightest from the Roman Catholic Church on any matters of morals and/or Faith (aka Theology) is not considered to actually be Catholic or possibly even Christian. My assertions are directly influenced by my spirtiual director, who happens to be an experienced theologian, and my pastor has 26 years of experience as an apologist, philosopher, and scholar. I’ve come to read and watch many other experienced and educated religious individuals. I make my assertions based on the educated opinions of my elders, not pull answers out of my backside.

          • Randy Wanat

            Ah, yes…no true Scotsman.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            I’m sorry, could you clarify what you meant by that statement? I’m unsure of how a Sctosman is relevant here, I might be trying to interpret this too literally.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Never mind, I see where you’re coming from with this. It does not surprise me that you would claim another “logical fallacy” on my part. May I ask, though, why the “no true Scotsman” fallacy applies here? How exactly could I be lacking evidence? I know I did not provide you with any evidence, I simply wish to know how you can be sure I possess insufficient evidence to support my claim if you do not really know me personally nor how exactly I made such a conclusion? You do not appear to be familiar with the Roman Catholic faith, judging from your other posts on this thread, even if you think you are. Therefore, you really can’t make assumptions that I have in sufficient evidence to support my claim. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am beginning to believe that you are resorting to these claims of logical fallacies simply because you have no other useful answers to my statements.

          • Randy Wanat

            Look it up. Google still works.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Yes, I am aware that Google still works, thank you.

            As to “No True Scotsman”, let me put it to you as such:
            Suppose you are an automotive enthusiast. You are in your car in a McDonald’s parking lot, when suddenly a Honda Civic pulls in to the space next to you. Immediately, you notice a “V-TEC” sticker on the side of the newcomer’s car, and step out of your car to ask about it. You see the other person’s Civic has aftermarket rims, headlights, lighting systems, tinted windows, and even a spoiler on the back. You ask the newcomer if you check out what’s under the hood.

            Now, before I proceed, I want to make sure you know what a “V-TEC” engine is. If not, please look it up before continuing reading.

            So, this Honda owner delightfully goes to open the hood of his car. When you see the engine, you immediately realize a HUGE detail: the engine is not a V-TEC, it is the basic, stock engine. That is when you realize, this Civic is just a “ricer”.

            Now, the same happens with Catholics. Many thousands, if not millions, of individuals claim to be Roman Catholic; in fact, many go to Sunday Mass, wear a Crucifix, have been baptized, and claim to recieve Holy Communion every time they go to Mass.

            Here is where we differenciate the real Catholics from the “cafeteria Catholics”: REAL Catholics believe in the real prescence of Jesus in the Eucharist, go to confession on a regular basis (even once a year counts as a “regular basis”), honor the Holy Ones of God (aka the Saints, including the angels and His holy mother), read and educate themselves in Scripture and theology, and never dissent from esablished Roman Catholic Doctrine. “Cafeteria Catholics”, on the other hand, may only do so much as attend Sunday services, and go to confession randomly, rarely read the Bible, and often will hear about something the Pope did and jump on the “Catholic Church is evil” bandwagon. Most of these “Cafeteria Catholics” wind up converting to another faith or idealogy, usually some Protestant sect or Atheistic thought. Keep in mind, these kind of “Catholics” are considered nonpracicing/non-Catholics.

          • Randy Wanat

            No, I get it. REAL Catholics are what YOU define them to be. Totally not a No True Scotsman.

            Pardon me, I have to stop my eyes rolling.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            What I define them to be? Perhaps so. However, keep in mind that I define a “real Catholic” by the same definition that any other respectable and knowledgeable Catholic defines them; the same definition I use now has been used to define believers for the past several millennia, dating even as far back as the Jewish religion. Ask around on this page,or any Catholic discussion group on Disqus. I will wait.

            And please, do not ask for pardon. If you wish to roll your eyes, do so. It is not a crime to do so.

          • Randy Wanat

            “…any other respectable and knowledgeable Catholic…”

            In other words, any Catholic who agrees with you.

            You can’t get out of your logically fallacious reasoning by doubling down.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            That they agree with ME is only a side effect. That they know their own religion enough to know how to properly practice it, and how it actually works, THAT is the truly important part, which I am still waiting for you to investigate before coming to tell me that I am wrong. Don’t believe me (or ignore me) just because I say so; investigate the facts for yourself.

          • Randy Wanat

            Which just so happens to agree with you. What a coincidence. Tripling down.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Triple down, then. I suggest that rather than criticize for repeating the same point over and over again, you actually go and investigate. Are you, perhaps, afraid that I’ll be correct and you will be wrong? Go, see for yourself, I am waiting on just that. Please do not waste my time by insisting mindlessly that I am wrong.

          • Randy Wanat

            An argument based on a logical fallacy is never valid. I don’t waste my time pursuing conclusions predicated on logical fallacies. If I did, I would have to waste my time pursuing every nonsensical gibberish idea every kook everywhere has ever had. I don’t play favorites.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Can you really call it “nonsensical gibberish” if it happens to be true? You may be correct in saying it is all a lie, but you will never know for sure if you do not take the time to investigate. If you don’t want to investigate because you think it’s a waste of time, that’s on you.

            If you think it’s a waste of time, then why bother responding to me? If I were you, I would have stopped talking a LONG time ago. If you do not wish to continue discussing “gibberish”, as you call it, then simply leave. No one and nothing is impeding you from doing so.

          • Randy Wanat

            But, DOES it happen to be true? That is the point. Don’t you think, if someone declares something true, they ought to be able to demonstrate the truth of their claim? Don’t you think, if something is actually true, there should be a generally unified understanding of it? Shouldn’t true things be able to withstand scrutiny without resorting to platitudes, appeals to faith, or logical fallacies?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Exactly, that is the point. Find out for sure whether it is gibberish, rather than simply assume it is gibberish because you came across a few biblical texts that, at first glance, seem contraversial. I am sure that you simply saw a few texts like Lev 27:1-7, or Ephesians 5:22-33, or others, saw that they appeared to conflict with other texts like the ones I mentioned, and decided “hey, I give up. I won’t seek professional opinions”. It’s always the same story: they assume it’s not true because they see confusing things and don’t take the time to find out the actual meaning of what is said.

            Find out whether it’s true or not, stop assuming without seeking help from those with greater knowledge than yourself, who can potentially help you. From what I’ve been seeing from you, you are simply too prideful to accept professional help.

          • Randy Wanat

            It’s interesting that the only possible result of understanding the Bible properly is to end up a Catholic. Muslims say the same thing.

            But, you still have neglected to demonstrate that it is actually true. You have asserted it.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            The only way to properly understand the Bible is to “end up a Catholic” is because Catholics created the Bible! The process of putting together what would later become the Bible began when Pope Damasus I jumpstarted it. Muslims don’t talk about the Bible because they created the Quran (obviously it was Muhammad, but we are peaking generally here), not the Bible. Hindus created the Vedas. So on and so forth.

            Hold on while I take the time to search my library for the demonstrations you asked for. In the mean time, I can give you this:

            Jesus is demonstrably alive. How so? Eucharistic miracles around the world. Study them. Go see one yourself. Study the scientific studies performed on them. That is the single greatest proof that Jesus is not dead. Jesus’ being alive implies either His Resurrection was real, or He never died to begin with (an account not written anywhere, of course). If Jesus is still alive, then that potentially implies a higher spiritual force (not necessarily person, just a force). We Catholics call that force “God”, synonymous with Jesus. If “God” is real, then there is a religion to fit it, because “God” would have already founded one. That happens to be Roman Catholicism. If Roman Catholicism is the “true religion”, then that implies angels are real. Simple, “logically fallacious” logic. For the important part here is the first 3 lines of this paragraph, though.

          • Randy Wanat

            Every sect supposes that they have the exclusive correct interpretation.

            Is it possible to invent a thing and be incorrect about aspects of that thing? For example, could I invent an engine and be incorrect about the nature of the combustion process?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            If you are human, absolutely. If you were “God”, then no.

            By “God”, I mean that you would be fully knowledgeable of all elements of the combustion engine. Because we know humans do not know everything, and therefore have limited knowledge, we cannot predict what will fail in the engine, only that it can fail. And that we will know what failed after it has failed. Because “God” is all-knowing, His inventions are not flawed in the slightest, and cannot be so, because He makes sure to eliminate all possibility of failure based on natural “wear and tear”. He does not necessarily, however, protect His creation from being tampered with purposely, as is the case with “Original Sin”, disasters, etc.

            Now, what of the Bible? Suppose that God did not create the Bible (either because He does not actively engage in the world or because He does not exist). In that case, would it not make sense that, although the human creator(s) do not understand their creation completely, are still the ones who possess the greatest understanding of that creation than do other individuals? If I designed GM’s famous Ecotec engines, even though I do not completely understand my engine and something beyond my knowledge leads to that engine’s eventual failure, does it not make sense that I would still be the most knowledgeable source on information pertaining to that engine?

            Likewise, even though Catholics themselves do not completely understand the Bible, they are still the most knowledgeable about it, since they are still the very people who wrote it and put it all together.

            And yes, “every sect supposes that they have the exclusive correct interpretation”. That does not dismiss the reality that only one of them can actually have it, and that “sect” who has the correct interpretation is more than likely the one who created it in the first place.

            In other religions, those people have the absolute authority of the proper interpretation of thier scriptures/beliefs. I respect that authority, and I’m not about to argue with a Muslim over the Quran since I am not a Muslim! Please acknowledge that reality.

    • Luke

      It’s important to note that even scientific law is merely a majority in agreeance. The only fact to which I subscribe with such verve as demonstrated on both sides of this forum’s issue (and to that, it’s my opinion that Randy has created the most meaningful and eloquent arguments, so let’s step up our game a little Brothers and Sisters! God gave us the same capacity to learn and apply that knowledge!) is the fact that no fact has truly been proved up in any meaningful way, absent any and all contrarian viewpoint. Quantum mechanics challenges the most basic of our scientific “laws.” Even time itself can’t be proven of disproven. Therefore, I have chosen to believe that maybe I’m right, maybe I’m not, but my choice to believe in God and His history makes a great deal of sense to me. Unlike the theory of time. That’s just stupid! 😉

  • y3shuA imMANu3l

    THE FATHER

  • y3shuA imMANu3l

    “What you are is God’s gift to you, what you become is your gift to God.”

  • y3shuA imMANu3l

    John 1:12
    12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God
    _______________________________________
    “To live the life indicated by the Divine Law, means “to receive him.” In proportion as we live such a life do we receive him. As we receive him, we become illuminated, we become conscious of the Soul, we find the Christ. Receiving him refers not to a definite act, but to a prolonged process. In meeting the conditions of this process, we truly become the sons of God. Becoming sons of God refers to prolonged stages of growth rather than to a specific act. It is the privilege of all men to become sons of God. All men have free-will to decide what they desire to become. If they choose the true life and if they live in harmony with the divine standard, they will reach Illumination. Through Illumination, through Soul development, they become the sons of God and become recipients of the power that always attends Illumination.”

