Cheesecake Jesus

With all the complaints Atheists have against religion accusing most believers of having a gullible blind faith, you’d think Christians would be less willing to provide examples of exactly that.

cheesecake cross(AZCentral) — A Scottsdale family on Wednesday said their cheesecake is a Christmas miracle.

When they pulled the dessert out of the oven, it cracked as it cooled. According to the family, the cake crack resembles a crucifix.

Family members say they won’t be eating the cheesecake. Instead they plan on selling it and donating the money to a local charity or church.

These kinds of stories always frustrate me.  Why is it that Jesus or Mary, or in this case a cross, make regular appearances in grilled cheese sandwiches, melted crayons, spilled beverages, and window smudges?  Admittedly, sometimes I think I can see patterns where it kind of  looks like a face…maybe.  Ok, I get that.  But why Jesus?  Why would the God of the universe make an appearance there?  Honestly, so many people — living or dead — fit the description of: dark hair, dark beard.  Add to that, no one knows what Jesus looked like, even if the image were actually clear, and not some vague smudge.

It is counterproductive for Christians to do things that bring discredit on Christianity.   Things like this give the perception of what a typical Christian is.  Seeing the image of Jesus in food, oil slicks, or crosses in cheesecakes is simply naive.  Not to mention it also gives unmerited ammunition to skeptics who make it their job to paint religious adherents as silly as possible.  Don’t help them for goodness sake!

So when you offer up a cheesecake crucifix for all to see, all you have accomplished is to push someone who may have been on the fence about making the commitment to Christ away.  No one wants to be associated with an enterprise which boasts of portraits of their Savior in food stuffs.

My advice to anyone who thinks they are seeing Jesus in their toast, cookie, sandwich, crayon, spilled milk, or any other such venue keep this in mind: it’s not Jesus.  And if you’re convinced that it is, keep it to yourself.

Comments

  1. I find that these people are virtually always Roman Catholics.

    My question has always been, since we don’t know what Jesus or Mary looked like, why would anyone claim these are who they see, and why couldn’t they be other people’s images?

    I suppose if I was to walk across a dry creek bed, I’d find a lot of crosses.

    • The images resemble artwork depicting Jesus or Mary. Its always been my experience too that they are Catholic.

      Its been curious to me that people see a religious image. Even granting that the image or reflection looks exactly like a person, why is it a religious icon rather than anyone else?

  2. Well, they are already in error by assuming artwork accurately depicts Mary and Jesus. And, yes, why does it have to be a religious icon?

  3. And it’s always been my experience that people who talk about warlocks, witches, and shoulder-mounted demons are protestant of some kind.

    Additionally, the vast majority of these cases occur in the the third-world among uneducated people. Just so happens that many third-world nations are primarily Catholic.

    • I dont think so T. Maybe in the past, like the event at Fatima. Here in the US people see Jesus in grilled cheese, melted crayons, latte foam, oil spots after it rains, and now crucifixes in cheese cake. I dont know of any instance that the report wasnt Catholic. Its not an insult to Catholicism, I think though, that Catgolicism seems to foster this kind of thing: signs from saints and whatnot.

    • And it’s always been my experience that people who talk about warlocks, witches, and shoulder-mounted demons are protestant of some kind.

      NOT true. They are usually from some charismatic group. Not all non-catholics are Protestant, by the way. Protestant refers to those denominations which developed due to protesting against Roman Catholicism, such as Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, et al.

      Catholics are the main source of such nonsense because Catholics are already primed into seeing “Mary” and “Jesus” statues everywhere, and that “Mary” is another mediator and almost another god. It is Catholics who see tears from shrines and claim visions of “Mary” etc.

  4. I think these people refer to religious characters because the images resemble the images with which they are already familiar. An Elvis fanatic would likely see Elvis if that fanatic saw anything at all. I also think that when these people spy a stain, burn mark or whatever as being anything close to a human shape, they see a chance for some notoriety for publicizing it.

    But just think: if any image of Christ appeared in the dark center of my grilled cheese sandwich, perhaps it would be more important for my soul to eat that cheesy goodness with all haste while paying extra attention to savoring each gluttonous mouthful.

  5. “According to the family, the cake crack resembles a crucifix.”

    If that’s what the family says, then they don’t know what a crucifix even is.

