As for you Protestants who disagree with me, you're not at all understanding what 'real presence' qua "real" even means--you've entirely fallen for the Catholic ploy of equating it with transubstantiation. If you read your reformers (except Zwingli) you'll see ALL believed that 'hoc est corpus meum'--they didn;t doubt this at all; they just disbelieved transubstantiation, a perverse neo-Aristotelian doctrine of Aquinas.

And by the way, there's a lie which often circulates these days (particularly among Israel-obsessed Protestants) that Hitler's antisemitism has it's roots in Luther. Anti-semitism and Wotanist paganism has ancient roots in Germany. Luther was a product of German anti-semitism; not the originator of it.

If I'm an atheist can I be sworn in on a Richard Dawkins book? Heck, how about a Spiderman comic book?

Hey all you RCs, here's a joke (meant in good humor--don't get too offended):

Q: I don't know when the RCC will begin allowing married clergy, but when it does do you know how the encyclical will start?

A:"As the church has always taught..."

Moral of the story: the church never changes even when she changes.

Not to say the RCC has always been an ally of education though--in the later middle ages the RCC clamped down quite a bit and it was the early Lutheran church which distinguished itself as being a friend of public education (and indeed since then Protestantism has been a great friend of free education--such as in Knox's Scotland).

I would remind you and others that the whole corruption-repression-Dark Ages interpretation buys into a historiography invented by atheists and secularists, not Protestant Christians. That historiography was conceived and prosecuted against Christianity at large.

Of course I haven't documented every instance of glossalalia which ever occurred. I was simply saying what my experience is (as a person who spent some time in a charismatic congregation - which, I would add, was a good group of people who really love and serve Jesus - I just really doubt tongues in the contemporary post-1920s understanding of the word).

The heavens declare the universe is older than 6,000 years. The earth declares it's older than 6,000 years. God created both, so I accept the testimony of both. Scientific study is the basis whereby Pasteur realized that viruses and bacteria cause disease, and not evil spirits. If you're sick, don't you go to the doctor?

Evidence is of vital importance in a court of law, and can determine the fate of an individual, whether it be guilt or innocence. DNA evidence has cleared people who were formerly on death row. I'm not going to reject proof that shows there was no global flood within the past 6,000 years just to fit into a particular interpretation of scripture. Again, Ussher was sorely mistaken.

The whole basis for a 6,000 year old earth is based on the work of Archbishop Ussher. But Ussher got it wrong. All the archaeological evidence, linguistics and historical records indicates that there was no global flood within the past 6,000 years, and no global flood ever took place in 2348 BC.

I'm not going to throw out science when it seems to conflict with the Bible. God has given us a mind and intellect, and I for one intend on using them. I've studied both the Bible and books on astronomy, and I'm delving more into geology. I was convinced that God created everything when I was in elementary school. I think the point where we'll have to part is our interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. I don't take it literally (6 days, 24 hours) That doesn't lessen my belief in God.

Also, it was Christians who invented the field of geology. They figured out that the rock formations and fossils pointed to an ancient earth (4.6 billion years). All of this took place before Darwin.

Also, evolution is more than a theory. It's the basis for a lot of research, and the fact that it is real is testified to by a simple search on evolution at the pubmedcentral website.