Evidence for God from Science

alanna,

i am glad that you have so much faith and love for our Savior. i hope that you continue in your relationship with Him and that your relationship grows. the catholic religion was not a positive for me, but for some people i understand that it is. i am glad it is for you. that's cool!

Felgar, I appreciate what you wrote. I want to make it clear here that I do not hate Catholics, again, and nor do I believe that just because that's the denomination someone aligns themselves with I believe they are not saved. I don't think I've been clear enough on this. Here is my deal, so we don't get sidetracked off into the fact that there are saved Catholics who have very intimate relationships with our Father: the Roman Catholic Church has official doctrines on probably close to everything regarding the Christian faith, and I believe that quite a few of these official postitions are unbiblical, and to such an extent that they are extremely damaging. On rituals in general that Christians use which aren't even meant to have much meaning doctrinaly, I believe that they too can be quite harmful. What I want is doctrine that's in full harmony with the Bible and interactions with God that are as full of blessing as possible. I'm quite passionate on those things because I want people to be close to my Father. He's too Good not to take "advantage" of! I also don't want people distorting who He is or how He works. That burns me up, and I believe you might call it "righteous anger". Not only is it slander against my Abba, but it's harmful to people's perception of and relationship with Him. What I've found in reading parts of the official records of the doctrines the RCC believes is that their rituals are doctrinally rich, but unbiblical in those doctrines. I'm probably going to pick up a Catechism and maybe some other documents like that next week. I'm looking forward to getting all of my information straight from these, and to see all of what's in them instead of just pieces and parts. I will then know for sure whether the author of the book I've mentioned and quoted, (a whole lot! sorry, but I liked that all and thought it could benefit all sorts of people who are reading this thread,) took everything in full context or not, though I doubt that with his background and everything it could have been so far off.

Some people actually like all the rules though, and find it easier to communicate with God that way. Why try to combat that?

Easier isn't always better.

So it's better to have blocks put in their path because your definition of what "better" is doesn't fit in with theirs?

Mastermind wrote:So it's better to have blocks put in their path because your definition of what "better" is doesn't fit in with theirs?

It's ironic, but Kateliz is correct that its the works themselves that are the stumbling blocks. Isn't it great how there's almost always a passage that fits exactly into the conversation at hand?

Romans 9:30-33
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

The danger in Catholicism is that the rituals are distorted into exactly what Paul is talking about - that people may begin pursuing righteouness not by faith, but instead by works.

But there's definately a middle ground. Works (even ritual I believe) when done in faith unto the Lord can definately be a good thing, and are at worst neutral. (I can dig up the verse for this if I need to) The danger is that the more works we hold onto, the more we may naturally come to rely on them instead of Jesus - it seems to be basic human nature. But if we could get more Catholics realizing that, then I honestly believe there could be a huge revival within their church.

Except that you, like her, do not understand the Catholic position. Paul was referring to those who think they are saved by their works and NOT BY FAITH. That is certainly not the case as far as the Catholics are concerned(although I suppose this would depend on the individual).

Mastermind wrote:That is certainly not the case as far as the Catholics are concerned(although I suppose this would depend on the individual).

I'm saying that salvation by faith (grace through faith) is a message that can easily get lost in Catholicism.

Edit: Heh, good thing I'm not running for President, because this thread alone would be enough to demonstrate me as a "flip-flopper". To be clear, I'm arguing for middle ground out of respect for the faith of our Catholic board members - trying to hold off extremes from both sides. Maybe I'll just back away for a while.

Felgar wrote:

Mastermind wrote:That is certainly not the case as far as the Catholics are concerned(although I suppose this would depend on the individual).

Edit: Heh, good thing I'm not running for President, because this thread alone would be enough to demonstrate me as a "flip-flopper". To be clear, I'm arguing for middle ground out of respect for the faith of our Catholic board members - trying to hold off extremes from both sides. Maybe I'll just back away for a while.

Good Plan

Not one Christian should try to be "religiously correct", (my new term!) If something is harmful, then it is harmful.

Mastermind wrote:Except that you, like her, do not understand the Catholic position. Paul was referring to those who think they are saved by their works and NOT BY FAITH. That is certainly not the case as far as the Catholics are concerned(although I suppose this would depend on the individual).