    *sigh*

    The human mind tends to take shapes and patterns and attribute meaningful design to them. It’s like the game of finding shapes in clouds. People especially zoom in on face-like shapes, like with all those fun photos that get shared on facebook and tumblr with “sad” houses and the like. The human brain actually cannot “see” unfamiliar shapes and will interpret them instead as familiar shapes. An example of this is when Columbus and his ships drew near the coastlines. Their sails had been visible for days, but the natives, who had never seen sails before, only saw “strange clouds” until someone (a medicine man, if I remember correctly) sat himself down on the beach and stared at them constantly until he figured it out. Only then could he “see” the sails for what they were.

    So we get lots of pictures being passed around of clouds, fireballs, stones, etc. that people say look like angels, devils, various famous faces, animals and giant hands giving the world the finger. It’s fun and funny, just like the childhood game.

    Then there’re things like this cheesecake story. Anyone who’s baked a cheesecake knows they often crack and, due to the shape and physical properties of cake, they tend to crack in predictable ways. Like X or + shapes. This one vaguely looks cross shaped. What a stretch to turn that into a crucifix.

    Personally, it sounds more like someone trying to take advantage of the gullible and getting their 15 minutes of fame.

    • Kunoichi

      Why do you suppose when someone sees an image of a human like figure, its a religious icon like Mary, Jesus or a saint?

      • John, that’s a really good question. I grew up Catholic, but also with my mother’s fanatical religious behaviour, which I now know is a symptom of her mental illness, so I’ve seen all sorts of odd religious interpretations. Yet not even she would associate religious meaning to vague shapes. If anything, she would see it as being of the devil than a real manifestation from God. While I know a lot of people who draw strength from religious imagery and symbols, it would take a lot more than a smudge on a rock or a crack in a cake for them to start thinking the miraculous has happened. Not one would have looked twice at that cheesecake.

        Personally, I think there are likely to be many contributing factors, with culture (both macro and micro culture) playing a large part in it. For example, I see nothing unusual about shrines to saints, because even though I’ve never been to Poland, these are strongly cultural and I recognise them for what they are (a sign of respectful veneration). To me, it’s pretty normal, and I’m always surprised by how others misinterpret them. I think a culture like the one I grew up in, which holds Mary in very high regard, is more likely to see Mary in the shape of a tree stump than, say, some vaguely female shaped lines. Someone else might see a female shape and see Mother Theresa instead of Mary. People, Catholic or otherwise, generally don’t know much about individual saints, so if they see a particular saint in an image, there has to be some sort of background in that person’s life that calls that saint to mind. To use my own culture as an example again, where someone might see something that looks vaguely like a balding old man, a Polish person might see John Paul II.

        To use another cultural example, there were a few recent stories about people finding the word Allah in food; the one I remember best was in a potato. Following a link from the above article, there was a photo of a potato that had a very obvious cross shape in it. It even looked like a particular style of cross. The cross shape is extremely common and recognisable across cultural and religious groups (Muslims are even told by some Imams not to eat tomotoes because there is a cross shape inside when you cut one in half), but for someone to see the Arabic word for Allah in a potato, they have to actually know how to read Arabic. To anyone else, it’s just a bunch of marks in a potato that’s going bad.

        Whatever the reason an individual first “sees” the image, once they say something, then others will “see” it, too. Giving the shape a name creates a sort of confirmation bias in the minds of others, so that when they do see it, their brains are predisposed associate the named form to the shape.

        For others, I think there may be some strong desire or conditioning that predisposes them to interpret a shape a certain way. To use the cheesecake example, yes, it’s vaguely cross shaped but, according to the article, the family sees a “crucifix.” For them, the general shape is interpreted as something very specific. There are several possible explanations I can think of off the top of my head; there is something about the crucifix that is of very particular meaning to the family; whoever wrote the report mis-represented what the family actually said for drama; or someone is trying to get their moment of fame by using a more loaded term. There could be others.

        The seeing of images like this is not limited to religous interpretations. Those are just the ones that make the news and get people worked up more. There’s even a word for this sort of thing; pareidolia. A non-religious example of it is the “face” on Mars, or in photos sent back from the Mars rover, people saw a quadrapedal animal in some rocks. Then there’s all those people who see Elvis. At least we know what Elvis really looked like. *L* Rorschach tests rely on pareidolia, and there are auditory forms of it as well. Emoticons rely on it as well. :-) Scott McCloud of Understanding Comics wrote about it, as it’s important for artists to understand. http://blog.visualmotive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/mccloud-uc-triangle.jpg

        That people will see identifiable faces and shapes in random blobs is a given. How or why they interpret them into specific shapes is more complex and individual.