  • y3shuA imMANu3l

    “He who lives the life of the Christ is not a parasite. He does not steal, he does not exploit his fellow men, nor misuse the creatures of God, nor does he sell the chastity of the daughters of men, nor make the sons of men imbeciles. He lives to be of service to mankind. He seeks not for the treasures of earth in countless numbers, but obtains only that he may the better help others. All his works are with the idea of doing the will of the Father.”

  • y3shuA imMANu3l

    “For he who loves God will do
    the Will of God.”
    “God’s Will is that the greatest good
    be done.”

  • myhrr

    Re the last post. I forgot to say that I had spilled the water all over the table.

  • myhrr

    The first time i went for radiation therapy after breast cancer, i changed into my hospital gown that was 2 sizes too small, so i used two to wrap around myself. I went over to a nearby table and grabbed a glass of water, which was pre-filled for those who wished to partake of it. I noticed an elderly lady and her twin daughters, whom i presumed were around my age (53 at the time). I was going to put the glass on a nearby coffee table, but they called my name to go for my treatment. One of the twins got up and said, ” let me help you.” I said, thank you so much I surely appreciate it!” I started going down the hall, and turned back to see the lady, down on her hands and knees, staring back at me. She said, “You go ahead and do what you need to do, I will take care of this for you.”

    I was so very thankful and waved a quick goodbye to her, as she cleaned up the mess I had made.

    After my treatment, I rushed back out to thank her, and noticed that there was only the elderly lady sitting there with one of her daughters.

    I walked up to the twin and said to her that I was very grateful that her sister had cleaned up the water I had spilled. She said, “Sister? I don’t have a sister. It’s just been me and my mom here all the time. She’s waiting for her appointment.”

    I thanked her timidly, and turned to go.

    I was sure I had seen that lady’s twin on the floor, cleaning up my mess, assuring methat everything would be all right.

    It didn’t occur to me until I got into my car, that the lady that cleaned up the water for me, was not a lady. She was an angel. Who came to me in one of scariest moments of my life.

    God is great, and this is a true story!

  • Monica Peterson Benninghoff

    I’ve had two near-miss instances on the road in the last 35 years. I credit my Guardian Angel with averting disaster when a wall of water from a passing semi left me unable to see the road and vehicle in front of me and my car started hydroplaning on a 2-lane highway at 55 mph; I credit my Guardian Angel when a car ran a red light and nearly T-boned my old Ford Windstar, but his incredible thrust catapulted my vehicle forward beyond all sense of time or space when I called out Jesus’ name. (If you’ve ever driven an OLD Windstar, you know there is no quick acceleration in an emergency! Braking would’ve left me smack in the middle of a crash.) Each time, the Lord’s name was on my lips, and the response was immediate in that my vehicle moved with such swift speed that it could not have been under my control, as I was in distress and incredulous. Praise God and thank the angels!

    • Randy Wanat

      Do you think, if you had said something else, you would have been killed? Do you think fatality rates are lower in collisions, or collision rates are lower, for people who say what you said versus those who don’t? Are those who are in collisions or even killed despite saying what you said not good enough Christians to merit divine protection?

      • Clueless Gearhead

        Eh, the problem is that even if the entire human race suddenly decided to “follow the rules” of the Bible, fatality rates could continue the same, for two resons:
        1) At this point in human history, the world has been infected with so much sin that we would have to wait possibly several millennia for the consequences of those sinful doings do run their course before they died down, and even then->
        2) Because Demons and the damned souls would still be in existence, the inhabitants of Hell would still be wrecking havoc upon the universe (yes, it is in fact Demons who are responsible, not God, for earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and cosmic explosions and whatnot which are their vain attempt to destroy God’s Creation), especially the humans still obedient to God. It would require either the damned to be eternally bound or put out of existence for suffering to be completely eliminated from the globe.
        My point? Christians may be inclined to suffer less than nonbelievers, however that is not neccessarily true all the time, as you obviously have already noticed. It’s all about what God does or doesn’t permit to occur.

        • Randy Wanat

          Would you permit children to be raped if it was in your power to prevent it?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            If it was within my power, I personally would. But if I were an angel, it would not neccessarily be in my power.

          • Randy Wanat

            So, no matter how horrible an act may be, no matter how atrocious, you assume it must be for a good reason. Why would you assume that this deity has good intentions in any capacity? What part of genocidal, blood-thirsty, vindictive, petty, emotionally insecure, misogynistic, xenophobic, and megalomaniacal indicates any kind of well-meaning for anybody other than himself?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Might I ask how you interpreted “vindictive, petty, emotionally insecure, mysogynistic, xenophobic, and megalomaniacal” as qualities of God’s personality? I can see where you would get “genocidal” and “blood-thirsty” from, but the remaining descriptions are not soundly rooted in any solid evidence. Sure, you may find evidence “suggesting” such, but both you and I want solid proof, so I ask you to please provide such.

            And I am well aware of exactly what “evidence” you are going to present to me. I just want to disect each of your arguements in front of you, lay them out for you, and point out where your reasoning is faulty. Constructive criticism, that is all.

          • Randy Wanat

            Let’s start with misogyny. Are women equal to men according to God in the Bible?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            In importance, yes. In roles? No. The Scriptures uphold that men and women are of equal importance, however the two sexes are optimally designed for performing different duties.

            Galatians 3:28
            Genesis 1:27
            1Corinthians 11:12
            Judges 4:4
            Psalm 68:11
            Micah 6:4
            Luke 2:36-38
            Exodus 35:1-35
            Ephesians 5:22-23
            Genesis 1:26

            And many more…so…yeah…

          • Randy Wanat

            Which is why men are worth twice as much as women. Twice the value, but totally equal.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Please provide me some SOLID evidence that the Scriptures give men a higher value than women, the way I provided you some evidence that the Scriptures say that women are not completely prohibited from filling in roles that men can also fill.

          • Randy Wanat

            Leviticus 27:1-7

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Right off the bat, it seems viable. But study it further, this text cannot be used to refute my stance.

            1) Lev 27 is speaking of offerings to the Lord, and their monetary value.

            2) Specifically verses 1-7, it is speaking of the offering of people to the Lord, which basically means offering people in service within the Temple or in relation to the Temple in some way. A form of servitude, in a sense. It seems to state these monetary values (fifty shekels, thirty shekels, five shekels, etc.) as a ransom if the offered person if desired to be returned. This seems like a form of slavery, however this offering could also be applied to the person’s own children. Basically, people were given to the preists so they could be taught valuable religious or social duties, such as being scribes, maids/servants, or other forms of manual labor.

            3) Men have a higher ransom value in this passage because in general, occupations were, at that time, jobs that involved more manual labor, such as construction, waste management, metalworking, pottery, etc. The anatomy of a male human naturally allows for heavier physical loads than that of a female, so natually the ransom was higher. Women still had value, though, but not as much because there were not as many occupations that could be filled by them, as there was not as much intellectual opportunity as there is today. What further drove a female’s value in this passage was the general lack of interest by women to actually engage in activities outside of the home. Therefore, men were simply value more MONETARILY because of the circumstances. If you’ll notice, younger people were also vaued more, for obvious reasons. In animals, younger males were also generally valued more, given their greater physical capacity and potential years of service. For instance, back then bulls were in many cases more valuable than cows because they could be used for heavy loads. Today, cows are often more valuable than bulls because bulls have been replaced with machines, and cows still have the value of being able to produce food and leather, and reproduce more cows/bulls.

            Because of all this, Leviticus 27:1-7 does not pertain to sexual equality in terms of dignity, which is what we were actually talking about. It simply is saying to choose those who are more capable of the job they are destined for, and laying out guidelines for choosing the best candidates.

            Let us take a modern example: women in combat. In the military, one should optimally choose the best candidates for combat, not be partial towards one specific group. What happens by coincidence is that men are naturally more capable of combat than women, although there do in fact exist women that are just as capable as their male counterparts. Because of this, women will always be a minority in the military, since men are just naturally more physically capable to serve in combat than women. Take into account also that when “women in combat” was becoming a major issue in the 70’s, a survey showed that 75% of women were not actually interested in combat anyway. Due to this, men continued (and still continue) to be the majority of members of comabt roles in the military.

            Again, Leviticus 27 is just another simple “choose the best candidate” scenario, nothing more. Having said this, I am waiting for solid evidence that the Bible says women are worth less than men (in terms of dignity, thank you).

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Hello, again. I’m sorry I was unable to get back to you in the past few months, but at last I have enough time to sit and answer your question.

            It doesn’t surprise me, first of all, that you would go straight to Leviticus on this one. It seems every protester of the Faith has issues with the seemingly restrictive nature of the laws and codes prescribed in the book of Leviticus. Here is what I believe should clarify the situation of Lev 27:

            Notice that this specific passage is laying out rules regarding the dealing for SERVITUDE. In servitude, a servant is often valued more for what their capabilities are than anything else. In ancient civilizations such as that of the Israelites, most occupations and social activities were not very intellectually-based, and instead were based mostly around physical capability. For that reason, intellect was, although valued, not yet valued as much as sheer strength. As a result, these societies saw that the anatomy of a male person was naturally more capable fof heavy lifting and physically demanding work. For that reason, they usually payed higher wages and offered more money in exchange for services for males than females in their work-oriented society. Leviticus 27 isn’t a sexist, misogynistic rulebook, as the higher prices in this passages were not for men in general; they were for young, healthy, strong and capable men that could handle heavy lifting and physically demanding work. Read into the later verses and you see that older men and young boys were not valued as much either, and they were still in fact males. Reason they weren’t valued as much was because their bodies were not as capable as men in their prime age. Why were females in general not valued as much, though? Because females are, as research and experience has shown, natually more intellectually capable than men. Young girls, however, did not yet develop those intellectual skills that adult women had, and senior women naturally tired easier than young adults. Yet despite the intelligence of these women, the kind of society they lived in was not nearly as interested in the arts and literature an such as our world today.

            Now, what of the women who were more physically capable than other women? Well, women were not expected to be naturally capable, so those special women who were strong were few and far between. Add to that the fact that at the time women were not as interested in the “men’s work”; they preferred the indoor activities, while men preferred the heavy lifting. Simple.

          • Russ

            Well from what I’m reading, our angels are boys an not girls, I always see “he” or “his” I don’t understand why girls can’t do what the boys do. I just randomly thought this while reading everyone’s argument towards eachothers opinions. Just think about it for a minute, doesn’t it make you question why that is?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Yes, and thank you for pointing that out.

            See, as humans, we are accustomed to perceiving and interpreting everything in the physical sense. We don’t typically automatically assume anything mystical unless we find no physical means of interpretation/explanation. Because of that, we are accustomed to automatically interpreting a “he” or “she” as a specific gender or sex. What we must keep in mind is that these spiritual beings we sometimes call angels, other times gods, other times spirit animals, etc. are, as stated, non-physical. Because of that, there exist no phenotype or genotype to specify what the gender or sex of these beings are. As a result, they are referred to as “he” for the sake of simplicity. Humanity as a whole has simply become accustomed to referring to angels as “he”, however there is no law or rule prohibiting one from referring to them as a “she” or “it”.