Again MM, in speaking of the RCC, I'm speaking of official Church doctrines, not individual experience; and I'm speaking of rituals not like in collecting offerings, structure to services, or basic structure for baptisms or weddings or the like.

Council of Trent wrote:If anyone says that justice once received is neither preserved nor increased in the sight of God by good works, but that the works themselves are no more than the effects and signs of justification obtained, and not also a cause of its increase: let him be anathema.

Mastermind wrote:So it's better to have blocks put in their path because your definition of what "better" is doesn't fit in with theirs?

I'm saying that all of these rituals are harmful, not just "okay" or "whatever floats your boat." My ideas are not "better" because I believe there's essentially no good in the others. I understand your talk of me being a stumbling block to those who believe they are benefited by them, but you don't seem to grasp that I'm merely trying to remove what I believe is a stumbling block myself. I'm not trying to push my own opinions, but trying to remove the stumbling block of rituals, (and unbiblical doctrine that often accompanies them.) For me it's a matter of healthy versus unhealthy, not healthy versus healthier. I wish you could understand this, my intent.

kateliz wrote:Not one Christian should try to be "religiously correct", (my new term!) If something is harmful, then it is harmful.

Mastermind wrote:Except that you, like her, do not understand the Catholic position. Paul was referring to those who think they are saved by their works and NOT BY FAITH. That is certainly not the case as far as the Catholics are concerned(although I suppose this would depend on the individual).

Again MM, in speaking of the RCC, I'm speaking of official Church doctrines, not individual experience; and I'm speaking of rituals not like in collecting offerings, structure to services, or basic structure for baptisms or weddings or the like.

Council of Trent wrote:If anyone says that justice once received is neither preserved nor increased in the sight of God by good works, but that the works themselves are no more than the effects and signs of justification obtained, and not also a cause of its increase: let him be anathema.

Mastermind wrote:So it's better to have blocks put in their path because your definition of what "better" is doesn't fit in with theirs?

I'm saying that all of these rituals are harmful, not just "okay" or "whatever floats your boat." My ideas are not "better" because I believe there's essentially no good in the others. I understand your talk of me being a stumbling block to those who believe they are benefited by them, but you don't seem to grasp that I'm merely trying to remove what I believe is a stumbling block myself. I'm not trying to push my own opinions, but trying to remove the stumbling block of rituals, (and unbiblical doctrine that often accompanies them.) For me it's a matter of healthy versus unhealthy, not healthy versus healthier. I wish you could understand this, my intent.

Much of the Roman Catholic Church doctrine comes from oral tradition from the apostles, though they weren't written down and incorporated into the Bible (they couldn't have been, they would've been written down after John said not to alter it).

All rituals, practices, and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church glorify Jesus Christ and are secular representations of spiritual things. The Eucharist is the physical embodiment of Jesus Christ offering his flesh and blood to the person receiving the Eucharist. He is really there when the ritual is being done. During baptism not only is the Christian being baptized in water, Jesus Christ is there and baptizing them with the Holy Ghost. All rituals serve to glorify Christ, not take away from his glory. Anyone who glorifies the works, rather than Jesus Christ is not a true part of the Church.

Then, why allow these rituals to be if they only serve as 'stumbling blocks' as you say they are? That is because they glorify Christ and do not become corrupted because the Holy Ghost preserves their purpose, to bring the Catholic closer to his Lord in heaven, who sits to the right of the throne of God Almighty.

Simply because you do not acknowledge the purpose of the rituals does not make them unhealthy to a Christian. You simply do not understand what is at work behind the scenes when these things are being done, the Holy Ghost is there and the works serve to glorify Christ as faith is in the background, there to cement the link between worldly Christian and spiritual and Holy Christ.

The thing is, though, that their original intention or purpose or meaning is ignored/skewed by many people...like I told this one Catholic all Christians are saints, which is true, and yes I know it has been discussed that the higher up saints are just cannonized...she said no, we're not saints, just the ones recognized by the Catholic Church.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:The thing is, though, that their original intention or purpose or meaning is ignored/skewed by many people...like I told this one Catholic all Christians are saints, which is true, and yes I know it has been discussed that the higher up saints are just cannonized...she said no, we're not saints, just the ones recognized by the Catholic Church.

