Dan Brown: I am a Christian

Written by Leesa

I was reading the FAQs from Dan Brown’s Official Website and found that Brown considers himself a Christian.

Yes. Interestingly, if you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as absolute historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious–that is, that we are all trying to decipher life’s big mysteries, and we’re each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress.

He lists three different answers for what people consider being a Christian is:

  1. being baptized
  2. accepting the Bible as absolute historical fact
  3. believing and accepting Christ as personal savior

Christianity is not a continuum as Brown suggests, rather it is a specific set of beliefs. Many Christians around the world hold to a set of common beliefs outlined in the Nicean Creed:

We believe in one God
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit
and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand
of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord,
and the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in the one holy catholic

(universal Christian) and apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

What about you? Do you hold to the Nicean Creed? Is there a part of it that you disagree with or do you disagree with it all? What beliefs do you hold?

119 Responses to “Dan Brown: I am a Christian”

  • Wayne says:

    What astounds me is that the history of Christianty holds to a creed that says nothing about caring for the poor or marginailsed which scripture is clears at to being one of the primary reasons Jesus came. From my perspective of the scriptures it is clear that being a christian has little do with creeds and more to following Jesus. But that has always been the problem with the christians in general, they love the benefits of going heaven without the implications of it on earth. As for me, I will take Jesus as my creed rather than a creed that excuses a person from having to walk as he did.

  • Michaela says:

    You’re right. I shouldn’t have compared Hitler to the Pope. Sorry. But I was just trying to say that there are alot of people have someone they adore and respect, whether they are good or not.

    You can have a family and fully benefit the church and it’s people. My pastor, for example, does such. You need time management skills. Not everyone can do it, that’s why not everyone is a pastor/priest or even the pope.

    How are you supposed to vote for something if you don’t have a personal opinion? For example, voting for a Prime Minister means YOU think he is the best person to run the country, and YOU like him best. It’s YOU who likes him. And it’s YOU who votes for the PM. Same with voting for the Pope. It’s their own personal opinions. That’s a bias.

    Where in the Bible does it say the pope is infallible?

  • Gary J Sibio says:


    I have to disagree with you. Papal infallibility is much more than a theory, it is a promise of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If we can’t believe His promises, who can you believe? It is also one of the de fide (mandatory) doctrines of the Catholic Church. To reject it is to reject Catholicism.

    Some of the statements you made make me think that you have some misunderstandings of what papal infallibility means. It does not mean that everything the pope says or does is correct. For example, I disagree with the late Pope John Paul II about the war in Iraq but this was his political opinion and those are not considered to be infallible.

    In order for a statement to be considered infallible, three conditions must be met:

    1) The statement must be regarding doctrines or moral issues. If he makes a political statement, he can make an error.

    2) The statement must be intended for the entire Catholic Church, not just a portion of it.

    3) The pope must declare that it is his intention that the statement is to be considered infallible. The pope is free to express an opinion, even on matters of doctrine or morals, that is not to be taken as infallible.

    Can you give an example of what you were referring to when you said, “There have been times in the past when the pope has made a false statement that has affected the church….”

  • Tasha says:

    I’m arguing with you because I just made that conclusion myself, after thinking about it for a while. NOW there is no point in arguing.

    I think that is a cowardly point to say that people listened to Hitler. The Pope is far different from Hitler. And even to say that is usually because you have nothing else to say but you stil want a reaction. What do you honestly expect me to say to that?

    No you do not need to spend all your time with God to be close to him…..that is not what I said. But if you do, than you will be EVEN closer to him. If you have a family than ofcourse God wants you to take care of them and that is one of his works.
    But to fully benefit the church and its people, no family provides more time.

    Ummm…you asked what voting isn’t brutal and aggressive. Well I think the answer to that would be things like voting for the pope. After all we are talking about cardinals here.

    And as for personal bias. That is not the case when you are given the responsibility of representing the opinion of the entire church. You learn to set that aside.

  • Michaela says:

    Ok well that changes everything if you say that “papal infallibility” is just a theory! You and Gary go at it like it’s an absolute truth. Why bother arguing over a theory?

