Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:36 pm**

kateliz wrote:God! How else do you explain all of the Bible burnings and martyrs and hidden "heretics," and yet it still stands? How about the Bible being confined to Latin and monks, and jealously kept out of the hands of the commonman? To think of all that the Catholic Church has done to oppose the true gospel throughout the years, it's a veritable miracle, (in my eyes,) that we were able to recover and have widespread Truth again! The only thing the Catholic Church did for preservation was to unspeakably tarnish the name of Christ before the world and hide the Bible away. You might claim missionaries as proof of it's desire to spread the gospel, but I'd say missionaries were for greater political control and wealth! And yes, they were successful! It had to be God who protected what was His despite all of that nonesense.

Agreed. It's probably a good thing God is still at work despite all the nonsense that goes on outside the Catholic Church today as well.

Posted: **Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:51 pm**

It is my opinion that the Catholic Church as an institution is a great evil.

It is my opinion that individual Catholics are saved as any Christian from any denomination is assuming they have called on Jesus' name:

"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

This is how people are saved, not by having perfect doctrine.

The Catholic Church as an organization is utterly contemptible and has done more damage to Christ's name throughout its history, than a whole bus-load of Satans could have.

The rise of Atheism in Europe is traced back to the French Revolution which was mainly a response to a society where the Catholic Church disgracfully abused its immense power and oppressed society.

It is not just the Catholic Church though - it is almost every form of organized religion. It has a phenomenal capacity for corruption.

Blacknad.

Posted: **Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:31 pm**

kateliz wrote:
IRQ Conflict wrote:I almost backslid straight into the pit
IRQ! Are you kidding, or really serious about thinking you deconverted?

Well, I don't think I would use the word 'deconverted' but backslide is more appropriate. I was raised in a Christian home with Christian values, but never seemed to (miss)fit in. I have never llived my life for the Lord, save for a few shining moments

When I was between the ages of 13 all the way up to about fool25ish I was a hellion. Never meaning to do wrong but always finding a way to do it.

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:02 pm**

Greetings, My fellow believers....

Today is my first day as a member here. You see, you never know who might be reading through an entire thread, and what an impression you have probably made, especially on myself. Each of us is a witness, either for or against the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom.

Let me commend you all, for throughout the entire discussion, there has been a spirit of Christ's Love, except for a few dips along the way. I, therefore, look forward to being a part of this site's discussions, and of meeting new Christian friends here.

I must share with you, that I feel that I am here among some really spiritual giants, which makes me consider my own ineptness. But, I have gleaned quite number of spiritual tid bits from what has been written.

Thank you.

My user name is crmann, my real name is Cleveland. I refer to myself as Cleveland, the old timer.. Getting closer to 70 years of age every day!

Bless you,

In Christ,

Cleveland,
the old timer

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:44 pm**

crmann wrote:Greetings, My fellow believers....

Today is my first day as a member here. You see, you never know who might be reading through an entire thread, and what an impression you have probably made, especially on myself. Each of us is a witness, either for or against the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom.

Let me commend you all, for throughout the entire discussion, there has been a spirit of Christ's Love, except for a few dips along the way. I, therefore, look forward to being a part of this site's discussions, and of meeting new Christian friends here.

I must share with you, that I feel that I am here among some really spiritual giants, which makes me consider my own ineptness. But, I have gleaned quite number of spiritual tid bits from what has been written.

Thank you.

My user name is crmann, my real name is Cleveland. I refer to myself as Cleveland, the old timer.. Getting closer to 70 years of age every day!

Bless you,

In Christ,

Cleveland,
the old timer

Hello Cleveland and welcome. What's a family without a few dips here and there and without a few dysfunctional members? (I, of course, am referring to none other than myself

).

Seriously though, this site is like a family of believers. True, we have some very seemingly different belief systems but we do have a common denominator, Christ.

In the General Chit-chat forum there's a thread where you can introduce yourself more officially. Here's the link:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=285

I look forward to reading your thoughts and wisdom.

God Bless,

Byblos (John).

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:20 pm**

Thanks, John...

I look forward to being more a part of what is going on here.

Cleveland,
The old timer

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:01 am**

Veronica wrote:
SUGAAAAA wrote:The only thing really have an issue with (although not a big one) is infant baptism. isnt this unbiblical? and how come infants are never baptized in the NT?
On the contrary, keep in mind that entire households were baptized, this would include infants. (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; Acts 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16)

Can you prove that infants were present in each case? In fact can you prove that infants were present in any case at all?

Can you provide any evidence that baptism did not need to be accompanied by repentance and a confession of faith?

As for prayers to saints (and even angels), they are fully recognised by the RCC, and are considered an important part of the Catholic's spiritual life. You wil find that justification for prayers to the saints in the Roman Catholic Catechism.

You will also find prayers such as these:

Prayer to Saint Joseph

O glorious Saint Joseph, you were chosen by God to be the foster father of Jesus, the most pure spouse of Mary, ever virgin, and the head of the Holy Family. You have been chosen by Christ's vicar as the heavenly patron and protector of the Church founded by Christ.

Protect the Holy Father, our sovereign pontiff, and all bishops and priests united with him. Be the protector of all who labor for souls amid the trials and tribulations of this life, and grant that all peoples of the world may follow Christ and the Church he founded.

Dear St. Joseph, accept the offering I make to you. Be my father, protector, and guide in the way of salvation. Obtain for me purity of heart and a love for the spiritual life. After your example, let all my actions be directed to the greater glory of God, in union with the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and your own paternal heart. Finally, pray for me that I may share in the peace and joy of your holy death. Amen.

Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel

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 host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all the other evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Note that these prayers to Joseph the husband of Mary, and to Michael the archangel, are given the full approval of the RCC:

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Source. Don't let any Catholic tell you this is 'outdated', or 'not really Catholic', or 'nonsense', or 'not condoned by the Church', or 'Totally wrong'. It is official Roman Catholic teaching.

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:05 am**

Fortigurn wrote:Can you prove that infants were present in each case? In fact can you prove that infants were present in any case at all?

Can you prove there wasn't any?

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:19 am**

Fortigurn,

In the process of responding to your post, I accidently edited it out entirely. Sorry about that. Please re-edit and insert here.

Byblos.

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:01 pm**

Fortigurn wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:Can you prove that infants were present in each case? In fact can you prove that infants were present in any case at all?

Byblos wrote:Can you prove there wasn't any?
Asking me to prove a negative is a logical fallacy.

Ah yes, to prove a negative is a logical fallacy.

The onus is on whomever makes a statement of fact, and your statement that a negative cannot be proven certainly qualifies. Now please provide the proof that shows your statement to be true. In order for you to do so, you would have to prove a negative, and that, of course, makes your statement self-contradictory, thereby rendering it in the category of nonsense.

(p.s. in the process of responding to your post Fortigurn, I accidently deleted it, sorry about that).

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:39 pm**

Byblos wrote:The onus is on whomever makes a statement of fact, and your statement that a negative cannot be proven certainly qualifies. Now please provide the proof that shows your statement to be true. In order for you to do so, you would have to prove a negative, and that, of course, makes your statement self-contradictory, thereby rendering it in the category of nonsense.

(p.s. in the process of responding to your post Fortigurn, I accidently deleted it, sorry about that).

I don't think you understand what proving a negative means. Please look it up.

As I said, the onus is on the claimant. Whether or not you believe that proving a negative is a logical fallacy is irrelevant. This does not exculpate you from the onus of proving that infants were present and baptized.

What I can provide is Scriptural evidence that those who were baptized were required to make a confession of faith, which an infant cannot do. The post-apostolic Christian community required those being baptized to make a lengthy confession of faith in public, and fast for three days prior to baptism. An infant cannot do this (and there is no record of them making any exceptions).

Please see the Didache (late 1st century).

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:22 pm**

Infant baptism is not solely Roamn Catholic, so I'm not sure why it is in a RC thread. Shouldn't that be a separate issue, considering many denominations practice it? Just asking since I am new to the board.

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:17 pm**

Fortigurn wrote:
Byblos wrote:The onus is on whomever makes a statement of fact, and your statement that a negative cannot be proven certainly qualifies. Now please provide the proof that shows your statement to be true. In order for you to do so, you would have to prove a negative, and that, of course, makes your statement self-contradictory, thereby rendering it in the category of nonsense.

(p.s. in the process of responding to your post Fortigurn, I accidently deleted it, sorry about that).
I don't think you understand what proving a negative means. Please look it up.

And I suggest you go back and learn what a logical statement is.

Fortigurn wrote:As I said, the onus is on the claimant.

Yes it is and you claimed that a negative cannot be proven, to which I've logically shown how that statement is nonsense, ergo a response to it is unnecessary. If you disagree, please show me the proof that shows my statement to be untrue (oops, there I go again).

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:08 am**

Angel Cake wrote:Infant baptism is not solely Roamn Catholic, so I'm not sure why it is in a RC thread. Shouldn't that be a separate issue, considering many denominations practice it? Just asking since I am new to the board.

Infant baptism is not solely a Roman Catholic practice, but it has been raised as one RC teaching with which certain Christians take issue.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:01 am**

Byblos wrote:Yes it is and you claimed that a negative cannot be proven, to which I've logically shown how that statement is nonsense, ergo a response to it is unnecessary. If you disagree, please show me the proof that shows my statement to be untrue (oops, there I go again).

What you have proved is that you don't understand what 'proving a negative' means. That doesn't really concern me, and if you don't believe that proving a negative is a logical fallacy then that doesn't concern me either. I'm not about to waste time on that.

So, back to the topic at hand (after all the handwaving distractions). As I said, the onus is on the claimant. Whether or not you believe that proving a negative is a logical fallacy is irrelevant. This does not exculpate you from the onus of proving that infants were present and baptized.

What I can provide is Scriptural evidence that those who were baptized were required to make a confession of faith, which an infant cannot do. The post-apostolic Christian community required those being baptized to make a lengthy confession of faith in public, and fast for three days prior to baptism. An infant cannot do this (and there is no record of them making any exceptions).

Please see the Didache (late 1st century).