            As a side note, think about other customs that people have adopted when referring to another creature:
            -In whaling/whale hunting, sailors often would sight a whale’s spout and alert the entire crew to the whale’s presence by shouting the famous phrase, “There she blows!” This is not actually asserting that the whale sighted was a female; rather, it is a technically inaccurate phrase that was adopted for the sake of simplicity.
            -In Spanish, the word “nino” can both refer to “boy”, or it can refer to a general population as “children”. There could have very well have been the development of a specific Spanish word for “children”, however for the sake of simplicity none was ever developed. Same occurs for other words such as “hijos” (meaning both “sons” and “offspring”) or “padres” (meaning both “fathers” and “parents”).
            -There may be other customs similar to those I stated in other cultures, however for now I cannot provide more examples off the top of my head.

          • Luke

            Apply Buddhism (a philosophy, not religion) to this very same analogy. A Buddhist will resist belief that he knows how something will end just because he knows how it started or that he’s observed similar scenarios play out to their end. A true Buddhist won’t assume he even knows how it started. He’ll simply observe and see how it develops. We can’t know that a rape didn’t occur to thwart an even more heinous atrocity. We can’t know the meaning or purpose behind anything. We can only strive for a glimpse of enlightenment.

          • Luke

            Again, another good (albeit common) question, Randy. If you can see God (or in your case, the idea of God) as the Grand Scientist who has created humanity for His own purposes, the experiment must be allowed to run amok. Yes, at any time the test could be interrupted and the virus could be destroyed, but how does that serve science? I believe that God created us because He, like us, wants us to have a choice to want to love Him. If we are created in His Image, then he has a basic need to be loved. And, what would you rather have? One who has to love you or one who wants to love you? How does this adapt to your rape scenario? It’s all part of the experiment. How will we react? If the scientist alters the course of the virus to save the substrate, how is that science?

          • Randy Wanat

            In science, we have two big things: ignorance of the outcome until it occurs, and ethical restrictions born of developing standards for treating others of our species and of other species. The Bible God has neither.

          • Luke

            Yes. However, I don’t understand the relevance of your point. Moreover, not every scientist behaves similarly to every other. The scientist of whom I’m writing certainly has the ability to create the standard under which the experiment operates. Just like the rest of them.

          • Randy Wanat

            You’re analogizing God to a scientist running an experiment. Scientists run experiments to learn things. Your God already knows what the outcome will be. If I strap a live grenade to you and pull the pin, and I know it will blow you up and kill you, that’s not a scientific experiment. I already know what the outcome will be. That’s merely killing someone to kill them. That is unethical and does not teach me anything. Just like God’s “experiment.”

            Why are people more ethical than your God? We set limits to behavior to protect others. Your God sets no limits on his depravity.

          • Luke

            I believe there are grenades which do not explode as the wielder intended. Misfires. Therefore, you cannot know that which you state you would know, with any degree of certainty. The more I read your words, the more I believe that I’m not within the discussion for which I initially gave you credit. You’re just trolling, in my humble opinion.

          • Paul

            Luke, it’s all s***. Surely you must at some point wonder why God has created this sick perpetual game of hide and seek? And you are quite wrong. We DO have to love God or he will torture us for eternity. Where’s the choice in that?

          • Carrie

            You demonize pedophiles while being a homosexual yourself. Hypocrite much? You are a sexual deviant just like pedophiles so you have NO RIGHT to judge them.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            I would think twice before passing judgement on a person. Would I pass judgement on homosexual BEHAVIOR? Yes. Pass judgement on a person themself. No; it’s simply not our place to brand anyone a specific label, whether that be a label of saint or sinner.

            The only things we can, as humans, authoritatively judge are actions, and so Randy is indeed executing hypocritical actions, but I would refrain from branding his actual person a hypocrite. That said, this is how I would put it:

            Randy, you are behaving in a hypocritical manner by condemning pedophiles, rapists, and other sexual offenders while still defending the crime of homosexual activity and relationships. If you are going to pass judgement on other sexual deviants, do so with ALL of them, and don’t be discriminatory. As according to you, Randy, “truth is consistency with reality”. Please consider that reality about sexual tendencies and orientations. And change your opinions to fit that reality.

      • Alex

        Boy Randy. You are one angry person. Do you also enjoy going around squashing little childrens’ hopes and dreams?

        • Randy Wanat

          Not angry at all. Why do you equate questioning the logic of someone’s claims with anger? Perhaps the better question is, why is your reaction to someone asking questions to cast aspersions on their character? What about my questions triggers such fear in you that you feel compelled to lash out against me? I think you should consider why you’re behaving this way rather than attempt to dismiss me by trying to create a negative image of me that is easier to cast aside. Thanks for your delightful Christian compassion, friend.

          • Alex

            ‘lashing out’? Now that’s the pot calling the kettle black. You are here ranting and lashing out at all those who hope in something that gets them through their troubles in life while you angrily lash out at them because of your own personal beliefs. What business is it of yours what they believe in? Do they not have a right to believe in that which they choose? Are you offended because they do not believe and support your wicked lifestyle; because their light shines on your darkness? Nothing worse than an unhappy and self-loathing queer who wants to make everyone around him unhappy too. What happened to your gay motto of ‘tolerance’?

          • Luke

            Touche. For the record, not all Christians are zealots and some even enjoy the debate of an agnostic or athiest. I certainly do.

        • Luke

          I didn’t read Randy’s words as angry. More scientific and inquisitive. He poses valid questions. If we can’t answer them in a rational way, we feed the fire for those who believe that the faithful are wackos.

      • Luke

        Neither side could be proved, without a doubt, therefore I choose to believe that which the author has written is true and the Truth. It may not be the fate of all who did or did not do this to be saved or not. But she called upon God in her exact moment of need and experienced more than earth could provide to save her. It was not her time to enter God’s Kingdom and this is another one of millions of testimonies which strongly support the existence of Divine Intervention in all our lives, the faithful or otherwise. Thank you, Monica, for sharing your story.

        • Randy Wanat

          Why do you assert absolute knowledge as a standard, and “I’ll just believe anything” as equally legitimate to scientific understanding of the universe or sound logical reasoning?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            That’s not asserting “I’ll just believe anything ” as equally legitimate to scientific understanding. It’s more of just stating the decision to believe/disbelieve.

          • Luke

            Very well stated. Thank you.

          • Luke

            Your assumption of my blind following is misguided, to say the least. I was once an athiest. I’m a journalist and scientist. And, I’ve sought and found evidence which has thrust me into a faithful belief. I’m not judging you. For the sake of an educated discussion, may I suggest you treat me similarly?

      • kurt

        hi randy. i have many gay friends so i cannot be harsh to your ways. im learning to love everyone. i just want you to know that when i was stabbed in the chest i didnt really bleed. the most weird thing for me at that time was that i was a trouble making head bashing i like what you have so ima take it kind of hardcore atheist. having a disabled brother with one of the rarest known diseases to man. he will never heal by the way and most likely die young. my point is brother that, being homeless and much more i forget what my original point is. i hope you find inner peace like i have very very recently. sorry for poor gramatics, very difficult the way my xbox is formatted. have a good day i truley mean it

    • Paul

      Its nice to know that guardian angels helped you. It’s a pity they couldn’t help a confused elderly lady who got confused and walked for four days before falling down dead from exhaustion. There was large contingent of police, mountain rescue and a helicopter all out looking for her, along with public announcements and sightings but sadly it was all to no avail. Tell me, what was this lady’s ‘guardian angels’ doing during this time? Were they on holiday? Perhaps they were helping you, because they sure as hell didn’t help her. See, this is actually a case of 50/50, same as prayer. Of course, I’m sure you’!l come up with some ridiculous explanation, such as: it was God’s plan, it was her time(!?),and the all time classic: she didn’t have enough faith. Incidentally, the lady leaves behind her disabled son, who lived with her.
      Fuck God, and fuck the angels.

  • Jose Samilin

    Angels as revealed by Scriptures are spiritual beings created by God to serve Him though created higher than man. I have not seen one in my lifetime yet. They exist before the creation of the earth. They are omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, all in limited ways. Good angels were in heaven and also on earth, but not fallen angels which were in the abyss and also roaming on earth. Angels were created simultaneously as a company and are not subject to multiply as do with humans. They are not also subject to death but they are waiting for judgment time for good angels but for fallen angels they are destined to the lakes of fires. When a person dies holy and goes to heaven, its above angels. Good angels is more powerful than fallen angels. Someone could also add on this.

    • Corinne M. Cavanagh

      They are powerful, intelligent, and present, more so than we are, but in limited ways, as you said. “Omni-” means “all” as in all-powerful. (Omnipotent.)
      Good angels are more powerful than fallen ones because they rely on God’s wisdom, power, and love. They are on the “winning team.”

      • Randy Wanat

        Have you ever wondered why, if God is so great, he would command or cause so much suffering and death? Yet, the “losing team” is, in the stories, responsible at any level for only a handful of deaths?

        Or, perhaps, have you ever wondered why a supremely moral and powerful entity would ever require animal sacrifices as a prerequisite to forgiving someone? Why should forgiveness ever hinge upon killing anything? Yes, I know, you’re going to bring up the ultimate sacrifice (we can discuss what constitutes a sacrifice later), but why should ANY killing be a requirement to attain forgiveness? Isn’t it a bit convenient that such sacrifices were common throughout that part of thd world, and it just so happens that, in addition to all the other religions requiring animal sacrifices, yours did, too? What an amazing coincidence, wouldn’t you agree?

        • Kevin

          The satin and all of his other demons (fallen angels) are the author of ALL evil, death, destruction, etc, etc. God has 2 wills. His “Perfect will”, were he actually creates and does things directly. Second, he has a “Permissive Will”, where he allows things to happen. Good or bad. God is in control of all Angels, including all of the fallen angels, which include satin and all of his demons, who are always attempting to do harm, suffering, death, and/or destruction to humans, especially to their souls. God does allow a small % of the bad that they attempt. As far as anyone can guess the mind of God, He allows those few bad things to happen, only when more good will come of it than the original “bad”. Or should I say when there is a possibility of a lot of good to be made of the bad thing. It is my opinion that how much good can come of it, is up to all of us humans. … and yes, there are some”bad” things that have happened in my life, and in history that I can not figure out all of the “Good” that should have come from it, but our human minds are nothing compared to the mind of God. All the best minds in all of human history combined, are still nothing compared to the mind of God.
          May God bless you Randy in your search for answers.

          • Randy Wanat

            1: I assume you mean “Satan.” Satin is a fabric. Satan is a fabrication. A subtle distinction, I admit, but it matters.

            2: Do you believe that your deity intercede to affect decisions, events, or circumstances?

            3: How would you distinguish a hallucination from a divine visitation?

          • Kevin

            1) Yep, (Thanks, I fixed them)
            2) Yes, God has the “ability” to intercede with everything/anything. He does NOT directly change our free will, i.e. making choices/decisions for us.
            3) via standard (careful) discernment.