    Alot of people listened to and loved Hitler…

    I don’t think you need to spend ALL your time with God to be really close to him. All your time should be devoted to God (ex. doing things you know he would approve of, evangelizing, being with your family). And of course God wouldn’t want you to neglect your family. But being close to God doesn’t mean neglecting stuff like that. It means putting him first.

    Fist of all, ALL voting is based on your OWN PERSONAL bias. You can’t deny that. And second of all, what human voting process isn’t brutal and agressive?

    And bassically ALL I’ve been trying to say about papal infallibility is that it isn’t 100% truth 100% of the time. Which you just admitted. So…why are you arguing with me?

  • Tasha says:

    I have thought about it for a while…. and I suppose that is correct in some cases. Papal infallability is more of a theory than it is a belief. There have been times in the past when the pope has made a false statement that has affected the church….and so, it really depends on the pope in charge whether you personally feel he is infallible, rather than it being a manditory catholic belief.

    I did find it funny that you said. “if the pope was free from error wouldn’t people listen to him?” Are you kidding me? All catholics listen to the pope, and that alone is alot of people. Infact, there are more catholics than there are all the protestants put together. On top of that, many protestants listen to him with a great amount of respect and also non-believers. All these put together makes a lot of people who listen to the pope. So I just thought that was a funny statement.

    You said that you have to be with someone 24/7 to know how close they are to God. Well i know that if he spends his time 24/7 just with God, than he isn’t being fair to his family. And God wouldn’t want that either. The pope has no family or wife or other job or anything. He spends his whole life 24/7 just with God.

    The pope is the church member who takes care of the churches political issues. The cardinals(thats what they are called) vote on the cardinal who will suit the job best, not who they like best. Now I want to know where you got the idea that the voting process between cardinals is agressive and brutal. Somehow I think you made that up.

    The church is not perfect and so popes in the past have been fallible but like I said it is more of a theory than a 100% truth.

  • Michaela says:

    Back to the church making alot of mistakes. If the Pope is protected from all error than why has the church made huge mistakes? The Pope is the head of the church so wouldn’t he try to stop them. And if he was protected from all error wouldn’t people listen to him or atleast most of the people listen to him? The Pope has been the head of many disasters, so how can he protected from all error?

    And how can you know that the Pope is closer to God than my pastor. Even I don’t know that. You have to be with someone 24/7 to know how close they are to God.

    And just because the Pope has to go through a huge long process to get where he is doesn’t mean he’s closer to God. And it doesn’t mean he is protected from error. And it doesn’t mean he is holy or better than my pastor or anyone else.

    The Church is led by men not by God. If the Church was led by God it would be perfect but it’s not. In the same way, the Pope is elected by men not by God. People who are the top dogs of the Catholic church (I don’t know what they are called) vote on who they like better and sometimes it’s rather agressive. I don’t think elections are from God to be honest. Even in the Church it can get rather brutal. The Pope is elected by who those people like best, not always who God likes best.

    If the Pope was protected from error the Catholic church would be perfect. It’s not. I’m not here to point out all the flaws (Protestant churches have flaws) but don’t you think if he was protected from all error involving faith and what not, wouldn’t the Catholic church be perfect?

  • Tasha says:

    Well, many protestants don’t realize the holiness of the pope.
    He is so much closer to God than any pastor.

    In this case I wouldn’t expect you to beleive in papal infallibility.

  • Michaela says:

    I didn’t say all Christians opposed abortion.

    Why is birth control a sin?

    I’ve never really like Tony Campolo. Alot of the things he has to say are pretty sketchy; like you can’t be a Christian if you are rich.

    Define Evangelicalism please.

    Nobody is protected from error. Not me, not you and not the Pope. Not even the Apostles were completely protected from error.

    I don’t believe in papal infallibility.

    You happen to insult me too, by the way. And I don’t want you to pray for me.

  • Gary J Sibio says:


    I already said that the Bible says not to murder but, while I agree with you that a fetus is a human being, the Bible does not say that it is so. And, sadly, many Christians don’t believe that abortion is wrong. I knew this girl who was an Evangelical and protested at abortion clinics on Saturdays. When she became pregnant she asked me if I thought it would be OK if she had the baby aborted. She thought it would be OK because a pregnancy would ruin her figure.