  6. John,

    This stuff occurs all the time almost every day all over the world. But according to my studies, it occurs most often in third-world countries where the population is very uneducated. The cases in the United States are most likely idiots trying to drum up fame for an eBay sell.

    Glenn,

    So even though it’s been in MY experience, it’s still not true? Um, okay….

    Fact is, I’ve come across more Protestants (and, yes, they were Protestant) that believe crazy things than Catholics. My wife and I attended one Protestant church where it was a firmly held belief among the congregation that people do bad things because tiny demons sitting on their shoulder force them to.

    • Terrance,
      I think you are confusing the term “Protestant” with “non-Catholic.” They are not the same thing. I sincerely doubt that you would observe such things in Luther, Presbyterian, or Anglican/Episcopal Churches. Those are the only “Protestant” churches.

      And, yes, there are a lot of aberrational church assemblies and false teachings in many churches. But none are as preposterous as the zillions of Romanist “Mary” sightings, with Mary crying, or giving revelations, etc. A Catholic book store in St. Charles, IL, called “Angel Kisses” had a “weeping Mary” statue. One lady came in one day and said it was crying, and it hit the newspapers and that place was mobbed with Catholics passing by the weeping statue to cross themselves, offer alms, and pray to it for help of all sorts of things. My boss (the control tower manager) would often have the 2 of us supervisors go out to lunch with him so we could discuss things outside the facility. Well, he, being an ex-Catholic, decided that we should all go to Angel Kisses on our way to lunch. So we stood in the long line and heard so many people crying about the tears, and making all sorts of petitions to “Mary” – and you name it. Guess what – when we to to the front of the line, we saw exactly what we expected; a dry statue like every other statue, and yet people in that line were making all sorts of claims about it! Mass hysteria by Roman Catholics happens quite often at every shrine – and the Pope very often sanctions such nonsense!

      Yeah, AOG churches and other “revivalist” assemblies also engage in mass hysteria sightings. All of them are in error, but Rome is the only one who claims to have the truth and claims to have direct contact with God through the Pope.

    • You dont think being primed by imagery, shrines, and prayer to these non-God objects doesnt influence these sightings?

  7. Glenn,

    I think you are confusing the term “Protestant” with “non-Catholic.” They are not the same thing. I sincerely doubt that you would observe such things in Luther, Presbyterian, or Anglican/Episcopal Churches. Those are the only “Protestant” churches.

    I’m not confusing the terms, Glenn. I grew up in a Catholic/Lutheran home, baptised Lutheran – Missouri Synod, then baptised Catholic as an adult because of my wife, baptised my children Catholic, and then decided, along with my wife, that the Catholic Church wasn’t the right fit. We tried many other churches and finally settled on WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod), the most conservative of Lutheran churches. My children attend their school and we are all active members in the church.

    And we never witnessed any sort of craziness in any of the Lutheran or Baptist churches we attended. We did, however, witness it in a non-denominational church that, according to its minister, was “protestant” in their beliefs.

    I won’t be drawn into another Catholic debate with you. We’ve debated this issue over and over and over again. My responses to your objections are found here: https://siftingreality.com/2013/03/17/are-catholics-real-christians

    John,

    Not particularly, no. I was Catholic, you forget. We never experienced this sort of silliness. We viewed Saints as intercessors – and nothing more.

    • My point, Terrance, was that the stuff DIDN’T happen in “Protestant” churches, i.e., Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican. THOSE are the “Protestant Churches.” Those non-denominational who call themselves “Protestant” are just ignorant. They were not part of any split off of Romanism while “protesting” – which is the basis for the term “Protestant.” Protestant churches don’t do the bizarre charismania and all the weird stuff.

  8. First of all, I do not believe Christians hold a monopoly on stupidity. Look at all the superstition that hangs around sporting events or the belief in something coming from nothing or life spontaneously generating from non-life.

    Another thing that gets on my nerves, other than phony virgin Marys in toast or formed by the moisture on a wall, is when those who claim to be Christians refuse to get anywhere near the number 666. There was a story of a man who refused to wear a pin with 666 on it after his company celebrated braking their record for most consecutive days without an on-the-job injury. He said he refused to wear the pin because if he did he would be condemned to hell. What a blithering idiot! Until an anti-Christ comes and sets his number as the identification for people to buy and sell, the number 666 is simply the number that comes after 665.