That's hilarious because the vatican teaches that all people who live holy lives under Christ are saints. The ones canonized are the ones who have proof that they lived holy lives and proof that a miracle was observed after asking intercession through the saint candidate after they have died.

It's quite heart warming actually, in protestantism, you're pretty much alone with christ. Sure, people are called saints, but they're not elevated to the holy position in heaven like Catholocism teaches. In the Catholic faith, everyone, dead and alive, are together as one family. Prayer to saints shows this especially well, everyone in the faith is linked together and the same is true for the Eastern and Russian Orthodox churches. However I never had that same feeling with protestantism.

Catholic teaches really do make you feel like you're part of one big family under christ.

dan

revaluation 22
revers 8
has i heard and saw all of this i bent down and began worship at the feet of the angel who had showen it to me.

and revaluation 22 revers 9 the angel says
don't do that! i am a servant, just like you. I am the same as a follower or a prophet or anyone else who obeys what is written in his book god is the one you should worship.

and about john rewriting the bible
revaluation 22 reverse 18
here is my warning to for everyone who hears the prophecies in this book if you add anything to them, God will make you suffer all the terrible troubles written in his book
verse 19 says
if you take anything away from these prophecies, God will not let you have part in the life-giving tree and in the holy city described in this book.

Dan, to say that if that one verse tarreyl pointed out wasn't in the Bible the RCC would add these other mysterious "oral traditions" that supposedly were directed by the apostles after John wrote Revelation, just doesn't seem right. They added apocryphal books to the Old Testament, and, according to you, ideally would like to add to the New Testament as well. I would like to see whatever proof you have that the apostles really did teach such traditions as are seen in the RCC today. Please provide this, or I will disgard your comment on it. As for transubstansiation, I believe it is a false assumption that ignores the nature of Christ's presenting the, yes, biblical ritual. I had hoped that it would have been understood by my previous post that such things as baptisms, wedding ceremonies and also Communion were not what I was talking about. These things, done in a biblical way, are not the rituals I meant. I should have called them man-made rituals from the beginning. But back to transubstansiation- Jesus meant the bread and wine to be a symbolic way to remember His sacrifice and our own union with that sacrifice, having accepted it and Christ now living within as a result. Same goes for "the Lord's Prayer". It was a general guide for prayer, and by no means was meant to be repeated word for word. God is not legalistic, and He does not give us words to repeat that we would need to try to fit into our particualr situations. I cringe inside whenever I hear a group of people "pray" it together, (and why in such a drone-like, lifeless way anyway?) or when I hear people "pray" the same words together. Prayer is supposed to be a unique expression of your heart to God's. The true nature of it is lost in such things. Also, you really believe that you only receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit when you particiapate in the outward act of water baptism? This is entirely unscriptual! The baptism of the Holy Spirit was given to many people in the New Testament before they were water baptized. In fact, Peter recognized that Gentiles were given this by God, and so declared that if God would give Gentiles the baptism of the Holy Spirit, there is no reason that they should not be allowed the physical representation of it. Spirit and fire first, water second. That's the biblical doctrine on it.

Dan wrote:Simply because you do not acknowledge the purpose of the rituals does not make them unhealthy to a Christian. You simply do not understand what is at work behind the scenes when these things are being done, the Holy Ghost is there and the works serve to glorify Christ as faith is in the background, there to cement the link between worldly Christian and spiritual and Holy Christ.

I fully acknowledge the take you have on all this. I recognize your view on it. I have heard you completely and understood what your saying. What I say is, though, that your take does not line up with God's Word. Your very own Bible, sitting on your shelf or headboard or whereever, contradicts your stance on this. It has been consitant throughout the Bible that the spiritual is what is to come first, then the external expression of it if there is to be one at all. They are not connected. They do not depend on one another. Faith=instanst justification, which =works, one of which is baptism, though baptism is not necessary.

Dan wrote:the works serve to glorify Christ as faith is in the background, there to cement the link between worldly Christian and spiritual and Holy Christ.

Here did you mean that faith is what does the "cementing", or the works plus the faith? Faith is indeed the biblical, God-chosen method, but does not require works to be there along side.