    Prior to 1930, every single Christian church taught that artificial birth control was a sin. In 1930 the Anglicans decided that it was permissible in some circumstances such as for the health of the mother. Now the Catholic Church is the only church that still holds up the truth on this issue.

    When I was an Evangelical Tony Campolo was a rising star. Everyone was reading his books and, for the most part, they were pretty good. Shortly after I returned to Catholicism Campolo announced that he now believed that the Bible taught that the homosexual lifestyle was just as valid as the heterosexual lifestyle. In other words, there was nothing wrong with gay sex.

    Thee are just a couple of examples of how Evangelicalism has either completely gone down the wrong path or is on its way.

    If you do not believe that anyone has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit that they would be protected from error, then your argument is with Jesus and the Bible, not me. I’m not the one that came up with the idea. I’ve showed you where Scripture teaches it, I can’t force you to believe what the Bible says.

    Although I didn’t go into detail the last time I wrote you, I did mention that papal infallibility depended on certain conditions being met. I gave the conditions when I wrote to Tasha so I won’t repeat them here. No one claims that the Pope is always right. In fact the First Vatican Council in 1871 was held, in part, because a group called the Ultramontanes had formed and taught that everything the pope said was infallible. The Council was held to refute that error.

    I don’t agree with everything the pope says. Pope John Paul II said that he did not believe that the war in Iraq met the standards to be considered a just war. I believe that it does meet those standards. The matter is a political issue, not a matter of faith or morals, so I am free to disagree with the pope.

    I never said that I believed the bishops were God. Heck, there are a few that I don’t even consider to be godly. I also don’t believe what I have stated because of what they told me; I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church because they are consistent with what the Bible says. When I returned to the Catholic Church I didn’t talk to a single bishop or even a priest. I did do quite a lot of reading on why the Catholic Church taught what it taught and discovered, much to my surprise since I wasn’t expecting this to be the case, that the teachings of the Catholic Church were completely consistent with Scripture. Although Evangelicalism is largely consistent with the Bible, there are some problems.

    It is my usual practice to start responding as I read a post just because it helps me keep my thoughts clear. I must say that I was shocked by the judgmental attitude you displayed in your final paragraph. You have completely misjudged me. I certainly have not spent all this time responding to you to prove I am right. I have much better things to do than that. I spent all this time because I believed you to be an honest seeker of the truth. I claim no credit for the truths which I have spoken about here. They are the truths which the Catholic Church has taught since the day of Pentecost. If you are going to respond with insults, I see no point in continuing this discussion. I will continue to pray for you especially that He will be able to show you the truth.

  • Gary J Sibio says:

    Hi Tasha,

    Glad I was able to help.

    I usually catch Fr. Corapi on Sunday evenings. I’m in the Central time zone and he’s on at 7PM. You can adjust for whatever time zone you’re in. He also has some radio programs which are aired on the Relevant Radio Network. I don’t know if the times are consistent from one station to another.

    re: The Rapture

    The Rapture is an event which many, if not all, Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants look forward to. Although there are differences of opinion as to when it will happen, it essentially is a gathering up into Heaven of all living believers sometime prior to the return of Jesus. Most believers in the Rapture hold that it will occur seven years before Jesus returns so that believers will not have to go through the Great Tribulation.

    The main problem with the Rapture is that, prior to 1830, no one had ever heard of such a thing. The idea is less than 200 years old making it a fairly recent innovation. The Catholic Church rejects the Rapture as a false teaching although we certainly believe that Jesus will return someday. (Hopefully, soon.)

    re: papal infallibility

    The Catholic Church teaches that the pope is divinely protected from making an error when he speaks if the following conditions are met:

    * It must be a matter of faith or morals. If the pope says that the St. Louis Cardinals are going to win the World Series, he has no more chance of being correct than you or I.

    * It must be intended for the entire Church. In this case I mean the Catholic Church not the universal Church. Sometimes the pope will make a statement to believers in a particular area. These statements would not be considered infallible.

    * He must state that it is his intent for this to be taken as an infallible statement. The pope can also have his own opinions which would not be considered to be infallible.