    Christianity is plagued by anti-intellectualism, but so is atheism. An atheist insists there is no God but to insist on that is to claim to have infinite knowledge that there is no one with infinite knowledge. An atheist’s assertion is actually self-refuting or at best self-contradictory, but certainly not intellectual.

    • “…when those who claim to be Christians refuse to get anywhere near the number 666.”

      Oh, dear. I am suddenly remembering quite a few posts in http://notalwaysright.com/ There are a lot of customers who will refuse a total or change of $6.66. Actually, there are quite a few stories in Not Always Right about “Christians” that makes me cringe, though I do suspect a number of them (and others) are fake stories.

      And DogTags, don’t bother debating with Glenn about what a particular denomination is really like. His passing experiences will always trump someone else’s years of experience and indepth knowledge. It’s almost as useless as getting into a debate with Dan about what the Bible says.

      • Kunoichi,

        don’t bother debating with Glenn about what a particular denomination is really like. His passing experiences will always trump someone else’s years of experience and indepth knowledge. It’s almost as useless as getting into a debate with Dan about what the Bible says.

        You are a bald-faced liar.

        First off, it is a 100% fact that many AOG assemblies practice aberrant charismania as can be easily proven. Brownsville “revival” ring a bell? Many, Many AOGs across the nations brought that garbage to their home churches. The local AOG in Cedar Rapids was one of them and is in the local newspapers often enough. I made a point to DogTags that I can’t speak for his individual assembly. Any study of the AOG will indeed demonstrate that the denomination is charismatic.

        I never tell people who are members of denominations what THEY believe as individuals. I only state what the official teachings of the denomination are. The same information which I state can be found easily by anyone using 1st grade Google skills. I challenge you to demonstrate once, JUST ONCE, where I have erred on what I said about a denomination’s teachings. You can’t do it, because I get my information from the denomination sites and publications.

        To compare me with Trabue is about as nasty and low as me comparing you to Adolf Hitler. Don’t be an ass.

        • “You are a bald-faced liar.”

          Yes, I know you think that of me. You’ve implied as much before.

          Look, you’re the one who claimed to know better than me what Catholics do and believe, despite the fact that I grew up Catholic, was baptised, catechized and confirmed Catholic and have attended probably thousands of Catholic masses over my lifetime, all justified by the fact that you’ve played music at Catholic weddings a couple hundred times. Now you’re doing the same thing to DogTags.

          “To compare me with Trabue is about as nasty and low as me comparing you to Adolf Hitler. Don’t be an ass.”

          You’re right. That was extreme. My apologies.

          • Kunoichi,

            I have no idea what any individual Catholic believes except for those who I have actually communicated with or observed in their practice. But I do know what the Romanist Church teaches in their Catechism, in their Councils, in Papal Enclyclicals, their dogmas, Papal Bulls, etc. You know, the things which state the official church positions. Just like I don’t tell individual Mormons what they believe, rather I demonstrate from LDS teachings what the LDS official doctrines are.

            My attendance at various Romanist weddings and funerals are but observations of the practice of what I have studied about Rome since 1988 when I first got interested in that denomination.

            Read my series on the Catholic Church on my blog and tell me where I am in error with what I report as their teachings.

            • ” But I do know what the Romanist Church teaches in their Catechism, in their Councils, in Papal Enclyclicals, their dogmas, Papal Bulls, etc. ”

              *sigh*

              I don’t want to hijack this thread with yet another “what Catholics believe” discussion, but you are definitely proving my point, no matter how much you vacillitate with comments about individuals. You’re basically saying that you know better than actual Catholics, because you read a lot of things and came to different conclusions. I’m sorry but, in that regard (reading all the above, then projecting your own interpretations onto them and insisting that your interpretation is the only possible truth, regardless of how demonstratably false it is) what you are doing is pretty much what Dan does with the Bible, and why I made the rather egregious comparison earlier. If you don’t want to be compared to Dan, stop doing what he does.

              • Kunoichi,

                You know, I have learned that I know more about the LDS than probably 90% of Mormons, because I study their faith and they don’t.

                By the same token, I think I know more about Roman Catholicism than the majority of Catholics because I study their faith and they don’t. Many times I have talked to Catholics at work about what Rome teaches only to be told I’m in error, so I have brought in the various documents from by the Church and show them and they just say, “Well, that isn’t what I believe.” Guess what, I wasn’t talking about what that person believed – I was talking about what Rome teaches.