          • Randy Wanat

            When a Muslim is convinced that Mohammed has visited them, how can the Muslim determine whether or not it was a hallucination, without resorting to special pleading? In other words without asserting its falsehood by insisting upon the exclusive truth of your own religious belief, how could the Muslim tell a hallucination of Mohammed from actual divine visitation?

            And, how EXACTLY would YOU tell an angel from a hallucination? Your answer is nothing more than the religious version of “I would just know/figure it out.” Be specific. What is the methoddology you would use, what investigative means would you bring to bear on such an experience?

            And, finally, you said that your deity is in control of demons that you believe exist to cause humans harm. If I am in control of a thing that is harming you, do you hold the thing responsible, or me, the one actually controlling it so that it causes you harm? You have just declared your deity directly and personally responsible for whatever harm you believe these supposed demons inflict.

          • Kevin

            I do not believe it was “hallucinations” that the muslim experienced. in my opinion, it was obviously a demonic being posing as a Godly being.
            I have never had a “hallucination”, so I have never had to discern one. to my thinking there are only 2 difficult things to discern, not 3. Information received from either A) good angel or B) fallen angel(demon). They are the 2 that are quite difficult to tell the difference for uneducated people.
            I think of a hallucination as being an electrical failure in a brain.
            If I had to discern if a vision, idea, etc… was from an Angel vs Demon posing as an Angel, I would seek professional help. First step is to ask yourself if what you are being urged to do is something that Jesus has said you should do, already documented in the New Testament.
            Write it all down, take good notes, go see a Pastor/Priest. I have not read any, but there are books written on clues you should look for to help you discern.
            I dearly LOVE your last question the best of all. The DEMON is directly and wholly responsible for causing myself or others to suffer. God only “allows” us to suffer when we need it. it should get our attention. God only “allows” it when it does GOOD, (or has the ability to do good) for ether our own soul or the soul of someone else. it is only in my latter years of life that I have learned this. This knowledge has given me GREAT peace!!!
            This man does a GREAT job of answering tough questions. see:

            Why Does God Let Bad Things Happen?, by
            Fr. Mike Schmitz,
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NOTU1g0Z8w
            Note: this video is only approx 7 minutes.

          • Randy Wanat

            Remember how I said not to resort to special pleading? But, you went ahead and did it anyway. I assume you don’t understand why special pleadong is problematic. The Muslim would not believe your religion is correct, therefore your special pleading would not be convincing. The Muslim needs to figure out whether it was really Mohammed or a hallucination. How would he do that?

            Also, are priests experts in psychology? No, they are not. When trying to figure out if you are hallucinating, you should consult someone who is an expert on the brain. If you are hearing voices in your head that you are convinced are the voice of God, should you consult a priest? No. And, a priest who cares about his parishioners would tell you the exact same thing.

            And, you said God CONTROLS demons. If I am controlling the car that hits you, is the car responsible for the collision or am I?

          • Kevin

            I do not believe any of this has anything to do with hallucinating, therefore I have not discussed it at all. except for stating my opinion that it is a brain malfunction.
            I am sorry you misread my post(s), I in no way would suggest you go to a Priest for hallucinating. As I already said, they would provide good help for discerning between Angelic and Demonic visions/etc. If I remember correctly, I said:
            “If I had to discern if a vision, idea, etc., was from an Angel vs Demon posing as an Angel, I would…”

            If the Priest thinks what you are describing is neither of the two, they will quickly suggest you seek medical help.
            I am sorry Randy, but a “car” is a very very poor comparison… cars do not have a mind/spirit, and more importantly, an objective of their own. Demons and Angels do. Even attack dogs do not have that. they follow their “control words/commands” just like the mechanical/electrical controls of a machine… like a car.
            Yes, God most certainly completely controls all angels and demons alike. Control is most certainly not the best word tho. Limit is a much better word. Angels are always wanting to help us. Demons are always wanting to harm us. God allows them to act, but only for the better for our SOULS, or the souls of others around us.
            Attached in this post is another source I recently found for you to view. It contains info regarding how God controls angels.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HROH926Ln-A
            I have viewed it, it looks good to me, but I have not yet asked my local priest his opinion of Fr. Chad Ripperger yet tho.
            Randy, I am sorry I seem to have offended you, but I am getting the impression you are simply looking for an argument. You continue to misquote my posts, and also accuse me of special pleading.
            Wiki, Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves
            an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted
            rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
            You also seem to be stuck on “hallucination(s)”.
            That is a brain malfunction that I am no expert on, nor are typical Parish Priests.
            You seem to have misunderstood my post(s) regarding discerning between angelic vs demonic “visions/etc” were including hallucination(s). That is either my error in unclear words/typing, or with your reading/interpretation.
            Angelic influence = a being with a will/objective of its own that is trying to help us. = spiritual
            Demonic influence = a being with a will/objective of its own that is trying to mislead/harm us. = spiritual
            Hallucination(s) = a brain malfunction. = medical
            Sincerly, Kevin

          • Randy Wanat

            Yet, if a priest is going to advise about whether a vision is supernatural or a hallucination, there must be some criteria to distinguish them. You keep saying various people would figure it out, but never explain how.

          • Kevin

            Hmmm… I would bet that no typical parish Priest will attempt to “…advise about whether a vision is supernatural or a hallucination…”
            The typical parish priest is not trained for things like that. They can give very good advise regarding how to tell the difference between if the “Vision” or “Information” that you received was from either Angelic or Demonic source.
            I am sorry, I can not directly answer your question on this because I am not a Priest, or any other form of Clergy. I am just an old Rancher/Farmer who Loves being Christian and to help people any time I have the chance.
            I do not have any “lists” of the criteria that they may use.
            I do remember just a FEW of the MANY things/examples to consider…
            Does the “Vision” urge or cause you to:
            …Lift someone up, help them become better? vs Tear someone down, either physically or mentally. (no matter what they did)
            …Give you Peace at heart, vs ANY FORM of anxiety?
            … Help/heal/convert/Pray-for your foe?, vs Eliminate, kill, or hurt your foe?
            … does the visitor have a tone/demeanor of calmness/peace? vs anger/revenge?
            … does the visitor speak of how to help a person(s) doing wrong? vs do they speak angrily or bitterly about what/how, or the fact that person(s) doing wrong?

            again, these are to help discern between angelic vs demonic “visions/info”, nothing to do with hallucinations…

            and, again, this is only from my poor old memory. I attempted to do a google search for a list for you, but failed…

            I do not have any internet where I am currently staying. I have to take a drive to get it, so I am not able to check these every day.

            May God Bless you Randy, Sincerely, Kevin.

          • Randy Wanat

            If someone is having visions, one must first determine whether it is hallucinations or not. How can that be done? If someone only has a hammer, won’t everything look like a nail?

            Also, is it not noteworthy that as science improves, these miraculous visions decrease in frequency despite greater populations? But, in areas with little development, they are more common. It’s almost as if the ability to investigate has an inverse relationship with supernatural occurrences.

          • Michelle Jones

            I believe in God, Angels, and Demons because I have experienced things I can’t explain. I as a young Lady in my twenties experienced the Holy Spirit come over me in church when I went up as they were praying for us, and placing their hands on our heads. This was a Church of God. I felt an incredible sensation come over me, and all I could do was cry tears of joy. I have never again experienced anything like that. Later in life when I was married to my second Husband he had a health condition that caused two of his fingers to get gaingreen and have to be removed. This caused a lot of pain and he started taking a lot of pain medicine unfortuniatly from all of this he became depressed and started using drugs which caused our marriage to fall apart. In the mist of all of this we were fighting all of the time it was horrible anyway a Demon came into our home from his actions I’m sure. I was held down by an unseen force, choked. I could not move, speak or anything I started praying and it released me. I did see this Demon and, I was never on drugs. He was a dark figure very tall, hallow eyes as if nothing was there. This went on for awhile. I was scratched,I had evp’s of him telling me to get out of my house. He wanted to behead me. That I wasn’t going to need any sleep. When I asked his name he said Lucifer. I ended up cleansing my house with salt water and telling him to leave my home in the name of Jesus Christ it all stopped after that. I left my Husband and that home and have never been happier. So yes I believe. If you ever experience something like this you will become a believer as well.

          • Randy Wanat

            Is it not possible that you had a seizure of some sort? You have a brain. Brains can misfire. This can cause seizures resulting in, but not limited to, visual and auditory hallucination, loss of fine and gross motor control, and difficulty breathing.

            If your experience was caused by a brain condition, would that change your beliefs?

            And, have you ever consulted a doctor about this episode? It could be a form of epilepsy, infection, or brain tumor. I STRONGLY recommend you consult a physician. The longer you attribute those symptoms to demons, the less time you nay have to get a potentially lethal condition diagnosed and treated. Please, go see a doctor. Seriously. I hope your fellow Catholics here will join me in my recommendation.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Yes, many alledged visions do occur also as a result of false testimony. We will not deny that.

            Also keep in mind that visions and ecstasies decrease as social “development” increases because more “educated” individuals as yourself increase in number as population grows. In less developed regions, superstition and spoof religion is more common as knowledge is less available. In more developed areas, secular thought increases, which is difficult to balance with religious thought, so more individuals end up with incomplete knowledge and therefore become skeptics, much like yourself. “Holiness” becomes less common as materialism and secularism takes over, therfore visions and ecstasies also become less common (proportionately).

          • Randy Wanat

            Prove a true testimony versus a false testimony without resorting to circular reasoning.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Please tell how this can be defined as circular reasoning? You and I are both aware of the reality that once one begins to study a specific area, one is most likely to concentrate on that specific area and accidentally miss the other side of the coin. In your case, you have done so first with Roman Catholicism, then atheism. In my case, for many years I was living also under the “religion alone” fallacy; I have now taken the time to study both sides of the coin, and therefore am currently running on the conclusion that Roman Catholicism is 100% correct. If my belief is false, then time will reveal such. Until then, I continue to share with you what I have found to be true of the RCC.

            I am not in the position to prove true testimony from false testimony, however I am in position to give pointers as to whether it is one or the other. In order to accurately and adequately prove if a person’s testimony is true or false, I would have to examine the case individually. Defined categories do not exist in this department, because circumstances can fluctuate. I would also have to be certified to deliver a just verdict on the matter, which laymen like myself are not completely certified to do. Clergy, on the other hand, are ordained ministers, and therefore are entrusted to God so that He may guide their reasoning; they, in a sense, have special authority that most other members of the Church do not have.

          • Randy Wanat

            Just present ANY demonstration of a true testimony ever. It relies on circular reasoning, and I will show how it is.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Would you mind showing me an example of your own? I am curious to see you use your own knowledge to exemplify, rather than using my own limited knowledge. Is that ok with you?

          • Randy Wanat

            I am aware of no phenomena that are not explicable by natural means or, in the absence of such, can be demonstrated to be of any supernatural cause.