    Most of the doctrines of the Catholic Church have been established by the various councils throughout history. Only two have been established by papal infallibility: the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception (1854) and the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven (1950).

    Hope this helps.

  • Michaela says:

    The mortal sin thing is fine with me.

    The Bible says do not murder. The fetus is human. Why do you think so many people (mainly Christians) oppose it.

    You don’t even know what my “logic” is.

    No one has the garuntee of the Holy Spirit. The church has been wrong so many times…how can you explain that?

    First of all, the Bishops of the Catholic church are not God, sorry to disappoint you. And secondly, don’t you think Bishops, pastors, priests and everyday people can be wrong? Of course they can. I’m not going to blindly follow a Bishop just because you said they are right.

    And I do believe that God would speak to me about this subject. Maybe through you, or a friend or maybe he would just speak to me in prayer. And God hasn’t yet. And it’s one of those things where you know God has spoken to you and you can deny it but you know it in your heart. And I have prayed about this and will continue to do so. Maybe you are right and maybe later I’ll discover that. But maybe you’re wrong and I don’t know you but I know that you are not perfect.

    And don’t preach to me that you don’t want me to be angry and you just want me to see the truth. Sometimes you say things that are so filled with spite. Why don’t you actually think about the things you say before you say them? I don’t talk to you because I want to be right. I talk to you because you seem intelligent and you know your Bible. But I’m not certainly not interested in talking to someone who just wants to be right. That frustrates me because being right is not always the most important thing.

  • Tasha says:


    Thanks for telling me what you know about the apochrypa. You automatically answered all my questions and I’m quite satisfied with your answers.

    I have not heard of Fr. Corapi before, but I will make a point to find him on tv.

    Now, I have just two questions for you, about your last post.
    1. What is/was the Rapture.
    2. What is papacy and papal infallibility.

  • Gary J Sibio says:

    I can’t get anything right today…..

    re: twisting words

    I was responding to this comment of yours: You think God is too stupid to know when we aren?t being honest?

    That’s not just asking a question but let’s drop it.

    You misunderstood me. I said the “mortal sin” is, by definition, an act in which the sinner rejects God. Mortal sins require an intent to sin. You cannot commit a mortal sin by accident or by unintentional ignorance. The only way confessing directly to God could be construed as rejecting God is if the person knew that he was supposed to confess to a priest and said in his heart, “I don’t care what God says. I’m going to do it my way.”

    re: if it’s against God’s will, He would say so

    I can think of some very serious evil that is not specifically prohibited in the Bible. For example, there is no biblical prohibition on abortion in the Bible. Yes, the Bible does prohibit murder but it doesn’t specifically say that the fetus is human. Following your logic, we should allow the slaughter of the unborn.


    The other day I asked Tasha if she had ever heard Fr. John Corapi speak on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I happened to hear him twice on Sunday and, while not specifically on topic, what he had to say both times is very relevant to this discussion. If you don’t mind, I’m going to summarize his comments.

    Descartes is the 17th century French philosopher who came up with “I think, therefore I am.” Obviously there are a lot of things which don’t think yet still exist – rock, plants, my dogs, the typical teenager – so what the heck was he talking about? Descartes was proposing a radical new way of thinking about the truth. Although he was wrong, his beliefs have dominated the world today and have even infected Christianity.

    Prior to Descartes truth was considered to be objective. Something outside of ourselves determined whether something was true or false. Therefore something could be true even if we were convinced it was false and could be false even if we were convinced it was true. What that something that determined true and false was differed from group to group but it was never the individual. Descartes was essentially saying that what I believe to be true is true because it is true for me. No one can tell me what is true and false or good and bad because it all depends on what I think is true and false or good and bad. I’m sure you’ve heard the term “moral relativism.” The idea came from Descartes.

    As Christians, we know that we do not determine what is right and what is wrong. That is God’s job, not ours. How does He let us know? Protestants usually answer the Bible but the Bible itself gives a different answer: The pillar and bulwark (support) of the truth is the Church of the living God (1 Tim 3:15). It makes sense that God would use the Church to do this rather than the Bible because, even while the truth does not change with the times, it has to be applied to changing circumstances. The Bible, although it is true in what it says, does not directly address all of the issues we face today. The Bible does contain principles which can help us with the situations we face today but they still need to be applied.

    God communicates His truth to the Church by means of the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. As you have pointed out in the past, every Christian has the Holy Spirit. No one is saying different. That does not mean, however, that every Christian has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit. By this I mean that not every believer has the absolute assurance (guarantee) that he will hear what the Holy Spirit is saying without any possibility of error. If we did have this guarantee, there would be no cults or even denominations. We would all be in absolute doctrinal agreement.

    God did, however, give the guarantee of the Holy Spirit to some. In Matt 16:18 Jesus established His Church and placed Peter as its earthly head. Jesus told Peter two things: (1) what he (Peter) bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven and what would be loosed on Earth would be loosed in Heaven and (2) the gates (forces) of Hell would never prevail against the Church. (This passage is part of the scriptural basis for the Catholic Church’s belief in the papacy and papal infallibility.)

    Later, at the Last Supper, Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth (John 14:25-26; 16:13). Jesus waited to give this promise until He was alone with the apostles because the promise applied *only* to the apostles and their successors. He did not intend that this particular spiritual gift go to all believers.

    The Bible gives us a snapshot of how this all works out in practice. In Acts 10 Peter is given a vision from God in which he is told that Gentiles are to be allowed into the Church without first becoming Jews as had been the practice so far. Shortly thereafter, the apostles (bishops) met to talk about this matter (Acts 15). Once Peter told the other apostles how God had revealed this to him, all discussion about whether Gentiles had to become Jews ended.

    Almost 300 years later there was a dispute over whether or not Jesus was God and those who held the office of bishop then, or, at least, those who could make the trip, met together and said that Jesus was God. The fact that Arius really believed that Jesus was only a man didn’t matter. What he believed didn’t make it true.

    I mentioned that Descartes’ ideas have infected Christianity. Actually, the ideas began to infect Christianity before Descartes was even born because it started with the Protestant Reformation.

    First, let me say that there are not also people in the Catholic Church who are guilty of the same thing. There are Catholics at the very liberal and very conservative ends of the Church that are just as guilty of this as any Protestant. Secondly, I am not saying that there is nothing good at all in Protestantism. What I’m saying is that some of the doctrines of the various branches of Protestantism arose from what one person or a small group of people believed to be true. They may truly believe that the Bible supports their view but the fact remains that they are saying that it is true because they believe it to be true.

    A great example of what I am talking about is the Evangelical belief in the Rapture prior to the return of Jesus. Prior to 1830 there was not a single church – Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox – which taught a belief in the Rapture. The belief first appeared in England in the 1830s and was popularized by Moody and some other evangelists but was really given a boost by CI Scofield, a Kansas City lawyer with absolutely no theological training who is known for his Scofield Reference Bible which popularized the teaching.

    So what’s my point? I know you’re not going to like this but the simple fact is that, if something you believe contradicts what the bishops of the Catholic Church have declared to be true, it doesn’t matter how much you believe it, it’s wrong. The fact that you do not believe that you need not confess your sins to a priest does not alter the fact that God has said otherwise and told us through those bishops. I’m not picking on you. If I said something that contradicted them, I would also be wrong. I’m sorry if this angers you, that was not my intent, but I have to go with God.

    Christians have a unique view of the truth. Not only do we believe that it is objective, but we have an actual embodiment of the truth in Jesus Christ who said that He was the truth (John 14:6). When we reject the truth – God’s truth, not what we believe to be true – we are rejecting Jesus. I’m not saying that you are intentionally doing so but I do suggest that you examine what you believe to make sure that there is more behind it than your sincerity.

  • Gary J Sibio says:

    Please excuse the above.

    re: twisting words

    I was responding to this comment of yours>> You think God is too stupid to know when we aren?t being honest?

  • Gary J Sibio says:

    re: twisting words

    I was responding to this comment of yours>> You think God is too stupid to know when we aren?t being honest?

  • Michaela says:

    I don’t think that just because we don’t confess ‘mortal sins’ to a priest it’s rejecting God. But you could probably assume I would think that.

    Ok, whatever. I just don’t agree that we have to confess our sins to a priest. I think that if someone came to an apostle for help or whatever the case maybe they could forgive their sins. And I just think if it isn’t God’s will to confess our sins to him than he would say so. Why wouldn’t God want me to confess my sins to him? I dunno. I just can’t agree with you. Sorry.

    I wasn’t twisting your words I was just asking you.

  • Gary J Sibio says:

    Hi Tasha,

    The catechism is a very useful resource. Have you ever heard Fr. John Corapi’s series on the catechism? It’s aired as a TV show on EWTN and the audio portion is broadcast on the Relevant Radio network. It’s very good. He goes into quite a lot of detail in his explanations.

    re: confession directly to God

    Michaela and I were specifically talking about mortal sins. We do not have to confess venial sins to a priest but it is required for mortal sins. Of course it should also be a natural response to talk to God about it when we repent of a mortal sin but we still have to go to confession. If we get hit by a car before it is possible for us to get to confession and we die, God is not going to hold that against us because the intent to do His will was there. However, just to blow off confession because we don’t feel like it or even that we don’t think we have to when we know better is just as much a rejection of God as the sin we need to confess is.

    re: Apocrypha

    The definition of Apocrypha depend on who you’re talking to. Essentially it means ancient writings from the biblical period which were not included in the Bible. The problem comes from the differences in the Old Testament versions used by Catholics and the Orthodox on one hand and Protestants on the other. After Luther broke with the Church he decided that there were seven complete books and sections of two other books in the Old Testament which he did not believe should be there so he decided they were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. (He also wanted to remove the Letter of James and Revelation from the New Testament but friends talked him out of it.)

    Protestants call these books the Apocrypha. Catholics, who believe they are a valid part of the Old Testament, call them the Deuterocanonical (= “second canon”) books and believe they are just as inspired by the Holy Spirit as any other book of the Bible. Catholics also use the term apocrypha but use it to refer to writings from that time and area which no one includes in the Bible. This would include works like the Book of Enoch, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Psalms of Solomon and the Gnostic writings that everyone was talking about with The DaVinci Code. Protestants generally refer to these books as the pseudipigrapha but sometimes use apocrypha for them also.

    Just to make things more confusing, none of these labels are used for the writings of the early Church fathers which, although not part of the Bible, are still great sources of truth. They are not on the same level as the Bible, however.

    Hope this helps.


    Again, once God has told us how He wants us to confess our sins, He does not have to list every other possible option and tell us that it’s a no-no. He told us how to do it. We either obey Him or not. I can know that confessing mortal sins directly to God is not His will because He gave the apostles the authority to forgive the sins or not. I’ve asked this before and you didn’t answer: Why would God give them this authority if He didn’t intend it to be used? I am not twisting the Scriptures at all, Michaela. I am only telling you what every single Christian who walked this planet in the 1,500 years between Pentecost and the Reformation believed. How can you be sure that people confessed their mortal sins directly to God before the Reformation. You can’t. There is absolutely no evidence that Christians did that and your desire to have it be that way doesn’t change a thing.

    You are twisting my words and I resent that. I never said that God was too stupid to know when we are being insincere. What I said is that we can trick ourselves into thinking that we are being sincere when we are not.

    BTW, the passage I quoted from the Bible is also found in every single Protestant translation of the Bible.

    And as far as why people insist on confessing their sins in an unscriptural manner, I have no idea. You’d be better off asking someone who does it.

  • Tasha says:

    Are you claiming that you never confess just to God? Cause i’m not condemming you for that, i’m just kind of amazed. How often do you go to confession? Cause i don’t really get there often enough to remember ALL my little sins when i’m talking to the priest. Or do you just generalize your sins when your confessing (cause i do) rather then stating all specific instances.

    Now, i have a quick question for you thats completely unrelated. Do you know what the apocrapha is? Because i have a few questions that apply to it…and i am looking for someone that would know the answers.
    You might just be the guy with my answer.

Leave a Reply

Start a Conversation

Latest Comments

  • Jamie said: Hi Benjamin, what do you think those reasons might...
  • Benjamin M.J said: Da vinci was not stupid.There should be some re...
  • Carole said: My prayer is for all who don't know/believe in Jesus....