                So you are claiming there is no way I can learn about what Rome teaches by studying all the teachings of Rome. That I can’t learn from reading the Catechism, that I can’t learn from reading Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” I can’t learn from studying the teaching from “The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent,” that I can’t learn from papal encyclicals, etc, etc, etc. I quote something from Rome and somehow that isn’t good enough?!?!
                Please show me the errors I have made in explaining Romanist teachings in these articles — Show me where I place my own interpretation on Romanist doctrines rather than citing the doctrines themselves.:

                http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/papacy-infallibility-and-magisterium.html
                http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/roman-catholic-baptism-is-unbiblical.html
                http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/unbiblical-catholic-sin-purgatory-and.html
                http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/catholic-eucharist-unbiblical-and.html
                http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/mary-mother-of-church-is-not-mary-of.html
                http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/catholic-iconography-and-saints.html

              • “I think I know more about Roman Catholicism than the majority of Catholics…”

                I’ve already said I’m not going to hijack this thread with another Catholics discussion, and this part right here prefectly illustrates my point again, and why I am not going to waste my time in a pretend debate, together with your used of disparaging terms like “Romanism.” You don’t just disagree with Catholics. You seem to have a special hatred for Catholicism, and are clearly incapable of having a real debate on the topic.

              • Kunoichi,

                Wow, you pulled out the old liberal “hate” card! Disagreeing with Roman Catholic doctrine now means I hate them!!!!! Exposing the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church means I hate them!!!! Mormons say the same thing to me when I expose THEIR false teachings – I guess if you don’t like someone pointing out errors, just claim it’s hate and marginalize the person.

                I have no more hate for a Catholic than for any other person. Why would I hate them?
                I use the term “Romanism” to distinguish between Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic. How is that a disparaging term? Doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church have their HQ in Rome? Okay, the Vatican is a sovereign nation – except it is called ROMAN Catholic. Everywhere you look you are told they are ROMAN Catholics, so if I choose for brevity to call it Romanism, how in the blazes is that disparaging?!?

                You are the one refusing the debate. Take the debate to my posts on Romanism, and demonstrate my errors. You have been making claims against me about what I report on the Roman Catholic Church, but you have yet to demonstrate by any evidence that I am wrong in any report I make about Romanist teachings. Just asserting things without evidence doesn’t cut it. You have made accusations against me, even to the point of declaring that I am in the same league with Dan Trabue, and yet you’ve never produced one iota of evidence to support your false assertions.

              • What I said:
                “You don’t just disagree with Catholics. You seem to have a special hatred for Catholicism, …”

                What you said:
                “Wow, you pulled out the old liberal “hate” card! Disagreeing with Roman Catholic doctrine now means I hate them!!!!!”

                What I said:
                “If you don’t want to be compared to Dan, stop doing what he does.”

                What you said:
                “You have made accusations against me, even to the point of declaring that I am in the same league with Dan Trabue, …”

                You’ve taken what I said and twisted it to mean what you want it to mean. That’s sounds so familiar. Who else do we know that does that? Oh… wait. Nevermind.

                Tell me again why I should waste my time having a discussion with you? (That’s a rhetorical question, btw. I already know the answer.)

                The tone of your writing when it comes to talking about Catholics comes across as antogonistic, angry, filled with arrogant superiority and the sort of hypocritical judgementalism warned about when we are told to cast out the beam from our own eye, before casting out the mote in our brother’s. That tone is very differant then when you write about other topics. *That’s* why I say you seem to have a special hatred for Catholicism. Since I don’t know you personally, I can only go by your writing, and your writing tells me that, when it comes to Catholics, more than any other group, you have an intense, negative emotional reaction that blinds you to civil discourse and rational debate on the topic.

              • What I said:
“You don’t just disagree with Catholics. You seem to have a special hatred for Catholicism, …”
                What you said:
“Wow, you pulled out the old liberal “hate” card! Disagreeing with Roman Catholic doctrine now means I hate them!!!!!

                You’ve taken what I said and twisted it to mean what you want it to mean.
                Let’s see, you said I seem to have a special hatred for Romanism, and I responded that you pulled out the “hate” card, and that is somehow twisting what you said?!?!?!?
                What I said:
“If you don’t want to be compared to Dan, stop doing what he does.”
                What you said:
“You have made accusations against me, even to the point of declaring that I am in the same league with Dan Trabue, …”
                You’ve taken what I said and twisted it to mean what you want it to mean.