          • Kevin

            Ok, here is a Priest who can/will advise about
            whether a vision is supernatural or hallucination. He actually has that background.
            Here is a video where he talks about Exorcism, Philosophy, Psychology… and does talk about hallucination too.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI0J7ZQrt6I

          • Randy Wanat

            Hidden knowledge implies knowing the limits of someone’s knowledge. Good luck with that.

            Speaking other languages? Neat. Surely he has recordings of this, right? No? No recordings? Just an alleged transcript allegedly taken to an alleged linguist? Oh…what powerful evidence.

            Video recordings of superhuman strength or polymorphism? No? Just claims that it totally happened?

            Levitation is not what we often imagine. In exorcism, it is just pushing one’s body up off theground or furniture. Arching up counts. So, yeah…

            Do you see why this is not compelling in any way to someone not already believing this stuff? Seriously, you need to learn more about what the church actually says about this stuff, and you should start asking yourself, if this stuff is true, where is the evidence? Why is it all claims about phenomena but no video in a time when everybody has a cell phone and every cell phone has a camera, and camcorders are also cheap and readily available? Isn’t it convenient that noneof this stuff EVER gets recorded to video? It’s almost as if supernatural things can only happen when there is zero chance of evidence of its occurrence…almost like there ISN’T any evidence, because it isn’t real.

          • Kevin

            Randy, Thank you, per your suggestion I did do a little searching,

            and found something i was not looking for. so i added a note to my previous post above your reply.

            yes, i understand that you are disbelieving. I do not fault you for that.

            Actually, the entirety of your above reply had nothing to do with why i sent you that link… I sent it to show you I was wrong when I previously said that you would most likely never find a priest to advise you about hallucinations… This one could do it. He has also explained that the likelihood of it being spiritual, or your term of supernatural, to be pretty low. he explains what he looks for, in order to tell the difference.

            I don’t know how to tell you to learn to believe in God or any other heavenly beings.

            for basic belief in God, you could check out Fr. Spitzer.
            http://net-abbey.org/aboutgod.htm
            here are a few of his talks on video.
            http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/spitzer_videos.html
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXKnqe01mhM

          • John Nicholoft

            Belief is a decision. “I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” Deuteronomy 30:19

            One can choose not to believe. That choice made, it is very difficult to effect a change by persuasive argument, as there is never sufficient evidence for acceptance. The only hope for that person’s salvation is that somewhere along the way they heed the call of the Holy Spirit.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            How was anything proven before modern electronic technology existed? Written transcripts, and testimonies (we would assume these were honest testimonies). You cannot base all evidence on the definition of video footage and audio recordings.

            And again, we are the teachers here, not you, so allow us to decide what the Church is or isn’t saying, as WE ARE THE CHURCH. WE define OUR doctrines, WE define what it is WE teach, and it is GOD’s holy hand that GUIDES those decisions. Do not tell us to “learn more about what the church actually says about this stuff”, we know EXACTLY what the Church says about this stuff. You ask questions, we answer them. Period. Do not attempt to teach something you do not understand.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Thankfully, Kevin did recognize a flaw in his arguement, so we must recognize that much from you. Thank you.

          • Randy Wanat

            Not “we.” You have no role in any of that. Others declare it so, and you go along with it. It’s not a democracy. The RCC doesn’t care what you think. How grandiose a delusion to suppose it does. Come, now. Be reasonable.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Of course it’s not democracy. It’s divinely inspired government, therefore democracy is not needed.

            Do I have a role in this? Yes I do, thank you very much. Do I exercise that priviledge often? No, because I almost never need to. Did you know that I have a role in this? No, you didn’t, because you have not taken the time to study the Church like one should.

            It is “we”, because the word “church” is derived from the Greek “ekklisiasma”, meaning “congregation”. So it is “we”.

            Higher, more educated religious officials do determine/define a lot of what we believe, because they have the know-how to do so.

          • Randy Wanat

            Your role has nothing to do with determining doctrine, as you claimed. Don’t move thr goalposts.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            “Don’t move the goalposts”.

            I did not say my role has NOTHING to do with determining doctrine, I said I do not often participate in the determination of doctrine because there is currently no need for me to do so.

            Again, I state, we determine our doctrine. You ask questions, we answer as best we can. If the answer does not satisfy you, continue to look until you find one that does. Do not despair. For all we know, you might be satisfied elsewhere. We can’t prevent that. All we ask of you is that all you do is ask; do not assume the role of teacher that has not been given to you.

          • Randy Wanat

            There is no “we” that you can lay claim to when it comes to determining doctrine. The Vatican does that, not laypeople. What you think doctrine is, or ought to be, will be forever irrelevant until you are part of the group in Rome that decides such things. “We” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            It is “we”. I can lay claim to that “we”, just as many other laypeople have done so in the past. And that list is not a small one of two or three.

            Suppose hypotheically that such a function has changed for whatever reason. Why should it bother you? There is no reason for you to itch so much over not having complete authority for yourself. Do you feel so powerless and fearful of leaving the authority to those who know how to use it?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Whoa, back up a bit, there. Who ever said God controls demons?

            Let me differentiate the difference between “God controls demons” and “God CAN control demons”.

            “God controls demons” is a dynamic phrase, which means that God actively controls them. In that case, God would be responsible for unfortunate events, as you have said.

            “God CAN control demons” is a static phrase, meaning God has the ABILITY to control demons, but does not actively enforce/employ such authority. In which case He is NOT responsible for diabolical activity.

            As an anology, the US Congress has the power to impeach a President (obviously, there must be good reason to do so, so let us assume that there is actively reason to do so). Just because the US Congress has the authority to enforce their authority over the presidency, this does not mean that Congress actively impeaches US Presidents. Likewise, God possess the power and authority to control demons (and really any creature), however He does not actively do so (unless the command to the demon being subjected is a restraint from activity).

            Concerning your automobile analogy, suppose you grant permission to your freind to drive your car. At the time of the accident, if you are driving, then it is your fault. If your freind is driving, then your freind who was driving your vehicle will be held responsible. Likewise, if God were to command a demon to inlfuence a terrorist group to make an attack, then yes, God would be responsible. If the demon acts on his own, against God’s will, then the responsibility falls upon the demon, who will subsequently be chastised, as chastisement cannot be imposed on the demon through natural, physical means (the demon is a spirit, not a physical creature).

            So Kevin did not in ANY way say that God controls demons, nor even imply such. He stated that God can POTENTIALLY do so, nothing else.

          • Randy Wanat

            So, God actively permits evil, and that is somehow better. Do you hear yourself?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Yes, I hear myself loud and clear. God does actively permit evil, because on a later date He will use that to His advantage, for our benefit.

            What part of that have you not yet understood?

          • Randy Wanat

            If I intentionally allow children to be raped because later I will do something super good, is that justifiable?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Yes.

            Of course, you are going to attempt to scold me for saying such an “abomination”.

          • Randy Wanat

            So, if I murder your whole family, but I’m going to give you $100M, that is justified?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Again, monetary value does not apply. What you should have said was: if you murder my entire family, and then that serves to strengthen me in my ability to survive, then is that justified? My family’s death is justified, but not your act of murder. In other words, what is justified is the result, not the cause. The result of the murder was death, so that is justified as I became stronger. The cause of the death was murder, which is not justified. Money does me no good whatsoever, other than maybe feed me and clothe me for a few years. We’re talking of God using disgraces to benefit someone as a person, not their bank account.

          • Carrie

            You may not use pedophilia or murder. But you DO use the sin of homosexuality and you DO think it’s justified. So, shut it!

          • Carrie

            You do realize that Randy Wanat is a sexual deviant who would use every lie ever invented to excuse his unnatural lifestyle, right? And to top it all off, he thinks he has the right to judge other sins. He couldn’t be more of a hypocrite.

          • Carrie

            You’re the one who thinks it’s normal for the same gender to be sexually attracted to each other, get married and do sexual things together. Therefore, I cannot take your argument seriously. And you have NO RIGHT to judge pedophiles when you are a sexual deviant JUST LIKE THEM. Hypocrite much?

          • Mark Samoylo

            Oh Randy, you are anxious and worried about many things, but there is need of only one. They have chosen the better part and it will not be taken from them. How unsearchable are His ways.
            “There is the known, knowable, and the ineffable…be careful with certainty.” – anonymous

          • Randy Wanat

            Unintelligible.

          • Mark Samoylo

            Exactly why you should leave the discussion. It’s a bible study site for catholic’s, that is, people who believe that the historical Jesus lived, died and resurrected. Your choice not to believe is just that, your choice. Allow us the respect to discuss spiritual things, that is, things not observable by man as our freedom allows us to.

          • Randy Wanat

            Now, the real issue is, why do you believe?

          • Mark Samoylo

            By all accounts previously stated you wouldn’t believe me if I told you. Your a smart guy. Go google it and research both biblical and secular writings on Jesus. Non-biblical ones would include Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian etc as well as Polycarp, Clement, Ignatious of Antioch etc. May God have mercy on you and give you an honest and open journey. Peace

          • Mark Samoylo

            Just to be clear, my reading about Jesus is not the reason for my faith. That was given to me as a gift.

          • Randy Wanat

            Is there any belief that one would be unable to hold based on faith?

          • Mark Samoylo

            Oh Randy. Why would one ask a question of someone whose “standards of evidence” are in need of improvement as claimed by the one making the inquiry? (Rhetorical question- that means no need to respond here). There are at least 3 reasons based on your commentary, that come to mind anyone of which could stand by itself or be in company with any and all others:1) the spirit of hypocrisy, that is to say, one does not hold themselves to the same standards in which they pontificate. 2) the spirit of narcissism as seen in the eagerness to push one’s own ideas while attempting to disqualify, as if a supreme authority, any other ideas that conflict. (Think cyber bullying, belittling etc) This becomes doubly repulsive when it masquerades as intellectual and/or scientific integrity. Quadruply repulsive when accompanied by #1. 3) the spirit of deception. Just because one reads, says, thinks, or writes something doesn’t make it true. This is awful when it misleads others and sad when we do it to ourselves. All These leaves one spiritually, emotionally, intellectually, and/or even physically impoverished. I hope and pray for those that suffer from these that they would be free. Its sad when one rejoices in these experiences.

            I kindly ask you to leave the discussions and hope your ego allows you to do so. You have nothing to prove to any of us that hasn’t already been proven in every word you’ve written. Eloquent statements no matter how intellectually superior you make them sound, can cover up your obviously supercilious and faithless statements. Only One can cover them.

            Anyone else following along reading randy and i’s discussion I urge you to check for yourselves the truthfulness of any of our comments (if you haven’t figured it out already).

            A few passages just because…

            Luke 11:23-26
            Luke 11:13
            John 3:8
            Acts 2:38
            1 Corinthians 12, 13
            Ephesians 1:13-14
            1 John 2:22
            1 Corinthians 5:5, 11-13
            Romans 1:16-17, 20-22, 25, 28, 30-31

          • Randy Wanat

            Josephus never wrote anything about Jesus. It appears your standards of evidence need to be raised.

