Evidence for God from Science

Reactionary wrote:Hi Dallas.

I was born a Catholic (to put it that way). Having been an independent free-thinker my entire life, I had never really thought deeply about the Church's policies until I grew up. Besides, Roman Catholicism is by far the most widespread Christian denomination in my country, so I haven't often witnessed an alternative. I've always seen my relationship with God as something private.

So I started asking questions like, "If God knows my heart and my thoughts, why do I need a confession to have my sins forgotten?", or "Why intercessory prayers to saints? Isn't it wiser to pray to the One in charge of everything?" I sometimes feel that modern-day Catholicism complicates faith. Plus, being an anti-evolutionist, I'm honestly disappointed with the RCC's position towards the issue - I mean, it's not that they weren't once mistaken about the shape of the Earth because they adhered to the common beliefs of the time. These things distanced me from Catholicism, so I could de facto consider myself a non-denominational Christian at the moment, though I'm formally still a Catholic, for cultural reasons.

P.S. Byblos, feel free to bash me because of what I wrote here.

No bashing warranted Reactionary, there are many Catholics who feel that way. It has been my experience, however, that those Catholics who reject the teaching of the church they do so more out of ignorance of the church's teachings rather than an understanding based on study and a rejection. Not saying this pertains to you as well but for the most part this has been my take.

As for the RCC stance regarding evolution, the answer is that there is no official position. Catholics are free to believe what they want, as long as it does not violate certain fundamental doctrines (literal Adam and Eve, original sin, etc).

I am a baptist. I really like my church as they are very scripture based and only recognise the traditions that Jesus adhered to - which are communion (available to everyone), Marriage and believers Baptism (which you need to be saved ). There are no other traditions or made up stuff which can clog up worship (IMO) such as sometimes occur in Anglican high churches and Catholic churches . Just free to let the Holy Spirit move in our place of worship and sometimes you can really feel it.

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk wrote:I am a baptist. I really like my church as they are very scripture based and only recognise the traditions that Jesus adhered to - which are communion (available to everyone), Marriage and believers Baptism (which you need to be saved ). There are no other traditions or made up stuff which can clog up worship (IMO) such as sometimes occur in Anglican high churches and Catholic churches . Just free to let the Holy Spirit move in our place of worship and sometimes you can really feel it.

Silvertusk.

Well I can liberally confess that my worship has never been clogged up.

Thank the Lord for that.

Traditionally Low Church Anglican

Ultimately Protestant Reformed

Hm. Been thinking about this lately. I would never consider myself a member of just any one particular denomination, but I find I tend to fall in a place that combines Seventh-Day Adventist and Baptist beliefs. I attend a Baptist church.

Accept the annihilationism, soul sleep, Christ as Michael the Archangel when it comes to the Adventists. Unsure on the Sabbath-keeping part. Don't buy the Ellen G. White, investiagtive judgement, or YEC stuff, though.

When it comes to Baptists, I accept the canonical Scripture only as infallible and authoritative, baptism by immersion for believers by choice, salvation through faith alone, and I like congregational polity when it comes to my church.

My route to where I am now is interesting.

I grew up in a Spanish speaking Oneness Pentecostal church. I disliked it. I did not agree with everything they said. They raise objections to other denomination doctrines that make no sense at all. You can read about them if you guys want.
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_ur ... =Translate

When I was in high school, I began to think about what I believe. I typically had the most difficult questions on Christianity. After high school, I met what ended up being my wife and she was able to answer all the hard questions. I investigated salvation, and I asked her older brother (a youth minister) to baptize me.

I began learning apologetics and working on Christian philosophy. My wife and I don't have a particular denomination. We will go anywhere so long as don't clearly contradict the bible's teaching. I speak on Christian apologetics to several Spanish speaking churches here in the SF bay area. Probably about 3 or 4 different churches to help them defend themselves from atheist arguments.

I was baptized as a Catholic but in my late teens, found the Traditional Latin Rite and now attend Masses in Latin. I haven't been to a "Novus Ordo" mass since I was 19. I actually refuse to.

As a teenager, there was MUCH I found very disturbing about the new RCC. After much research, I discovered "slips" and blatant "disregard" for many of the older teachings which were easily thrown away. I was also troubled by the "translations" done in the Mass, and in some circles, many in the old rite don't believe the new Mass is even valid.

What terrifies me about the modern RCC now is how lenient they've become in so many things. It's hard to find a modern church that cracks down on modesty (I'm sorry, wearing tight jeans to church is not okay) or being disrespectful in front of the Eucharist by loud talking and showing irreverence, and, worst of all, this stupid "liturgical dancing" that is making it's way into church.
No. No. This is where I put my foot down.
We're supposed to be at church to pray to God to forgive our sins, to worship him, to spend time with him, to FOCUS on him. We're not there to focus on girls in tight clothing "dancing to the liturgy of God".

domokunrox wrote: When I was in high school, I began to think about what I believe. I typically had the most difficult questions on Christianity. After high school, I met what ended up being my wife and she was able to answer all the hard questions. I investigated salvation, and I asked her older brother (a youth minister) to baptize me.

Please don't tell me that the "babtism" Gave you salvation. It's the knowing of the heart that Jesus took your sins onto the cross. And you asked God to save you after giving a calling through your mouth. Not the babtism.

I attend an Evangelical church, its been my background, and I agree with a great number of its teachings and positions. So with all that in mind I guess it would make sense if I called myself an Evangelical, but I hesitate on that a bit. I'd actually say that I feel Evangelical emotionally and with my background, but intellectually I want to align myself with Christ before I align with any denomination. No denomination is on that level of importance, once they stop teaching Christ and advancing his Word and making disciples for him and not the denomination then I'm done with that denomination.

But I guess I'd still be willing to call myself an Evangelical, but its a secondary label.

I'm Reformed, a member of the Prebyterian Church of America.

I happen to like denominationalism. One's conclusions about all these peripheral issues we squabble about can really add up to influence what kind of Christian soldier one is. So I like to declare it. And I happen to like schisms. Sure, if we all consistently held to fundamental beliefs then minimizing unity would be fine but there is a tendency to liberalism that will always pop up and what's a conservative believer to do? Sit around and allow God's truth to be crushed under some wierd unity fetish? No way.

But I will still call any believer in Christ Jesus, the Trinity, and salvation by grace etc my brother.

Cumberland Presbyterian

I was raised Southern Baptist, and still attend the same church. We've had several pastors ranging from the hellfire-and-brimstone 'God is gonna kick you out of heaven if you mess up" type, to the kind of pastor who believes 'You and I cannot possibly wrap our heads around the level of love and compassion God has for us'. I also went to an Episcopalian elementary and middle school, then a Catholic high school. I guess you could say that I've got a pretty rounded Christian background...

I identify personally as being a Christian, above any and all denominations. In my experience/opinion, most denominations have the overwhelming majority of things in common as far as the core values of the faith are concerned. Sure we all have our differences, but doesn't each one of our faiths start on John 3:16? Paul said not to argue over disputable matters, and I'd like to see denominations getting a little bit better about that.

I don't have a problem with Christianity having different denominations, if handled properly. For example, if a certain denomination said to another, "You're going to hell because you don't go to church here and believe the exact same things I do", I would regard that as improperly handled. However, if one denomination said to another, "I feel it's much more respectful to go to a traditional hymns-and-organ service, but not the casual concert-style service you have. It's OK though, we believe the same basic things. We should work together and sponsor a team of missionaries." I would regard that as properly handled.

At the end of the day, we read from the same book, we follow the same Christ, we are filled with the same Spirit. Regarding individuals, Paul says the body of Christ is made up of many different parts, all filling their respective roles. Is it such a stretch to think that churches can do the same?

Dallas wrote:Okay, to start I do not classify myself as a baptist. I clarify myself as a believer of Jesus Christ. Now that i'm done with that lol. What are your guys's denominations? I'm baptist.

Okay now to my question a lot has happened to the Catholic church. But the major one I have seen is their salvation plans have completely took a turn for the worse. From what people say at the Church I go to. Why is it they switched their salvation plans from Being saved by Grace and not by works to completely the opposite? I know they have a different Bible than protestant churches, but it still has the correct way to get saved in it. So can somebody clarify this for me please?

Sincerely,


Dallas.

Dallas....Florida here . I dont do the Church Label thing --- I just love the Lord ! Here is a good online book on the RCC's major doctrines and how they go against what the Bible teaches (salvation is included) : http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp .

Many Christians , myself included, consider the RCC an apostate church now after the many centuries of man-made traditions which serve to nullify biblical doctrine . Concerning salvation, in RCism, there are a plethera of ways to be (eventually) saved and each way gives the faithful Catholic 'additional salvation graces' ; sadly, these include : Christs atoning sacrifice infused with ones personal works, deeds, and charity / relying on Mary / relying on belonging to the RCC who the Vatican declared as 'the visible sacrament of salvation' / performing Rosary meditations / doing personal penance / almsgiving / doing the sacraments / and even using the good works from dead catholics which have been deposited into a common Treasury Pot for a living Catholic to take from and apply toward his own salvation (see #1477 in the RCC Catechism for more on this Christ-demeaning teaching) .

Dallas wrote:Okay, to start I do not classify myself as a baptist. I clarify myself as a believer of Jesus Christ. Now that i'm done with that lol. What are your guys's denominations? I'm baptist.

Okay now to my question a lot has happened to the Catholic church. But the major one I have seen is their salvation plans have completely took a turn for the worse. From what people say at the Church I go to. Why is it they switched their salvation plans from Being saved by Grace and not by works to completely the opposite? I know they have a different Bible than protestant churches, but it still has the correct way to get saved in it. So can somebody clarify this for me please?

Sincerely,


Dallas.

Greetings from Popeland. As a lifelong Catholic let me take a crack at this.

The Catholic Church has held the same position in regards to salvation throughout her entire 2000 year history. Our position is that we are saved by grace. Faith can not save us, works can not save us, and in fact, anything else that originates from us and not God is radically insufficient for our salvation. God, by dying on the cross, sent an invitation to us to participate in his divine life, and as beings with free will, we can either accept or reject. To accept warrants a response, and that response takes the form of both faith and works. We are not trying to work our way into heaven, since we can't, but we are trying to respond to God's free gift of grace by following his commands.