                Let’s see, you compared me to Dan Trabue, and I responded that you put me in the same league as him, and then you say I twisted what you said?!?!?
                That’s sounds so familiar. Who else do we know that does that? Oh… wait. Nevermind.
                YEP, there you go again with the comparison, but I must be twisting what you said to get that understanding of what you said.
                Tell me again why I should waste my time having a discussion with you? (That’s a rhetorical question, btw. I already know the answer.)
                I don’t consider discussions to necessarily be a waste of time. But when your end is nothing but blanket, non-specific accusations, I don’t see where there is a discussion.

                The tone of your writing when it comes to talking about Catholics comes across as antogonistic, angry, filled with arrogant superiority and the sort of hypocritical judgementalism warned about when we are told to cast out the beam from our own eye, before casting out the mote in our brother’s. That tone is very differant then when you write about other topics. *That’s* why I say you seem to have a special hatred for Catholicism. Since I don’t know you personally, I can only go by your writing, and your writing tells me that, when it comes to Catholics, more than any other group, you have an intense, negative emotional reaction that blinds you to civil discourse and rational debate on the topic.
                Please explain what this “tone” is. My “tone” is always the listing of data, without emotions, and comparing it to the standard I’m using. Where is there a “tone”? Have I ever said Catholics are idiots, fools, stupid, etc? My “attacks” are on the teachings of Rome. I have the same “negative” tone with the teachings of Rome (not with “Catholics”) as I do for the false teaching of any group or teacher.
                I guess some false teaching is off limits?

  9. Glenn, I attend an AOG church, and though what you say categorically about AOG is false, I do see pockets of people who are ignorant of what faith is in many denominations.

    Their understanding of faith is ignorant. Some Christians believe faith and reason are opposites. They think the more evidence you have the less faith you have. But faith isn’t merely a belief about something despite the evidence. Faith is a trust in the One the evidence points to.

    Some think faith is walking into an empty room and believing there is a chair in the center of the room. If they believe hard enough, they can sit down and a chair will magically appear under them. Then they fall on their rear ends.

    Faith is walking into a room with a chain at the center, Faith looks at the chair, sees it has four sturdy legs, is made of solid wood, remembers someone sitting in that chair before, THEN trusts that the chair will hold him up when he sits down in it.

    I’m not a Christian despite the evidence, I am a Christian because of the evidence. Belief is merely something believed, an opinion or a conviction. Faith is a confidence or trust in a person or thing. Too many Christians walk around thinking they have faith when they merely have beliefs.

    • Dogtags,

      I don’t know about your particular AOG, but the one in Cedar Rapids brought in the fake revival from Brownsville, FL AOG, and a lot of other AOGs did the same. I’m familiar with other AOG assemblies through friends, and there is a lot of charismatic nonsense in many of them.

  10. Glenn,

    They hold to Protestant beliefs — is my point. Or, at least they claim to.

    • They hold to SOME protestant beliefs. But the primary beliefs, some form of Reformed teachings – may or may not be held to by non-denominational churches. My experience is that even in the particular assemblies there may be members with and without Reformed beliefs.

      Again, I was just making a point that you won’t find the silliness in the genuine Protestant denominations. You will find them among various non-denominational churches or churches of more recent denominations such as the AOG.

  11. Ravi Zacharias said “If truth is not undergirded by love, it makes the possessor of that truth obnoxious and the truth repulsive.” That Catholics and Mormons and Protestants may believe in some heresies (actually the entire Mormon faith is one big heresy), it doesn’t matter if we tell them the truth if we do not TRULY do it in love. We will be obnoxious because we care more for being right than in loving those who are wrong.

    • Now it’s DogTags

      Oh, so NOW you are saying that I don’t expose false teachings “in love.” HAH. As if you are there with me when I meet with Mormons (e.g.) – as I do very often? As if there is no “love” shown in my articles? There is as much love shown in my articles as there is love from Paul when he is exposing false teachings. I call the teachings what they are. And I am never unloving when discussing such issues. Just because YOU or someone else may take offense at something, that doesn’t make it unloving. How does it feel to judge my motives and feelings? Too often people accuse me and other apologists as being unloving just because someone is offended by what we say. Truth offends, no matter how gentle and winsome one may be. The entire gospel offends unbelievers.

  12. Woah! Slow down there Glenn. I was not singling you out, but you do seem to be protesting too much. LOL. (Although calling someone a “bald-faced liar” just doesn’t seem to come across to me as loving.) I am simply giving a warning. I know that truth offends people no matter how you sugar-coat it. But not every non-Chatfield denomination churchgoer is in heresy. (You’re not from Vermont are you?) Anyway, I do believe that there are sincere Catholics who are redeemed, even though I believe the Catholic Church is too dogmatic about mere church traditions that they elevate to doctrine, like the eternal virginity of Mary (I believe Mary did actually have sex with Joseph and had other children); I do not believe the communion wafer and the wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus; I do not believe in praying to saints as if the dead can hear our prayers; etc. But, I do believe some Catholics are redeemed and have made Jesus their LORD and Savior.