          • John Nicholoft

            Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

          • Randy Wanat

            James is not Jesus. He was writing about James. And, all it refers to is Jesus being called the Christ, not actually BEING the Christ. In other words, what others said about him.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Other called Him the Christ because he fit the office of the Christ, which was described in the Old Testament. Simple example of Scriptural incompetency, however we Catholics are here to answer your questions, Randy, so we will continue to answer your questions as long as you do not attempt to show us up; remember, the trainee here is you, and we are the teachers. Not you.

          • Randy Wanat

            Or, they wrote the stories to correspond with the Torah prophecies (which they don’t entirely) to be attractive to a Jewish audience.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Conspiracies do not last for entire millennia, if that is what you are suggesting. The stories line up because that is what is demonstrably true.

          • Randy Wanat

            The conspiracy only lasted until about 200CE, while they were trying in earnest to start a religion.

            But, like I said, saying that people claimed someone to be the messiah doesn’t mean he was. At that time, charismatic messianic rabbis were all over that region. Is it in any way remarkable that a story survives that may be about one or several of them? No, not really, when there are people making a concerted effort to make that happen and continue its existence.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Ever wonder exactly why it is that so many centuries later, people are STILL trying so hard to uphold a religion built around a lowly, seemilngly insignificant Jewish man? Perhaps it is because this one specific man did something that so many other “messiahs” did not. Perhaps it is a major detail that you have yet to uncover. I myself am still uncovering all the facts; Catholicism cannot be learned within a few short years. People spend decades learning about the Church, sometimes entire lifetimes, and none have ever fully understood the greatness of God’s greatest institution.

            You also confuse the title of “Messiah” with the actual being the “Messiah”. “Perception is reality”, and the followers of Jesus held the perception that Jesus was the “Messiah”, therefore He was the Messiah, not in terms of His divinity, but rather because, in the eyes of many Jews, He filled in that role. Therefore He filled the office of “Messiah”. If we want to discuss His actual divinity, that is another discussion entirely. I said Jesus fulfilled that role, I did not say that was the real, living and divine Messiah.

            If I were raised an Atheist, then it is possible that I would be in your same situation right now. However, your mistake was to assume you could know it all, and subsequently you gave up too soon on Catholicism. Please, take the time to study the facts, rather than jump to conclusions.

          • Randy Wanat

            “Ever wonder exactly why it is that so many centuries later, people are STILL trying so hard to uphold a religion built around a lowly, seemilngly insignificant Jewish man?”

            No. The story tells people they are special, that death is not final, that they will be reunited with loved ones after death, and all earthly injustices will be righted. It satisfies lots of primal human psychological longings. That doesn’t mean it’s true.

            It also creates a tribalistic dynamic that allows people to be included while also telling them who the “other” is. This is another primal human psychological longing. That doesn’t mean it’s true.

            It also allows for societal power structures that serve to perpetuate its own survival. That doesn’t mean it’s true, either.

            Does an idea’s popularity over time mean it’s true?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Depends on what you mean by “popularity”.

            Popularity in terms of simply total number of people who consider themselves members?

            Or popularity it terms of number of people willing to die for the ideology in question?

            I know, I know, another “logical fallacy”, yes.

            But just contemplate on that for a moment, will ya? Not ARE people willing to be martyred, but rather WHY are they willing to be martyred? Of course, this is relying (again) more on faith rather than reason, which by now I figure is one of your biggest, if not the biggest, pet peaves. However, I just want you to contemplate that reality.

            More than anything, I intend that as a rhetorical prompt, nothing else. No verbal response is needed.

            But to satisfy your skeptic thought, then I will agree that more often than not, proper reasoning and scientific exploration can and does answer the majority of life’s questions. It also does not alienate “primal human pshycological longing” as you call it. It simply informs, and allows interpretation at the viewers discretion.

            So does Christianity’s popularity determine it’s truth? Not really. To determine it’s truth, one must exhaust all scientific/mathematic/logical reasoning before resorting to the oh-so-hated “Faith” explanation.

            I already know what the response to that is gonna be…

          • Randy Wanat

            People are martyred for what you would consider false religions. Clearly, that cannot be a way to determine the veracity of the belief, though it can indicate the zeal of the belief.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Well then, I suppose you are right when you put it that way.

            I restate, however, that an idea’s popularity over time does not determine its truth. Like you said, it can indicate the zeal. I do believe it is a slight indication of the belief’s validity, but more than anything reason should suffice to show one belief’s MORE PROBABLE validity over another.

            In order to determine absolute validity, one must aquire complete knowledge of the subject matter. Something which humans cannot physically achieve.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            So you realize you lost that discussion and instead choose to change the subject matter? Well played.

          • Randy Wanat

            That is ALWAYS the subject matter.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            No, the subject matter was “are angels real?” You attempted to change it to “why do you believe?”

          • Randy Wanat

            Belief that they are real is worthless. Why you believe any of it is the real question.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Because I have seen, read, and learned sufficient to believe so. I am still learning even more, though. Even though I have sufficient evidence to show the more likeliness, I am far from having sufficient to prove with absolute certainty. I have measured the odds, and personally I think it is much safer to bet on a hope with an 80% chance of coming true, than no hope at all (therefore a 0% equivalent).

            I have told you why I believe.
            Why do you doubt?

          • Randy Wanat

            Did you have that belief inculcated as a child?

            I don’t believe because logical fallacies are not enough to convince me.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            That is a good thing. It means you are a much more reasonable person. All I can dissagree on is what it is you believe in; of course, I prefer you be a Catholic. However, that’s your decision, not mine. I can only encourage you to study, and not make the mistake of assuming anything when it comes to religion (that involves ANY religion, not just Catholicism). 😉

            Inculcated as a child? Not really. It was mentioned to me, so there was a very minor degree of exposure to it. My parents did a lousy job of actually teaching me, though. I really learned anything valuable when I became a teenager, which was when I began asking questions. Fortuneately, I was able to find the answers I needed.

          • Randy Wanat

            I would push back on my not being a Catholic being my choice. If I am not convinced something is true, is that voluntary? If I tell you I am 10 feet tall, and you’re not convinced by my claim, are YOU CHOOSING to not believe me, or am I FAILING to present adequate evidence to convince you?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Both. Because you cannot push it into my thick head that you are 10 eet tall, then I freely choose to not believe you. I could believe you without fully understanding, but I personally choose to not believe.

            I gave you guidelines. Now you evaluate. Standards set by Catholics, it’s not something that actually can be argued because the founder has defined it so.

          • Randy Wanat

            My inability to convince you is YOUR CHOICE?

            My inability to show you compelling evidence that I am 10 feet tall is YOUR CHOICE?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Your inability, no. My belief, yes. It’s my choice to believe/not believe your “evidence”, but it’s not my choice that you can’t convince me. That is not anyone’s or anything’s choice.

            I don’t see why you can’t understand that.

          • Randy Wanat

            If I presented definitive evidence that I was 10 feet tall, and let you measure me, you would be convinced, but it would not be your choice to be convinced. Likewise, if I presented no evidence, you would not choose to be unconvinced.

            The food in front of me is sour. You haven’t been convinced because the evidence is lacking, not because of your own obstinacy.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Beleive it or not, one can in fact deny a reality despite being shown plenty of cinvincing evidence. It’s called excessive pride.

            I’ve seen it happen before, in quite a few people. Including my grandfather. Of course, anecdotes will not convince you, however I put it out there as food for thought.

            Evidence can convince people, but not everyone. There still exist anomolies where people choose to not believe even when presented with convincing evidence.

            My 2 cents.

          • Carrie

            You’re wasting your time trying to reason with a homosexual. They believe that they deserve special rights and that other people don’t deserve any rights at all.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            I personally am not doing this to attempt to conviince Randy. I am doing this to show other fellow Christians how to defend their sacred Faith from the erroneous “logic” of these confused individuals and movements. I knew from the beginning that Randy will not convert because of me; I debate him to show my brethren in Christ how to defend the Holy Mother Church and to not let themselves be trampled underfoot when the Enemy attacks.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Studies have been performed on the human brain to determine if there is a difference between hallucinations and alledged spiritual experiences, or ecstasies. The results showed that the brain does in fact react differently to both. During a hallucination, a brain is shown to be experiencing pain, even if it’s a “pleasure” moment; there is also lack of awareness of one’s surroundings, along with what feels “real” during the hallucination, but afterwards the individual is aware that the event was exaggerated. In a spiritual ecstasy, however, one is well aware of one’s surroundings, and individuals have always reported feeling peace rather than pleasure. They also remain assured that it was completely normal.

          • Randy Wanat

            Yet, you can’t demonstrate the reality of an angel. It’s as demonstrably real as any fever dream imagery.

            People of other faiths see other figures in similar experiences. But, only your preferred version is true. Right. What a coincidence. And, they all say theirs is true, too.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Never said my preferred version is true. In 1531, an indigenous man from the fallen Aztec Empire had several visions of Tequatlazupe, the mother of the Aztec god Ometeotl. She had described herself as “the mother of the true God, for whom one lives.” The Aztecs described Ometeotl as “the true God for whom one lives”. Therfore, she was the mother of Ometeotl. This Ometeotl is described as having two natures, in one single entity. The Judeo-Christian God is described as having two natures, Father and Son, with the third nature being the encompassing nature uniting the two. One single Holy Spirit, uniting the Father and Son. Ometeotl was one divine Spirit, uniting two persons: Ometecuhtli and Omecihuatl. Today, this divine woman who identified as Tequatlazupe, mother of “the true God for whom one lives”, is known as the Virgin of Guadalupe, the Perpetual Virgin Mary, Mother of God.

            As Catholics, we don’t deny other’s visions completely. We do that only when the vision is in investigation, as God is not the only one who can appear in visions. The “gods” can do that too, and we Christians call those gods Angels and Demons.

            Another example? Lucifer attempted to topple God from His heavenly Throne, but Michael, who happened to be the smallest of all angels, intervened and toppled Lucifer and his followers from their place in God’s heavenly court. God rewards Michael’s loyalty by making him the Prince of the Celestial military, otherwise known as the nine Choirs of Angels. Sound familiar? Kronos “destroys” Ouranos, takes his seat as King of the Universe, only to find that Zeus, a puny upstart of his own blood, obliterates him in a bloody war, from which Zeus emerges victorious and is made head of the “gods”.

            Ouranos’ blood spills and mixes with water, from which love emerges. Jesus’ blood spills on the cross when a Roman soldier stabs Him with a spear, and that blood is mixed with water. Jesus’ Crucifixtion is the source of God’s mercy and Love for us, shown by His sacrificing His own blood and spirit (water representing spirit) for our own sake.

            Roman Catholics do not ignore the visions and beliefs of other cultures unless they are shown to be false. Greco-Roman Mythology is usually ignored because the events are very similar to Christian beliefs, but they are depicted with evil (Khaos, Nyx, Kronos, Tartarus, etc.) being supreme/more powerful than good. Those beings that are good are always shown with some flaws, such as Aphrodite’s lustful nature rather than true love. Ouranos is shown as fallen, but He never truly fell. Satan thought he could destroy God on the Cross, but that only furthered God’s plans. Again, whatever idiot “Christian” that told you or showed you that we ignore others completely is anything but a true Christian.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            As to whether angels are demonstrably real, the debate is not as direct as you wish it to be. Science cannot and will never be capable of demonstrating the angelic spirits are real, simply because science can only examine physical parameters, and neither angels nor demons are bound by physical, material substance. However, God can and has been studied through physical parameters, because of His human form which we know as Jesus. Consecrated eucharists have been studied before, and it has been shown that despite they appear to the naked eye to be made of wheat, they are actually real human flesh and blood. Take the eucharistist miracle of Lanciano, for example, which occured in the 8th century. A consecrated eucharist was studied in 1970 and these were the findings:
            -The bread was actually real human flesh and the wine was real human blood.
            -The Flesh is made of cardiovascular tissue, and there are no traces of any sort of preservatives.
            -Blood type AB (Flesh and Blood).
            -Protein proportions in Blood are the same as recent blood samples.

            Another study was done in Israel, where scientists studied dried human blood that was brought in by an American man, who did not tell them it was actually consecrated wine used for Catholic Mass. The scientists found that the blood was still alive, and presented only 23 chromosomes. 22 of those chromosomes where human; the 24th chromosome could not be identified; it did not match any known organism on Earth (either from Domain Eukaryia, Archaea, or Bacteria). All the scientists could determine was that the 24th chromosome was not of human origin. Protein levels were intact. Everything was intact, as though the blood had just been pulled from a human body merely seconds ago.
            What I intend with all of this is to provide only one way of showing how God can be shown to possibly exist (not proven, merely shown possible). Logic can also be used, but only to a limited degree. Now, assuming that God is not real (which science shows is highly unlikely), there is then no such thing as angels. Assuming He is real, though, Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodox Christianity would emerge victorious from a “battle of religions”. I say this because am aware that it has been done (in many chunks, since one individual cannot possibly debunk the thousands of existent religions alone). If we alanlyze religions today, we see that most religions are really just offshoots of a parent religion, and so if we narrow them down that way we can finish much sooner. Battle within their respective groups, and bring all victorious religions to the front against each other. You’ll find no more than a few hundred religions at the most will be in this next level of debate. If you were to just start comparing religions and finding similarities, I dare say you will find Roman/Greek Christianity will have more similarities with other religions than those religions with each other. Long story short, Roman/Greek Christianity emerge victorious alongside Judaisim. Why these three? Well, Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy are virtually the same religion, there are simply minor differences in the method of celebrating Mass and the issue with Papal Supremacy that get in the way, but in terms of theology, they are perfectly identical. Why Christianity and Judaism? Because if you were to examine the Old Testament Mosaic/Levitical Law and how they have been/ continue to be (at least by Christians) followed, you would find that they are again, the same thing. What I am implying here is that Christianity is actually Judaism under a different name, and with the continuation of the religion after the Messiah came. Judaism is more or less asleep as of right now, with their preisthood virtually gone, as well as temples and worship. All that’s left of Judaism right now is something identical to Protestant Christianity, the Synagogue being the equivalent of Protestant chruch service.
            At the end of this long and migraine-inducing rant, what I mean to say that angels can be shown real, but not by the scientific means you desire, but rather by showing first God is real (which at the moment you refuse to believe; I respect that decision), and then proceeding to demonstrate that Catholicism is the only flawless religion in existence. When bound to belief in Catholicism, inevitably one believes in angels.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Catholicism does not totally reject/dismiss other visions, it corrects them and invites believers of other faiths to join in communal living with us.

            The reality of an angel cannot be demonstarted by physical means, because it is not a physical being. That is like attempting to charge an Apple device with a micro usb Android charger. They are two different formulas, therefore imcompatible unless a superior force acts upon it (in which case human is to charger modification as God is to spiritual/physical modification). ;^)

          • Randy Wanat

            Like I said, you have no way to demonstrate that your religious hullabaloo is any more real or true than any other.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Not physically demonstrable, no. Logically and/or spiritually demonstrable, yes. So if you are only going to rely on “scientific” evidence, then we can’t help you. Like I said, a spiritual dimension is much more difficult to demonstrate than a physical one, because of the simple reality that they are two distinct dimensions.

          • Randy Wanat

            I guarantee that any such demonstrations rely on logical fallacies.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            How so?

          • Randy Wanat

            Make your attempt. I will show how its foundation is a logical fallacy.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            The attempt was yours, not mine. Please answer my question with your own example. Teach me something I don’t know, rather than keep your knowledge private. How else will others learn?

          • TheUsualSmearGame

            What compels you to come on a Catholic site and argue with all of these people? Seems to me you are pissing in the ocean and trying to measure the change in volume.

          • Randy Wanat

            You seem to be implying that they are either incapable of defending their beliefs or holding indefensible beliefs. After all, if they are right and capable, they should be able to convince others with sound arguments based on demonstrable reality. I don’t think they require protection from intellectual challenge. I think more of others than you seem to, and I need not apologize for nor defend that. Thanks!

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Indefensible beliefs commonly share an inability to be supported by scientific evidence. Of which only three belief systems do not fall into this category (can be supported by scientific evidence):
            -Islam
            -Judeo-Catholicism
            -Atheism

            Only two of these are supported from the base. That is, only two can be supported from the basic question: “Does God exist”?

            Guess what? Atheism does not enter into those two. They are Islam and Judeo-Catholicism. Atheism falls apart when attempting to show the non-existence of a superior god; Islam and Judeo-Catholicism, on the other hand, both can provide sufficient scientific and logical evidence to support the idea that God’s existence is more probable than His non-existence (of course, no amount of scientifc evidence can prove or disprove God’s existence). Supporting this claim is too lengthy for this site, but I have plenty of evidence on my bookshelves to share with you on a later date.

          • Randy Wanat

            Atheism is, in its most catholic sense, a disbelief in gods. It is not a declaration of the nonexistence of deities. When you begin with faulty premises, your conclusions will not be valid.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            “When you begin with faulty premises, your conclusions will not be valid.”

            Definition of “god” according to Merriam-Webster:
            -“a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality”

            Definition of “deity” according to Merriam-Webster:
            -“a god”

            Do you hear yourself?

          • Randy Wanat

            You are focusing on the wrong thing.

            If I am not convinced that X exists, does that mean I am convinced X does not exist?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Ah, I see.

            So what you are saying is that, although you are not convinced that gods do exist, you also are not completely denying the possibility that they might exist?

            See, you could have worded that differently from the start, and I would have understood what you meant.

            Yes, I understand that Atheism is such a disbelief, however I also define that specific variation of Atheism as “agnosticism”. Here are the four main varieties of Atheism I personally recognize (and this is not official Catholic doctrine, it’s simply my personal thought, therefore it is debateable):
            -Teleios Atheism: Complete, utter denial of the existence of a supreme
            power, religious or reason); the only form of atheism truely impossible
            to fulfill.
            -Hemi-teleios Atheism: Complete, utter denial of a religious god,
            however, the individual does recognize science/reason as the
            supreme authority.
            -Agnostic Atheism: Does not completely deny existence of superior
            power, nor affirms a superior power. Either prefers not to debate the
            matter, or takes a stance like your own.
            -Demonic Atheism: Complete mocking of supreme religious god by
            proclaiming a lower power as the supreme power (usually only found
            in the form of Satanism).

          • Randy Wanat

            Agnosticism refers to clains of knowledge. Atheism refers to belief claims. They are not mutually exclusive. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, gnostic theists and gnostic atheists.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Kind of what I was attempting to get across, in terms of “not mutually exclusive”.

            Could you please elaborate on the second half, though? Starting from “There are…”?

          • Randy Wanat

            Agnostic theists believe at least one god exists, but don’t claim to know at least one god exists. Gnostic theists believe at least one god exists and claim to know at least one god exists.

            Agnostic atheists do not believe any gods exist, but don’t claim to know that no gods exist. Gnostic atheists do not believe any gods exist, and claim to know no gods exist.

            A/theism : belief
            A/gnosticism : knowledge

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Thank you, that clears up the situation.

            So do you identify as an agnostic atheist?

          • Randy Wanat

            Yes, generally. But, depending on the definition of the god, I may be gnostic.

        • Clueless Gearhead

          Try to look at sin kind of like monetary debt: if you are incapable of paying all off, you may have the option of a friend being willing to pay the debts for you. That is what Jesus did on the Cross; he paid whatever eternal “debts” the human race could not pay, and left us with what we were are able to pay. Before Jesus, that payment was made using an approach similar to that of Socialist ideals: borrow some of the payment from those who had sufficient to help you with the “debt” (animal sacrifices)*. As for the human fatalities, God knew they weren’t going to change anyway, so decided to allow the demons behave much like the bank and repossess what they made the fatal mistake of not paying off.

          *Because animals do not really have souls anyway, it was not a very big deal to sacrifice an animal in place of a human for the repartations of one’s sin(s).

          • Randy Wanat

            Here’s where your apologetics fall apart: if God knew people weren’t going to repent, and he created the world and people with the knowledge that they would behave in such a way, then he created people with the explicit intent of killing them. He could have created humanity such that murdering people for the unforgivable crime of not being perfect followers of his rules (which HE created, and which HE decided were too harsh, necessitating a human sacrifice of himself to himself to appease himself), but he wanted a world where he would be “provoked” to annihilate men, women, children, babies, even animals (so indiscriminate for someone who could kill the first born sons of a kingdom). That is what he wanted. I can hear you sputtering about free will. Do you think there is free will in Heaven?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            His sacrifice was not to appease Himself, but rather to appease us. You clearly misinterpret history, once again.

          • Randy Wanat

            I’ll let your fellow believers destroy that nonsense. Why should I have all the fun of tearing apart your personal version of Christian theology that bears no resemblance to any known version of Christianity? You made that stuff up. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it. Why you felt compelled to do so is far more interesting than shredding your story.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            No no, I’ll let you enjoy the “pleasure” of believing that this is not established Christian theology. The moment you deny this and claim that I “made that stuff up”, you publicly display your near absolute ignorance of the Roman Catholic Faith. Therefore, if your intention is to continue to unknowingly look like a fool on this page, I highly recommend, for your own sake, to abandon this discussion. Over 5500 years of serious theological development and philosophical cannot be destroyed by religious skepticism that has only recently began to truly to unravel (obviously, atheism has existed since as long ago as the 6th century BCE, but it has yet to be shown that it seriously began to develop until perhaps the Enlightenment, and religion itself can be shown to be several hundreds of years old). You are not aware of this yet, but your “knowledge” of the Christian religion is far from soundly rooted in fact. So if it pleases you, then continue to mock the Holy Roman Catholic Church; you can have the satisfaction of doing so, and I can have the satisfaction of knowing that you inherently know very little about Catholicism.

          • Randy Wanat

            You’re being absurd. Sacrificial laws were devised by God to appease God. Nature didn’t like the smell of burning fat. Come on. Just quit lying. It’s insulting to me and it’s demeaning to you and it’s belittling everyone else here by supposing that they believe the nonsense you are proposing. While the stories are silly enough on their own, you’re making up your own version that is only barely rooted in the stories. I must stop entertaining your customized theology and your extension of it onto all of Roman Catholicism. You either don’t understand how far off the reservation you are or are a liar. I choose to be charitable and assume it’s the former, but I’m not about to teach you the Bible and RCC doctrine so you can argue intelligibly and comprehensibly. Go learn your religion.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Of course nature did not like the burning of fat, the burning of fat was not even the animal sacrifice itself. The animal sacrifice= appeasement of nature’s justice, through which God imposes justice. Burning of fat? Simply a physical sign of obedience not required any more, due to the value of God’s own blood shed for humanity, which overwhelmed the natural course of things and essentially voided our eternal debts. If other Roman Catholics do not believe this, it’s not because they choose to but simply because they have not been informed. You appear to be unaware that understanding of Scripture develops over time, while the teachings themselves do not. You seem to believe doctrinal understanding is concrete forever, and that is not the case. Scripture is very much an allegory, and many meanings of Scripture are still being discovered to this day. Because doctrinal interpretation is always changing, almost daily, it is obvious that not everyone will be able to keep up with all of these updates. What my Catholic brethren currently believe is by no means wrong, the knowledge is simply limited. A few hundred years ago, very few would have known about the things described in the article written above about angels.

            Now, suppose that I am wrong in my understanding of Levitical Law. If I am wrong, then I trust my God will in some way send someone to correct me of my errors. I will not hesitate in retracting my statement; when that time comes, I will most certainly stand corrected. Until then, I stand by my interpretation of Levitical law.

            You say that must go learn my religion? You are correct, and indeed I am still doing just that. That is another thing to keep in mind: no one ever, EVER, completely learns and understands the entirety of the Roman Catholic Christian religion in their mortal lifetime. it is simply humanly impossible to collect that much information in a lifetime, and even people who spend their whole mortal lives studying Roman Catholicism and developing its theology do not succeed in learning all of it. So should I learn my religion? Yes, I should, and I promise that I will continue to do so for the rest of my life. Because you seem to think it is a simplistic religion, which it really is not, you simply cannot authoritatively speak about the Mother Church’s doctrines and expect to be taken seriously in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. Feel free to ask any more questions concerning our Faith, and I will gladly answer them, but please do not come to us attempting to teach us our own religion, which is a topic you clearly do not currently understand. Thank you, and have a blessed day.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            You seem to be unaware of the fact that doctrinal interpretation develops over time, that many things that were not known 4,000 years ago are now known today (for instance, the above article about angels). Therefore, it is not anyone’s fault that not all Catholics share the same interpretation of Levitical Law that I do; it is simply the reality that the development has not yet reached them. Keep in mind that this doctrinal development continues almost daily, so not everyone will be able to stay up-to-date. Now, suppose hypothetically that I am mistaken, as you say; in that case, I will not hesitate to back down from my position if God reveals to me in some way/shape/form that I am wrong. I will stand corrected, but until then I stand by my interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

            As to whether I should learn my own religion, you are correct, and I am doing just that. You do not seem to understand that the Christian religion cannot be learned in it’s entirety in one lifetime; countless shcolars, theologians, philosophers, and the like have spent their entire lifetimes studying the Judeo-Christian religion, specifically Roman Catholicism/ Greek Orthodoxy. So please, if you have any further questions about Roman Catholicism and Judeo-Christianity as a whole, ask freely and I will gladly answer, but DO NOT come to us Roman Catholics attempting to authoritatively teach us OUR religion which you clearly and simply do not understand. Leave the teaching of Judeo-Christianity to those of us who actually know something about our religion, not those of you who are trying to pick at the Himalayas with a plastic spoon.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Again, you cannot claim to even remotely understand Catholicism if you have never been a Catholic in the first place, or even taken the time to look at this objectively. And no, secular is not neccessarily objective, if that is what you think. Your method of thinking is solely biased atheistic thought, which is no different than the biased Creationists that think that the Bible is everything and that the Earth was created in one week. I restate what I have previously said: if your intention is to make yourself look like a fool in front of an entire community of believers, I kindly suggest you back off. For the sake of your own image.

          • Randy Wanat

            I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church and attended Catholic high school. Keep telling me I don’t know anything about it.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            If you had any real understanding of the Roman Catholic Church, you would not have left. Your upbringing and education means nothing in the long run. “You get what you put into it”, the saying goes, and Catholicism is absolutely no different. Please tell me if, as a “Catholic”, you fulfilled the following criteria:

            -Attended Mass as frequently as possible (did not just go to Sunday
            Mass if you could have gone more frequently. If not able to go more
            frequently, you at least the desire to)
            -Attended Holy Adorartion of the Holy Eucharist, whenever possible.
            -Led a life of constant prayer (not necessarily the Rosary, simply some
            form of constant and sincere prayer, directly to God or to His saints for
            their intercession).
            -Recieved at least the 4 Sacraments of Baptism, Communion,
            Confirmation, and Confession
            -Went to Confession on a regular basis (where possible)
            -Studied the Holy Scriptures, and sought guidance from a more
            knowledgeable person when confronted with a difficult/confusing text.
            -Refrained from innappropriate behavior, speech, and thought as much
            as possible.
            -Authentically believed beyond a doubt (not reasonable doubt, rather
            ALL doubt) in the Real Prescence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist.
            -When you were confronted by secular thought, you took the time to
            study in depth ALL the facts, and did not simply study what was told to
            you; you took the time to search entire libraries, the Internet, and as
            many sources as possible for more information before forming a
            conclusion.
            -Authentically believed in the Magesterium of the Church.

            If you meet/met these criteria, then you can begin to be considered a real Catholic. Otherwise, I will continue to tell you: you know nothing.

          • Randy Wanat

            More No True Scotsman.

            “If you had any real understanding of the Roman Catholic Church, you would not have left.”

            Quadrupling down.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Again, stop picking the details that make you look good. Just read the list, and check off whether you met the requirements or not. It’s really not that hard, Randy.

          • Randy Wanat

            As I said elsewhere, I will not waste my time pursuing every ckckamamie idea anyone ever had that was based on logical fallacies. Come up with an argument that is valid from stem to stern AND that supports your ideas without being so trivial as to support anything else, and you will gave begun to have a coherent belief.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            As I said elsewhere, you take the time to search; what seems to be stupid may turn out to be more than you think of it. If you don’t want to, and have had enough of this conversation, you can go ahead and leave.

          • Randy Wanat

            That’s odd. If you had the truth, shouldn’t presenting a wholly valid argument and solid evidence for it be rather trivial?

            No true Scotsman
            Argument from ignorance
            Circular reasoning
            Beggaring the question

            These are the traditional bedrock of all religious belief. When you cite your reasons for belief, you should ask yourself how you might be falling into one or more of these logical fallacies.

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Suppose hypothetically that I am incorrect (which is inherently the only view you will accept).

            Take the list of qualifications to be Catholic that I have given you. Check them off. Determine for yourself if you ever really were Catholic. It’s not that hard; I’m not asking you to convert, or to accept my arguements against atheism, or anything else. I’m simply asking you to conduct a self evaluation of whether you were ever a real Catholic.

            If you miss any one of these basic qualifications:
            -Belief in the Real Prescence
            -Desire to attend more than Sunday Mass
            -Desire to attend Holy Adoration
            -Frequent attendance to Confession
            -Seek help/guidance from priest, deacon, or other theological
            professional when confronted with “Scriptural contradiction”
            -Constant prayer

            …then you were not Catholic. Other qualifications do not matter as much, only these above. If you failed the test, stop trying to authoritatively teach an ideology you do not understand. If you would submit to a higher religious authority who corrected you when you taught something flase about their ideology, then that would be ok. But because you refuse to back down and stubbornly insist that you know more about Catholicism than Catholics do, THAT is what pisses people off. Try TEACHING astrophysics to an astrophysicist, see if that turns out well. It won’t. DISCUSS astrophysics with an astrophysicist. That is just fine, whenever you mess up the astrophysicist will correct you, and you learn a little something. Same principle applies to Catholicism. If you can accept that, then everything is ok. If we provide logical fallacies as a defense, then suppose hypothetically what is being discussed is not a mistake. We can argue Atheism vs. Catholicism elsewhere, this is a Catholic community and therefore Catholic canon not defined by non-Catholics. In an Atheist/Agnostic community, science/reason not defined by non-believers in science/reason. Sound fair?

          • Randy Wanat

            Quadrupling down.

      • How does St. Michael cast satan and ALL evil spirits (fallen angels ) into hell?
        “by the (omni) power of God!

    • Randy Wanat

      There is no such thing as limited omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence. That’s a direct contradiction. Something can’t possibly be omnipotent AND have limited power. Something can’t be everywhere and not everywhere.

      • Jose Samilin

        Good question Randy. But considering the power of God, Angels are not of equal level, so I may say then, that they are omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, all in limited ways.

        • Randy Wanat

          No. Omnipotent necessarily means ALL-POWERFUL. Nothing can be all-powerful AND not all-powerful (limits mean not all-powerful).

          Omnipresence means being everywhere. If there are limits to where something is, it cannot be everywhere. So, it can’t be omnipresent AND not omnipresent.

          I suggest you google “law of non-contradiction.” In short, a thing cannot simultaneously be “A” and “not A.” You are making up logically impossible conditions.

          • Jose Samilin

            I agree anything reasonable as I find your point more reasonable. Thanks.

          • Randy Wanat

            It takes an honest person to admit error and correct themselves. Good on you.

          • Jose Samilin

            Thanks again Randy, God bless.

      • Clueless Gearhead

        You seem to misundestand what we Catholics mean by the Angels being “omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, all in limited ways”. Obviously, this is a major grammatical error. However, one would have to read Scripture (or listen to, if one happens to be illiterate or lacking access to written Scripture) to understand what we mean by this. Basically, Jesus says that those obedient to Him (God) should be present with Him wherever He goes. Now, because God is omnipresent, and those obedient to Him are always with Him, both angels and humans, these beings are “omnipresent”, however keep in mind that because they are completely obedient, they only go if God permits it, therefore “limited omnipresence”. Omnipotence? Angels are technically “gods”, as stated in Scripture (do not recall exactly where, but it is definitely written canon), so they are pretty much capable of doing whatever the heck they want (“omnipotentce”), so long as God deems it propre to do so (therefore “limited”). Because they are the good guys, they will never mess up anyways. In terms of omniscience, this refers to the whole topic of “prayer”; because God knows and is aware of everything, and He’s an omnipotent god, He can and will allow angels to hear, see, and know about certain situations and things that He deems the angel(s) worthy of knowing about. Again, because this only occurs with God’s permission, it is “limited omniscience”. The same exact criteria apply to human saints that have elevated to that higher level of existence (this level of existence, NOT LOCATION, is called “Heaven”).

        • Randy Wanat

          Would you do anything to stop a child from being raped if you knew when and where it was happening and had the power to do so?

          • Emmanuel Cortes

            Would I? Most definintely. But if I were an angel, I would also be obligated to fulfill my Master’s will, and God may not want me to intervene.