    As for Mormons, well, they are deceived. but at least, for now, their untrue religion makes them quiet citizens. We must really have an investment in people’s lives in order for the truth we profess to make an impact. You can’t do that without investment. That is what love looks like. Not in saying things nicely, but in being a part of people’s lives.

    • DogTags,

      Your comment appeared to be directed at me since I am the only one in this string being charged by Kunoichi as being somehow on my own crusade against Romanism.

      Calling Kunoichi a “bald-faced liar” had nothing to do with apologetics, rather it was a response to his unwarranted attacks without any evidence.

      I also resent your implication that I somehow have a litmus test of “non-Chatfield” denominations, which is a totally unwarranted attack. I only charge heresy where a teaching violates non-negotiable Christian doctrines – you know, the same criteria everyone else uses.

      I also believe there are Romanists who Christians in spite of the Church, and actually have known quite a few. It is sad that they choose to stay in bondage to all the works Rome requires.

      I have worked with Mormons since I became a Christian, because I was a Mormon before coming to the true faith, and I sincerely feel for the LDS members. The only ones who call me unloving or hateful are those who attack me via e-mail or comments on my blog after not being happy with my exposure of LDS teachings.

  13. Fact of the matter is, Catholics can defend their beliefs with the same verve as people attempt to tear them down.

    Regarding the eternal virginity of Mary, read: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

    Regarding infant baptism (which Lutherans also do), read: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism

    Regarding communion, read: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

    Regarding prayers to Saints, read: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-intercession-of-the-saints

    And I could go on. Catholics didn’t dream this stuff up, ya know. There is a basis for their beliefs, whether you accept it or not. Now, I’m not saying I agree with every belief – because I don’t. But don’t put them on the same level as Mormons. Some sly thief with delusions of grandeur wrote a book that serves as the basis of Mormonism. That is NOT the case with Catholicism. If Catholics are guilty of anything, it may be reading too much into certain passages.

    • Terrance,
      Like I said, I am very familiar with the REASONS Rome came up with the stuff they came up with, but the early church had none of those teachings. So during the 2nd and 3rd Century when things started getting silly, it was “new” teachings not from Christ or the Apostles. And the whole idea of the ever-virgin Mary is about as absurd as it gets.

      No, they are not like Momons in any way. One can be a Christian in spite of Rome’s doctrines, because underneath all their additions the truth is still there. Mormons have no truth at all.

  14. Glenn,

    Kunoichi is a woman, not a man. And her attacks were not unwarranted. I thought comparing you to Dan was a bit much, but everything else she said I felt was pretty spot on. You don’t listen to anyone else on these issues, Glenn, as you’ve demonstrated many times before. How many times have we debated the issue of Catholicism? You are flatly wrong regarding your interpretation of certain “Romanist” doctrine, but refuse to admit it. You have preconceived notions and nothing, not even facts, alter your view. It’s that stubbornness, friend, that served as the basis of Kunoichi’s attack.

    • Terrance,

      Well, I can’t tell by the name “Kunoichi” whether the gender is male or female, but the point is the same.

      No, her entire attack was unwarranted, because there was no evidence given, rather it was just assertions to reduce the credibility of my arguments.

      I do indeed listen to what people say, but I also keep pointing out, it isn’t the individual’s beliefs I am reporting on, rather it is the teachings of the organizations, and I am very, very familiar with the teachings of Rome.

      And where is my “interpretation” of Rome’s teachings in error? You say that there have been times that I have misinterpreted their teaching, but if I cite directly from their teachings, how can I misinterpret what they say? Have YOU looked at my articles? If you think there is a misunderstanding with what I post, describe the misunderstanding and WHY it is wrong. Don’t just make blanket, non-specific charges. That is what both you and Kunoichi are doing – making blanket, non-specific charges.

      • I had to google Kunoichi.

        But I would like to say Glenn, that you, T and Kunoichi and i are on the same team. I have many complaints and reservations on the Catholic church, but I dont want argue (getting upset and elevated) over it. There are many Christians in the Catholic church where there are few to none in the Mormon or Jehovahs Witness churches because of their views on Jesus. I can credit the catholic church for having correct views on thw trinity and the nature of Jesus. So while its a legitimate debate to have, its low on the list. Lets all recognize our commonalities

  15. Please stop fighting!!! Don’t you see what it’s doing to the kids???

  16. paynehollow says:

    Wow, see my name being taken in vain in a post where I’m not even participating. Interesting.

    Just one thing – a small fact check, where Glenn said:

    Luther, Presbyterian, or Anglican/Episcopal Churches. Those are the only “Protestant” churches.

    Of course, this is not factually correct, not by definition. Protestant churches are not only those 3 denominations. Anabaptists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists… these and more all come from Protestant roots. Just as a matter of fact.

    It might be fun to hear how Glenn isolates it to only these three denominations in spite of, you know, reality, but probably not.

    Carry on with your fun “debate…” By all means, use my name freely and mistakenly. I can take it, I’m rather used to it, here.

    ~Dan

    • Of course, this is not factually correct, not by definition. Protestant churches are not only those 3 denominations. Anabaptists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists… these and more all come from Protestant roots. Just as a matter of fact

      Trabue as usual is not paying attention.

      BY ORIGINAL DEFINITION, “Protestant” applied to those denominations formed out of the Reformation. Baptists are not a denomination, per se, even though some have formed up into “denominations” such as Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, et al. The term “protestant” has taken on a very wide meaning of anything not Roman Catholic – which would put Orthodox Catholic Church as being “Protestant.”

      It behooves us to be more accurate in our usage of such nomenclature. Anabaptists were around long before the Protestant Reformation. And I included Presbyterians in my list. The denominations coming out of the Reformation were the various Lutheran and Calvinist bodies, and the Anglican Church has historically been listed as a Protestant denomination due to its formation based on a different type of protest.

      Methodists are a break off of the Anglican/Episcopal denomination, by the way. Used to be called Methodist Episcopal.

      Whether or not various individual assemblies were formed based on protestant roots does not mean they should be labeled as “protestant.” With the broad usage of the term, you must include every single cult claiming to be Christian – Christian Science, JW, LDS, Unitarian, Moonies, et al.

      Trabue, if you had even paid attention to the context of the conversation, you wouldn’t have had anything to say. The context was where specific aberrations were found, and the claim that the were found in “Protestant” denominations. My point was that they were not found in the “Protestant” denominations, rather they are found in the non-denominational type assemblies.

      Your apology for misrepresenting the context of my statement is accepted.

  17. paynehollow says:

    I am going by the normal, meaningful definition of the word, accepted in most evangelical circles, as well as just, you know, by normal people…

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-15-largest-protestant-denominations-in-the-united-states-92731/

    Baptists (and by that, I’m referring to the specific denominations springing from that general root – Southern, National, Missionary, etc, Baptists) are a protestant denomination. There are, indeed, those who would consider the anabaptists as “not Protestant” as they pre-date the Big Reformation, but they were and are certainly a group that distinguished itself as a Protestant group against the main Catholic church, seeking to return to the roots of Christianity. I’m not sure on what basis you would not include them amongst the Protestants. Thanks for the clarification that you DO include Methodists in with Protestants, as they are. And sorry for the slip about including Presbyterians in, when you obviously mentioned them. Just a slip.

    • Trabue,
      You are again being a jackass. Pay attention. There is a context to the conversation, and in THAT context I explained the definition I was using. I don’t give a damn about other definitions ( and even noted that it is use too broadly today) because I GAVE A CONTEXT.

      I gave the context at the BIG THREE of the REFORMATION, which were the original group termed “Protestant.” The fact that there were people fighting against the Roman (and Orthodox) Catholic Churches from the beginning has nothing to do with the term “Protestant” because that term was never used of them until the term became a general term for all non-Romanists.

      I know, context means nothing to you; we all see it on a daily – and sometimes hourly basis – the way you abuse Scripture with no regard for context.

      So how about not interjecting YOUR idea of what should have been said rather than what the CONTEXT was about.

      By the way, there is nothing “normal” about you. Now, go back to your troll cave.

  18. paynehollow says:

    Here is a helpful chart…

  19. paynehollow says:

    Love you, buddy. Have a happy and blessed new year!

    ~Dan

  20. vincedeporter says:

    I fully agree with your OP, John. Well said!

Trackbacks

  1. […] of Mary in grilled cheese sandwiches, the “shape” of a cross in someone’s cheesecake make Christianity look […]

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: