Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/18/2011 7:32:23 PM EDT
So, as you may or may not know, I have been undergoing a crisis with regards to faith for the past few years.

I was raised a Bible believing, pentecostal, charismatic, tongue talking Christian.

The problem is that I no longer believe The Bible is the infallible word of God.

But, I am not exactly an atheistic heathen either.

I do believe in God, I do believe in Jesus, I do believe in the Virgin Birth, I do believe in the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension. I also believe in the Big Bang, Dinosaurs and evolution. I do not believe that accepting both sides is a contradiction.

What I do not believe in is the 6,000 year old Earth, the 6 day creation story, the Tower of Babel story, Noah's Ark, etc. To be honest with you, if the God of the Bible is who it says he is, then I don't think he cares.

So, I have been doing some reading about Catholicism. The Pope seems to be a level headed guy and The Church seems to have moved into modern times for the most part, without giving up the core of the religion or the traditions. I'm thinking this is a good fit for me.

So what do you Catholics think? Is Catholicism right for me?
Link Posted: 4/19/2011 3:01:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
So, as you may or may not know, I have been undergoing a crisis with regards to faith for the past few years.

I was raised a Bible believing, pentecostal, charismatic, tongue talking Christian.

The problem is that I no longer believe The Bible is the infallible word of God.

But, I am not exactly an atheistic heathen either.

I do believe in God, I do believe in Jesus, I do believe in the Virgin Birth, I do believe in the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension. I also believe in the Big Bang, Dinosaurs and evolution. I do not believe that accepting both sides is a contradiction.

What I do not believe in is the 6,000 year old Earth, the 6 day creation story, the Tower of Babel story, Noah's Ark, etc. To be honest with you, if the God of the Bible is who it says he is, then I don't think he cares.

So, I have been doing some reading about Catholicism. The Pope seems to be a level headed guy and The Church seems to have moved into modern times for the most part, without giving up the core of the religion or the traditions. I'm thinking this is a good fit for me.

So what do you Catholics think? Is Catholicism right for me?


I would not go so far as to say that the Catholic "Church has moved into modern times" as this is getting close to saying that the Church can change doctrine to suit modern ideas. Some people would hope that the Church would move into modern times on issues such as artificial contraception, same sex so-called marriage, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc. That will never happen because the Church has always taught that such things are wrong. I would think of it more as the church has always had it right, and sometimes the world gets it right (when it agrees with Her.)

In terms of science and faith, the Catholic Church teaches that there can be no contradiction between the two because they come from the same God. They are complimentary. Genesis is not a science book meant to define exactly how God achieved the creation of the universe. It has a different purpose entirely.

Catholicism may be a good fit for you. If you are having trouble reconciling Scripture with science, perhaps you are looking at one or both in the wrong light. The Bible came from the Church, not the other way around, so in order to accept the Scriptures as the Word of God, you must first accept the authority of the Church. Everything stems from that as Christ founded one visible Church on earth, with Peter as the head. If you can accept that, then maybe it is the right choice. Read the Catechism, go to Catholic.com and read what they have there, attend Mass if you haven't already, pray about it and ask lots of questions. It is a process of discernment.

Here is series of 12 videos that may be helpful to you: God and Modern Physics. I will keep you in my prayers.
Link Posted: 4/19/2011 5:27:42 AM EDT
The bible is not meant to be read as a literal or a exact historical refrence. Read it allegorically read it prayerfully. There is a deeper more spiritual meanings to the stories in the old and new testemant. Read early church history and things from early church fathers as well as commentary from jewish leaders and you will learn how to read the bible. Reading the bible literally you run into several contradictions. Reading the bible it is obvious that there are different teachings for different people. As paul said most only know the "milk" of the gospel which is the death and resurection of jesus. These believers do not have the spiritual teachings they need because they are still "babes in christ". The bible has been corrupted by the gentile church which became the orthodox church. Constintine made christianity in his image.
Link Posted: 4/19/2011 8:48:32 AM EDT
While I am no longer a Catholic and a Practicing Zen Buddhist, I feel the Buddha's words fit here..

(Paraphrased)
"Do go on Blind Faith or someone's word, even mine. You must go out, experience and reason to see if the practice is right for you"

While Gautama was talking about the Dharma(his teachings), this can be applied to any faith. I suggest you go to Catholic Services, talk to a Priest, read up on what they believe, etc...see if this works for you. Faith is a personal choice only you can make, so experience it for yourself to see if for yourself.
Link Posted: 4/19/2011 8:07:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2011 2:43:12 PM EDT by T1NMAN]
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
So, as you may or may not know, I have been undergoing a crisis with regards to faith for the past few years.

I was raised a Bible believing, pentecostal, charismatic, tongue talking Christian.

The problem is that I no longer believe The Bible is the infallible word of God.

But, I am not exactly an atheistic heathen either.

I do believe in God, I do believe in Jesus, I do believe in the Virgin Birth, I do believe in the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension. I also believe in the Big Bang, Dinosaurs and evolution. I do not believe that accepting both sides is a contradiction.

What I do not believe in is the 6,000 year old Earth, the 6 day creation story, the Tower of Babel story, Noah's Ark, etc. To be honest with you, if the God of the Bible is who it says he is, then I don't think he cares.

So, I have been doing some reading about Catholicism. The Pope seems to be a level headed guy and The Church seems to have moved into modern times for the most part, without giving up the core of the religion or the traditions. I'm thinking this is a good fit for me.

So what do you Catholics think? Is Catholicism right for me?


Motown, I have to ask…just what about the Bible do you believe is true…but you still keeps you awake and makes you uncomfortable?

If I can shoot straight with you, what I’m reading is that you understand the human hearts need for God, that man cannot live without Him…but ultimately he has to fit into your mold.
The most serious problem isn’t whether or not you believe if there were dinosaurs walking with men…but are men sinners in need of a Savior?

I read all these comments declaring what you are… but do you understand what the Bible tells you that you are not?
Are you simply a religious man who live a good life and wants to add some extra God for good measure ….or are you a sinner…a broken man in need of a savior?
Just why did Jesus die and rise again?

The are many Catholics and Baptist (fill in the blank) who will tell you whatever you want to hear….but the only Catholics who are telling you the truth... are the ones who will tell you that the most important question to ask your heart is not first what you believe about the Pope….but what you believe about Jesus.

The “core” of salvation is not religion my friend. The world has plenty of religions, shoot, it sounds like you may be on the right track to simply making up your own new version.
There are even plenty of jesus's to go around ...but only one Jesus Christ.
The core of salvation is Truth…and there can only be one Truth.
Link Posted: 4/19/2011 8:10:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2011 2:59:56 PM EDT by T1NMAN]
Originally Posted By MetalChef:
While I am no longer a Catholic and a Practicing Zen Buddhist, I feel the Buddha's words fit here..

(Paraphrased)
"Do go on Blind Faith or someone's word, even mine. You must go out, experience and reason to see if the practice is right for you"

While Gautama was talking about the Dharma(his teachings), this can be applied to any faith. I suggest you go to Catholic Services, talk to a Priest, read up on what they believe, etc...see if this works for you. Faith is a personal choice only you can make, so experience it for yourself to see if for yourself.



That is no quest for Truth.
Men who genuinely seek after an unchanging truth don’t settle for one “that is right for you”…but they never rest until they find the only one that matters.
Link Posted: 4/19/2011 8:30:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By swarren:
The bible is not meant to be read as a literal or a exact historical refrence. Read it allegorically read it prayerfully. There is a deeper more spiritual meanings to the stories in the old and new testemant. Read early church history and things from early church fathers as well as commentary from jewish leaders and you will learn how to read the bible. Reading the bible literally you run into several contradictions. Reading the bible it is obvious that there are different teachings for different people. As paul said most only know the "milk" of the gospel which is the death and resurection of jesus. These believers do not have the spiritual teachings they need because they are still "babes in christ". The bible has been corrupted by the gentile church which became the orthodox church. Constintine made christianity in his image.


Interesting opinion but I would have to disagree.
Was Jesus simply a good teacher or the face of God manifest to men?
Did he die for sin and rise to bring new life…..or simply leave behind good teachings for others to follow?

Is it sin and redemption…or simply feel bad and try to do better?
Link Posted: 4/19/2011 9:58:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/19/2011 10:05:12 PM EDT by loonybin]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
So, as you may or may not know, I have been undergoing a crisis with regards to faith for the past few years.

I was raised a Bible believing, pentecostal, charismatic, tongue talking Christian.

The problem is that I no longer believe The Bible is the infallible word of God.

But, I am not exactly an atheistic heathen either.

I do believe in God, I do believe in Jesus, I do believe in the Virgin Birth, I do believe in the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension. I also believe in the Big Bang, Dinosaurs and evolution. I do not believe that accepting both sides is a contradiction.

What I do not believe in is the 6,000 year old Earth, the 6 day creation story, the Tower of Babel story, Noah's Ark, etc. To be honest with you, if the God of the Bible is who it says he is, then I don't think he cares.

So, I have been doing some reading about Catholicism. The Pope seems to be a level headed guy and The Church seems to have moved into modern times for the most part, without giving up the core of the religion or the traditions. I'm thinking this is a good fit for me.

So what do you Catholics think? Is Catholicism right for me?
That fact that you are open to discerning the Truth means that Catholicism might be right for you. Many of the core teachings you learned as a charismatic were taught by the Catholic Church from the beginning, centuries before Pentecostals existed: God became Man, Jesus is God, Jesus suffered and died for our sins, rose again, and ascended into Heaven to send the Holy Spirit to guide us, faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, and that faith is a free gift from God that we cannot earn (and even the charismatic gifts!). However, if yo are looking for a religion that you can pick and choose what you want to believe so you can mold God to fit what you want Him to be, then you will need to look elsewhere. If you recognize that you are a sinner and are honestly seeking the Truth and are willing to conform yourself (by the Grace of God) to the Truth, then Catholicism is the place to be. One thing you won't hear a whole lot, even though it is central to what we believe (don't ask me why it isn't preached more. I can't figure that out): we need to commit our lives to Christ and develop a personal relationship with him. The saints figured this out and lived their lives for the God they loved with great zeal and holiness. That same holiness is what you are called to. It can only come through recognition of our sins, repentance, and entrusting ourselves to His tender mercy, forgiveness, and grace.

Like Cattitude, I get concerned when I hear people say the Catholic Church has moved into modern times. The Church has never rejected science (many of the first scientists in the 12th to 18th centuries were priests and monks!), and understands the proper role that both faith and reason play in our lives and how the two not only complement each other, but need each other. However, if by moving into modern times, one is referring to morality, then I would have to disagree with you, as modern times are moving farther and farther away from God. The Church is holding fast to Christ in this regard (artificial contraception, same-sex "marriage," abortion, etc.), and it is the modern times that need to get with the Church, not the other way around.

The Church has never taught a literalist interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, which is what leads to the young earth theory, and other such ideas. There is a four-fold interpretation of the Scriptures that makes the meaning of what God inspired the authors to write that much deeper. You will find some Catholics who do believe in the young earth theory, and they are free to do so, as are people who accept evolution as long as certain core beliefs are not rejected (God created everything out of nothing, God is intimately involved with His creation, God gave man a soul, we have one set of parents, etc.).

The Church also teaches that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. You won't get off easy by thinking you can pick and choose what you want to believe in it. It doesn't work that way. However, Christ founded a Church, not a book. That book –– the Bible –– came from the Church, not the other way around. To accept that the Bible is the inspired word of God requires one to accept that the Catholic bishops in the 4th century had the authority from God to set forth which books were to be included in the Bible and which were not. Otherwise we have no way of knowing if the books in it are truly the inspired Word of God. The reason they are in the Bible is because the Catholic Church said they belong there. It then follows that, if the Church had the authority to say which books belonged and which didn't, the Church has the authority to interpret said Scriptures.

The most important thing to do is pray and discern. Cattitude has given great advice on where to go to get good answers. Catholic Answers is a great resource to learn from, as are their discussion forums. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, pray, go to Mass to see what it is like (and remember, the main focus of Mass is not the priest's preaching. It's the Eucharistic celebration), pray, ask Jesus to cover you in the protection of His precious blood, ask questions, pray over the answers you receive, study, pray...

Link Posted: 4/19/2011 10:32:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By T1NMAN:
Originally Posted By MetalChef:
While I am no longer a Catholic and a Practicing Zen Buddhist, I feel the Buddha's words fit here..

(Paraphrased)
"Do go on Blind Faith or someone's word, even mine. You must go out, experience and reason to see if the practice is right for you"

While Gautama was talking about the Dharma(his teachings), this can be applied to any faith. I suggest you go to Catholic Services, talk to a Priest, read up on what they believe, etc...see if this works for you. Faith is a personal choice only you can make, so experience it for yourself to see if for yourself.



That is no quest for Truth.
Men who genuinely seek after an unchanging truth don’t settle for one “that is right for you”…but they never rest until they find the only one that matters.


Truth can be approached and realized from many ways/paths..there is NO one way to realize it. Some may find the road to it in the Catholic faith while others may find it in the teachings of Gautama...the way must resonate in you. There really is no one way better than another..if you find it in Jesus, Vishnu, the Buddha's teachings, etc..as long as you are not harming others, you have found your way.

What is a true path to one person may be a false path to another. The way is personal..the Truth universal
Link Posted: 4/19/2011 11:02:18 PM EDT
As a Catholic, I'd recommend talking to a priest, going to Mass a few times and investigating things further.

You may run into some hiccups Theologically from the tradition you've been raised in. (Saved through actions vs. saved merely through faith alone Read this and this ), etc. etc.
Link Posted: 4/19/2011 11:12:53 PM EDT
might want to look at this. it might help you make your decision.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_beliefs.htm
Link Posted: 4/19/2011 11:24:15 PM EDT
Not sure where you are in Texas but go here and search for a local Orthodox Catholic Church. I belong to an OCA parish but most Orthodox Churches are in communion with each other although not with the Roman Catholic Church which broke away in 1054.

Plenty of good reading here on Orthodox beliefs.
Link Posted: 4/19/2011 11:57:03 PM EDT
Your quest sounds very much like my wife's.

She was raised Baptist/Lutheran/Bible Christian. I was raised Catholic, but had left and considered myself Bible Christian.

She came to the conclusion that Catholicism is right. Not "right for her" ... but right, period.

If you seek "the fullness of truth," then I pray you find it. I know where it is and would be overjoyed if you came to know the same. It is not in a priest or a Parrish per say, but in the deep theological teachings of the Catholic Church and the ontology it proclaims.

Her journey story is a fascinating one complete with miracles of a sort. I'd happily share it in private if you care to know.

A very close friend and former Atheist came to the same conclusion as my wife. Hit "conversion story" was online at one time, but I'm unable to find it now. Some of it is covered here: http://johncwright.livejournal.com/2009/10/02/

God Bless,
-3D
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 7:48:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cookhj:
might want to look at this. it might help you make your decision.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_beliefs.htm


That chart is severly lacking.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 7:50:01 AM EDT
Jesus was/is divine I am stating that if you look past the letters of the word you can see that there is something spiritual. Read the letters of Paul read the words of Jesus there are "mysteries" that most christians don't know or don't see. Almost nobody knows what those mysteries were that Jesus taught his disciples as well as his disciples taught there's. I am not down grading anything Jesus has done. I am saying there is more to Christianity than people think. The bible is not something simple and plain to understand like john calvin or Martin Luther thought. It has many layers and one must read it as if it does.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 9:20:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By T1NMAN:
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
So, as you may or may not know, I have been undergoing a crisis with regards to faith for the past few years.

I was raised a Bible believing, pentecostal, charismatic, tongue talking Christian.

The problem is that I no longer believe The Bible is the infallible word of God.

But, I am not exactly an atheistic heathen either.

I do believe in God, I do believe in Jesus, I do believe in the Virgin Birth, I do believe in the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension. I also believe in the Big Bang, Dinosaurs and evolution. I do not believe that accepting both sides is a contradiction.

What I do not believe in is the 6,000 year old Earth, the 6 day creation story, the Tower of Babel story, Noah's Ark, etc. To be honest with you, if the God of the Bible is who it says he is, then I don't think he cares.

So, I have been doing some reading about Catholicism. The Pope seems to be a level headed guy and The Church seems to have moved into modern times for the most part, without giving up the core of the religion or the traditions. I'm thinking this is a good fit for me.

So what do you Catholics think? Is Catholicism right for me?


Motown, I have to ask…just what about the Bible do you believe is true…but you still keeps you awake and makes you uncomfortable?

If I can shoot straight with you, what I’m reading is that you understand the human hearts need for God, that man cannot live without Him…but ultimately he has to fit into your mold.
The most serious problem isn’t whether or not you believe if there were dinosaurs walking with men…but are men sinners in need of a Savior?

I read all these comments declaring what you are… but do you understand what the Bible tells you that you are not?
Are you simply a religious man who live a good life and wants to add some extra God for good measure ….or are you a sinner…a broken man in need of a savior?
Just why did Jesus die and rise again?

The are many Catholics and Baptist (fill in the blank) who will tell you whatever you want to hear….but the only Catholics or who are telling you the truth are the ones who will tell you that the most important question to ask your heart is not first what you believe about the Pope….but what you believe about Jesus.

The "core” of salvation is not religion my friend. The world has plenty of religions, shoot, it sounds like you may be on the right track to simply making up your own new version.
There are even plenty of jesus's to go around ...but only one Jesus Christ.
The core of salvation is Truth…and there can only be one Truth.

You misunderstand.

I am not saying that God has to fit into my mold at all. I believe that God is who he is and not some construct that I can shape to fit my desires.

That said, I cannot help but reject a the literal interpretation of much of the scriptures, particularly the book of Genesis. I believe that there are too many observable facts to contradict many of the fables in Genesis. There are too many observable facts to contradict the belief in a young Earth or the 144 hour creation. I think that the story of the Tower of Babel and the story of Job are parables and not literal documentations of actual historical events.

These may seem like insignificant points to base one's faith on, but you have to understand the perspective from which my early belief in God was founded. When someone believes that the Bible is a literal book full of absolute facts and that the stories contained in it are factual records of actual events and that belief in the infallibility of The Bible is a core article of faith, then evidence contradicting those stories shakes the very foundation of your faith. Some Christians will tell you that if the Bible is 100% literal, accurate and true the it is worthless and there is no point in having any faith. This is the brand of Christianity that I was raised to believe in.

However, I am more inclined to believe that the purpose of the Bible is to tell you how to behave with respect to your fellow man and the nature of God. That is a very different outlook than what I was raised to believe though.

Do I believe that I am a sinner in need of God's mercy and Jesus' sacrifice? Yes.

Do I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified died and was buried, and on the third day rose again? Yes.

Do I believe that faith without works is dead and that faith must also show fruits such as love, charity, humility and grace? Yes.

Do I believe that God everything which exists was created over a 144 hour period 6,000 years ago? No.

That may seem insignificant, but it is not. Most of the Christians I know would call it heresy.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 9:41:51 AM EDT
If one would look into the history of the Church as well as Christianity they would see a very different religion. How can one say the bible is infallible when man has touched it. How can one say it is infallible when we have different bible with different sects of Christianity. If one would read things from the early Church they would see that even the Church Fathers say that some of if not all the gospels have been corrupted. The Apostle Peter wrote to James the Brother of Jesus and said that some of his own preachings have been corrupted and not to give his preachings to them who have not been tested and found worthy. If you want to understand what the bible is you have to look to the ones who were the foundation of the Church. Clement of Alexandria Origen, Peter, James. Paul who is considered the one to bring Christianity to the world and it is said to be the one who claimed a faith based doctrine would save you states in his epistles that this is just the Milk of the the testament and not the solid food. There is a reason you should read the bible allegorically so you can glean from it the things one must learn. Jesus speaks about how there are reasons he speaks in parables to the masses and reveals the mysteries to the disciples. Paul speaks of mysteries yet the mainstream church ignores this fact. They ignore the fact that Paul himself says in his epistle to the Church of Corinth that he can not speak to them as a spiritual man. This Church that spoke in tongues, prophesies, Lays on of hands and they still Couldn't get past the milk of the gospel to learn the mysteries. Search, read, seek and you will find your answers. Jesus himself said do not get entangled in the doctrines of men. I would assume that would also include doctrine of the Church. Don't be chained to Just the basics of Christianity due to Constantine and later Justinian Chose to tell Christians to believe.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 9:46:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Cattitude:
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
So, as you may or may not know, I have been undergoing a crisis with regards to faith for the past few years.

I was raised a Bible believing, pentecostal, charismatic, tongue talking Christian.

The problem is that I no longer believe The Bible is the infallible word of God.

But, I am not exactly an atheistic heathen either.

I do believe in God, I do believe in Jesus, I do believe in the Virgin Birth, I do believe in the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension. I also believe in the Big Bang, Dinosaurs and evolution. I do not believe that accepting both sides is a contradiction.

What I do not believe in is the 6,000 year old Earth, the 6 day creation story, the Tower of Babel story, Noah's Ark, etc. To be honest with you, if the God of the Bible is who it says he is, then I don't think he cares.

So, I have been doing some reading about Catholicism. The Pope seems to be a level headed guy and The Church seems to have moved into modern times for the most part, without giving up the core of the religion or the traditions. I'm thinking this is a good fit for me.

So what do you Catholics think? Is Catholicism right for me?


I would not go so far as to say that the Catholic "Church has moved into modern times" as this is getting close to saying that the Church can change doctrine to suit modern ideas. Some people would hope that the Church would move into modern times on issues such as artificial contraception, same sex so-called marriage, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc. That will never happen because the Church has always taught that such things are wrong. I would think of it more as the church has always had it right, and sometimes the world gets it right (when it agrees with Her.)

In terms of science and faith, the Catholic Church teaches that there can be no contradiction between the two because they come from the same God. They are complimentary. Genesis is not a science book meant to define exactly how God achieved the creation of the universe. It has a different purpose entirely.

Catholicism may be a good fit for you. If you are having trouble reconciling Scripture with science, perhaps you are looking at one or both in the wrong light. The Bible came from the Church, not the other way around, so in order to accept the Scriptures as the Word of God, you must first accept the authority of the Church. Everything stems from that as Christ founded one visible Church on earth, with Peter as the head. If you can accept that, then maybe it is the right choice. Read the Catechism, go to Catholic.com and read what they have there, attend Mass if you haven't already, pray about it and ask lots of questions. It is a process of discernment.

Here is series of 12 videos that may be helpful to you: God and Modern Physics. I will keep you in my prayers.


Far from it.

I dated a die hard Catholic girl for a short bit. I wouldn't say that Catholicism is even close to 'moving into modern times'.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 10:00:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VooDoo3dfx:
Originally Posted By Cattitude:
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
So, as you may or may not know, I have been undergoing a crisis with regards to faith for the past few years.

I was raised a Bible believing, pentecostal, charismatic, tongue talking Christian.

The problem is that I no longer believe The Bible is the infallible word of God.

But, I am not exactly an atheistic heathen either.

I do believe in God, I do believe in Jesus, I do believe in the Virgin Birth, I do believe in the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension. I also believe in the Big Bang, Dinosaurs and evolution. I do not believe that accepting both sides is a contradiction.

What I do not believe in is the 6,000 year old Earth, the 6 day creation story, the Tower of Babel story, Noah's Ark, etc. To be honest with you, if the God of the Bible is who it says he is, then I don't think he cares.

So, I have been doing some reading about Catholicism. The Pope seems to be a level headed guy and The Church seems to have moved into modern times for the most part, without giving up the core of the religion or the traditions. I'm thinking this is a good fit for me.

So what do you Catholics think? Is Catholicism right for me?


I would not go so far as to say that the Catholic "Church has moved into modern times" as this is getting close to saying that the Church can change doctrine to suit modern ideas. Some people would hope that the Church would move into modern times on issues such as artificial contraception, same sex so-called marriage, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc. That will never happen because the Church has always taught that such things are wrong. I would think of it more as the church has always had it right, and sometimes the world gets it right (when it agrees with Her.)

In terms of science and faith, the Catholic Church teaches that there can be no contradiction between the two because they come from the same God. They are complimentary. Genesis is not a science book meant to define exactly how God achieved the creation of the universe. It has a different purpose entirely.

Catholicism may be a good fit for you. If you are having trouble reconciling Scripture with science, perhaps you are looking at one or both in the wrong light. The Bible came from the Church, not the other way around, so in order to accept the Scriptures as the Word of God, you must first accept the authority of the Church. Everything stems from that as Christ founded one visible Church on earth, with Peter as the head. If you can accept that, then maybe it is the right choice. Read the Catechism, go to Catholic.com and read what they have there, attend Mass if you haven't already, pray about it and ask lots of questions. It is a process of discernment.

Here is series of 12 videos that may be helpful to you: God and Modern Physics. I will keep you in my prayers.


Far from it.

I dated a die hard Catholic girl for a short bit. I wouldn't say that Catholicism is even close to 'moving into modern times'.

Maybe on issues like contraception and priest being able to marry they are holding fast to the old ways, but I am not interested in those ideas as they are meaningless to me.

I am inclined to base my faith on the idea that Christianity should teach you how to behave towards your fellow man and how to live a life that is acceptable to God. The Bible should not be the basis for world history, the origins of The Universe and the origin of species.

That may sound like a trivial matter to determine the direction of your faith, but to many Christians it is outright heresy.

Link Posted: 4/20/2011 10:03:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sharps54:
Not sure where you are in Texas but go here and search for a local Orthodox Catholic Church. I belong to an OCA parish but most Orthodox Churches are in communion with each other although not with the Roman Catholic Church which broke away in 1054.

Plenty of good reading here on Orthodox beliefs.


I believe it fair to point out that Roman Catholics believe it was the other way around.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 10:09:40 AM EDT
Having been a Catholic for many many years before I became an agnostic, I believe the Catholic is your logical choice.

Frankly if I were to again believe in a Christian God I would most defiantly go back to the Catholic Church.

BTW, I was raised in a "Hard Shell Baptist" church which was defiantly not for me.





Good luck,
Bill
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 11:06:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Maybe on issues like contraception and priest being able to marry they are holding fast to the old ways, but I am not interested in those ideas as they are meaningless to me.

I am inclined to base my faith on the idea that Christianity should teach you how to behave towards your fellow man and how to live a life that is acceptable to God. The Bible should not be the basis for world history, the origins of The Universe and the origin of species.

That may sound like a trivial matter to determine the direction of your faith, but to many Christians it is outright heresy.



You listen to men for those principles (Priest, Bishop, Cardinal and the Pope) rather than reading the bible and listening to yourself to find your way.


Link Posted: 4/20/2011 11:19:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2011 11:21:13 AM EDT by sharps54]
Originally Posted By R2point0:
Originally Posted By sharps54:
Not sure where you are in Texas but go here and search for a local Orthodox Catholic Church. I belong to an OCA parish but most Orthodox Churches are in communion with each other although not with the Roman Catholic Church which broke away in 1054.

Plenty of good reading here on Orthodox beliefs.


I believe it fair to point out that Roman Catholics believe it was the other way around.


True there was a falling out on both sides but the point is the Orthodox Church is the older of the two and has kept the old ways. Kind of like the idea of priest not being able to marry, that's a Roman Catholic thing, it wasn't always like that. Our priests do marry although our bishops do not. The Pope being infallible, added after the Roman Catholics left the Orthodox Church. Indulgences (buying a departed relative's way out of purgatory) again a Roman Catholic addition that was added to get money from people; the Orthodox Church doesn't even believe in purgatory.

Anyhow I don't want to derail the OP's thread but if one really wants to get to the roots of Christianity they owe it to themselves to look into the Orthodox Church.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 11:24:04 AM EDT
One owes it to themselves to research early Christianity and the earliest Church fathers. The orthodox Church wasn't created till Constantine created it in the 4th century.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 11:27:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2011 11:30:26 AM EDT by rgrprib]
From (me) raised as a Catholic:

I was taught at a young age who I could play with - no Methodists, no Lutherans, etc.

As I got older, I was told who I can marry - no Methodists, no Lutherans, etc.

They help the Spanish Inquisition for Galileo for his studies and theories - they placed him under house arrest until his death - it only took them two or three hundred years to exonerate him.

Wow, what an open minded religion!

And, the bible was written by humans, that have been known to embellish stories. Not to mention, why were so many sections of it left out?
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 11:32:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2011 11:38:57 AM EDT by sharps54]
Originally Posted By swarren:
One owes it to themselves to research early Christianity and the earliest Church fathers. The orthodox Church wasn't created till Constantine created it in the 4th century.


So which church do you recommend one research for an unbroken connection to the time of Christ? Did Constantine have an affect on the Church? Of course he did. But the Church is still our best connection to the beginning, a great example is the Liturgy of St. James which predates Constantine and is still in use by the Orthodox Church.

ETA Whoops, it looks like the current version of the Liturgy of St. James is believed to have come about during the 4th Century so the version we use doesn't predate Constantine.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 11:36:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2011 11:37:19 AM EDT by wildearp]
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 11:51:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2011 11:54:01 AM EDT by swarren]
I don't recommend any Church. Yes Constantine had an effect on the Church. Not just The orthodox Church but every Church. He destroyed the Churches that HE deemed as heretics. Look to some of the Early Church Fathers that pre-date Constantine. If you look to the early Church Fathers as well as some of the epistles written by the apostles it is written that what G-D spoke to Jesus when he was baptized was not With thee I a Pleased it Says in Hebrews as well as in acts that he said Thou art my son, Today I have begotten thee. This verse alone changes the basis of Christianity. There is know established Church today that comes close to the original Church of Christ and his disciples. One must find the Kingdom with in himself.

Edit: I am not saying Christianity is not the way I am a professing Christian. I am Stating that the established Churches of today are not close to what the Church was originally.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 12:00:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sharps54:
Originally Posted By swarren:
One owes it to themselves to research early Christianity and the earliest Church fathers. The orthodox Church wasn't created till Constantine created it in the 4th century.


So which church do you recommend one research for an unbroken connection to the time of Christ? Did Constantine have an affect on the Church? Of course he did. But the Church is still our best connection to the beginning, a great example is the Liturgy of St. James which predates Constantine and is still in use by the Orthodox Church.

ETA Whoops, it looks like the current version of the Liturgy of St. James is believed to have come about during the 4th Century so the version we use doesn't predate Constantine.


You seem very insistent on the Orthodox Church being "first", "original", or "more true." It sounds like you are more insecure in Orthodox bona fides than you think.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 12:04:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sharps54:
Indulgences (buying a departed relative's way out of purgatory) again a Roman Catholic addition that was added to get money from people; the Orthodox Church doesn't even believe in purgatory.


With all due respect, sharps54, that is not what an indulgence is. If you would like find out what an indulgence actually is, you can read it here. I would argue, and I am sure you would disagree, that you will find the doctrine of purgatory in scripture and writing of the early Church. Corruption surrounding almsgiving and indulgences came later. Let's not turn this into a Catholic-bashing thread.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 12:13:33 PM EDT
Oh there is no need to bash any form of Christianity. One person is spiritually different from the next each one needs something different. As far as Indulgences is concerned I think this is what he was talking about

The Roman Catholic Church claims the power to excuse or release persons from all or part of the suffering coming to them in purgatory. This is done for good acts performed or prayers said. In the middle ages, indulgences were granted in exchange for donations to the church. Thus the scandal of the selling of indulgences, which was a primary factor in bringing about the Protestant reformation. While the practice of the selling of indulgences has been condemned, the Roman Catholic Church still grants indulgences for deeds and prayers. If a devout person gains more indulgences than they need to wipe out their own time in purgatory, they may assign the excess indulgences to persons (usually deceased) of their choosing. Certain prayers take three years off one’s sentence in purgatory. Other actions, usually performed over a period of days, carry a "plenary indulgence." That is, they release a soul from all their purgatorial sentence, no matter how long. Some Roman Catholics make a practice of collecting as many plenary indulgences as they can. They assign them first to their deceased relatives, and then to the souls in purgatory with the longest sentences. Such practices are incomprehensible to Christians outside the Roman Catholic Church (and to many within it as well).
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 12:18:54 PM EDT
I agree we are inadvertently hijacking the OP's thread. My only point is that if he is looking for a more solid foundation I believe there are options other than the Roman Catholic Church that would be worthwhile for him to look into. I apologize for my part in derailing this thread and will refrain from answering posts other than the OP's here so we can get back on track.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 12:52:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rgrprib:
From (me) raised as a Catholic:

I was taught at a young age who I could play with - no Methodists, no Lutherans, etc.

As I got older, I was told who I can marry - no Methodists, no Lutherans, etc.

They help the Spanish Inquisition for Galileo for his studies and theories - they placed him under house arrest until his death - it only took them two or three hundred years to exonerate him.

Wow, what an open minded religion!

And, the bible was written by humans, that have been known to embellish stories. Not to mention, why were so many sections of it left out?

No one ever said the Church was "open-minded". Why would it be? We claim that Jesus Christ had a set of teachings which he passed on to his apostles, some was eventually written down, some taught orally, which was not subject to change.

Galileo was not placed under house arrest because the Church opposed his studies & theories. He was punished for teaching his theory in public as if it was fact. There was also a lot of politics and personal conflicts involved. Can you give any other examples where the Catholic Church persecuted scientists?
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 1:15:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cattitude:
Originally Posted By sharps54:
Indulgences (buying a departed relative's way out of purgatory) again a Roman Catholic addition that was added to get money from people; the Orthodox Church doesn't even believe in purgatory.


With all due respect, sharps54, that is not what an indulgence is. If you would like find out what an indulgence actually is, you can read it here. I would argue, and I am sure you would disagree, that you will find the doctrine of purgatory in scripture and writing of the early Church. Corruption surrounding almsgiving and indulgences came later. Let's not turn this into a Catholic-bashing thread.



Sadly, it's too late. The Catholic basher's are here. Pulling out the same old Chick Tracts.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 1:16:44 PM EDT
Bruno: when he publicly defended Copernicus, the Inquisition arrested him, tortured and burned him at the stake.

Campanella was tortured seven times by the Inquisition for a number of heresies, one of which was writing Defense of Galileo.

These are a few that I know of
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 1:17:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cattitude:
Galileo was not placed under house arrest because the Church opposed his studies & theories. He was punished for teaching his theory in public as if it was fact. There was also a lot of politics and personal conflicts involved. Can you give any other examples where the Catholic Church persecuted scientists?


People do that all the time... I see them on CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews...

Maybe we should all round them up? Put them in camps?
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 1:18:20 PM EDT
I haven't seen much of any Catholic Bashing on this thread. Just differing opinions.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 2:18:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cattitude:
Originally Posted By rgrprib:
From (me) raised as a Catholic:

I was taught at a young age who I could play with - no Methodists, no Lutherans, etc.

As I got older, I was told who I can marry - no Methodists, no Lutherans, etc.

They help the Spanish Inquisition for Galileo for his studies and theories - they placed him under house arrest until his death - it only took them two or three hundred years to exonerate him.

Wow, what an open minded religion!

And, the bible was written by humans, that have been known to embellish stories. Not to mention, why were so many sections of it left out?

No one ever said the Church was "open-minded". Why would it be? We claim that Jesus Christ had a set of teachings which he passed on to his apostles, some was eventually written down, some taught orally, which was not subject to change.

Galileo was not placed under house arrest because the Church opposed his studies & theories. He was punished for teaching his theory in public as if it was fact. There was also a lot of politics and personal conflicts involved. Can you give any other examples where the Catholic Church persecuted scientists?


Gallieo was also allowed to continue his studies and writing while under 'house arrest'.

It's a canard, but the Catholic Bashers still drag it out nonetheless.

The OP may be interested in Pope Benedict's latest book. I know a Greek Orthodox Christian who read it and said it was the best summation of Christian belief they had ever read.

Excerpt.

The Scripture Must Be Fulfilled

Understandably, the prophecy of the betrayal produces agitation and curiosity among the disciples. “One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus: so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, ‘Tell us who it is of whom he speaks.’ So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him: ‘Lord, who is it?’ Jesus answered: ‘It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it’” (13:23–26). . . .

Jesus’ answer, as given here, is quite unambiguous. Yet the evangelist says that the disciples still did not understand whom he meant. So we must assume that John retrospectively attributed a clarity to the Lord’s answer that it lacked at the time for those present. John 13:18 brings us onto the right track. Here Jesus says, “The Scripture must be fulfilled: ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me’” (cf. Ps 41:9; Ps 55:13). This is Jesus’ classic way of speaking: he alludes to his destiny using words from Scripture, thereby locating it directly within God’s logic, within the logic of salvation history. . . .

John gives a new depth to the psalm verse with which Jesus spoke prophetically of what lay ahead, since instead of the expression given in the Greek Bible for “eating”, he chooses the verb trogein, the word used by Jesus in the great “bread of life” discourse for “eating” his flesh and blood, that is, receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist ( Jn. 6:54–58). So the psalm verse casts a prophetic shadow over the Church of the evangelist’s own day, in which the Eucharist was celebrated, and indeed over the Church of all times: Judas’ betrayal was not the last breach of fidelity that Jesus would suffer. “Even my bosom friend, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me” (Ps 41:9). The breach of friendship extends into the sacramental community of the Church, where people continue to take “his bread” and to betray him.

Jesus’ agony, his struggle against death, continues until the end of the world, as Blaise Pascal said on the basis of similar considerations (cf. Pensées VII, 553). We could also put it the other way around: at this hour, Jesus took upon himself the betrayal of all ages, the pain caused by betrayal in every era, and he endured the anguish of history to the bitter end.

The Mystery of the Betrayer

John does not offer any psychological interpretation of Judas’ conduct. The only clue he gives is a hint that Judas had helped himself to the contents of the disciples’ money box, of which he had charge (12:6). In the context of chapter 13, the evangelist merely says laconically: “Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him” (13:27).

For John, what happened to Judas is beyond psychological explanation. He has come under the dominion of another. Anyone who breaks off friendship with Jesus, casting off his “easy yoke”, does not attain liberty, does not become free, but succumbs to other powers. To put it another way, he betrays this friendship because he is in the grip of another power to which he has opened himself.

True, the light shed by Jesus into Judas’ soul was not completely extinguished. He does take a step toward conversion: “I have sinned”, he says to those who commissioned him. He tries to save Jesus, and he gives the money back (Mt 27:3–5). Everything pure and great that he had received from Jesus remained inscribed on his soul—he could not forget it.

His second tragedy—after the betrayal—is that he can no longer believe in forgiveness. His remorse turns into despair. Now he sees only himself and his darkness; he no longer sees the light of Jesus, which can illumine and overcome the darkness. He shows us the wrong type of remorse: the type that is unable to hope, that sees only its own darkness, the type that is destructive and in no way authentic. Genuine remorse is marked by the certainty of hope born of faith in the superior power of the light that was made flesh in Jesus.

John concludes the passage about Judas with these dramatic words: “After receiving the morsel, he immediately went out; and it was night” (13:30). Judas goes out—in a deeper sense. He goes into the night; he moves out of light into darkness: the “power of darkness” has taken hold of him (cf. Jn 3:19; Lk 22:53).


Link Posted: 4/20/2011 2:26:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Do I believe that I am a sinner in need of God's mercy and Jesus' sacrifice? Yes.

Do I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified died and was buried, and on the third day rose again? Yes.

Do I believe that faith without works is dead and that faith must also show fruits such as love, charity, humility and grace? Yes.

Do I believe that God everything which exists was created over a 144 hour period 6,000 years ago? No.

That may seem insignificant, but it is not. Most of the Christians I know would call it heresy.


The Catholic Church has never considered a literal interpretation of Genesis to be integral to the Faith. In fact, Augustine wrote a lengthy treatise against it back in the 5th Century.

By the way, it was a Catholic Priest who actually discovered the mechanism for the inheritance of physical traits - Gregor Mendel. He corrected a major flaw in Darwin's work.

Link Posted: 4/20/2011 2:40:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rgrprib:


They help the Spanish Inquisition for Galileo for his studies and theories - they placed him under house arrest until his death - it only took them two or three hundred years to exonerate him.


FAIL
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 3:17:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By VooDoo3dfx:
Originally Posted By Cattitude:
Galileo was not placed under house arrest because the Church opposed his studies & theories. He was punished for teaching his theory in public as if it was fact. There was also a lot of politics and personal conflicts involved. Can you give any other examples where the Catholic Church persecuted scientists?


People do that all the time... I see them on CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews...

Maybe we should all round them up? Put them in camps?


Nor surprisingly, you missed my point. The accusation is that the Church persecuted Galileo because She fears scientific advancement. My point was that there was more going on. I am not defending the treatment of Galileo, but obviously were talking about a different culture with a different social system and different laws. People did not enjoy freedom of speech that we take so much for granted.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 3:40:52 PM EDT
You might be interested in reading a book called "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott Hahn. It describes his journey from strict evangelicalism to Catholicism in a way that is easy for people to follow. Basically, he set out to prove the foibles and fallacies of Catholicism and ended up convicted (his word) that Catholicism was actually the Church as founded by Jesus.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 7:30:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sharps54:
although not with the Roman Catholic Church which broke away in 1054.
From your perspective. This thread is not the place for such jabs. Please start a different thread if you really want to make those kinds of comments.
Link Posted: 4/20/2011 7:42:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2011 8:02:53 PM EDT by loonybin]

Originally Posted By swarren:
Bruno: when he publicly defended Copernicus, the Inquisition arrested him, tortured and burned him at the stake.

Campanella was tortured seven times by the Inquisition for a number of heresies, one of which was writing Defense of Galileo.

These are a few that I know of

You do realize that Copernicus was a Catholic priest, don't you? That's link


mowtown_steve, I'm encouraged to see your faith in Christ is not lacking. There is nothing wrong with questioning God, as long as you are open to the answer. Coming from a background where a literalist interpretation was drilled into you, finding what appears to be contradictions can indeed shake your foundation. The Catholic Church has never espoused a literalist interpretation the way you were raised. Reason contradicts the use of literalist interpretations, and the Catholic Church embraces reason as complementary to faith.
Link Posted: 4/21/2011 1:35:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dzialosza:
Originally Posted By Cattitude:
Originally Posted By sharps54:
Indulgences (buying a departed relative's way out of purgatory) again a Roman Catholic addition that was added to get money from people; the Orthodox Church doesn't even believe in purgatory.


With all due respect, sharps54, that is not what an indulgence is. If you would like find out what an indulgence actually is, you can read it here. I would argue, and I am sure you would disagree, that you will find the doctrine of purgatory in scripture and writing of the early Church. Corruption surrounding almsgiving and indulgences came later. Let's not turn this into a Catholic-bashing thread.



Sadly, it's too late. The Catholic basher's are here. Pulling out the same old Chick Tracts.


To be fair, sharps54 isn't bashing with any Chick propoganda; it's more of a 'he said, she said' tye of thing that's been going on between RCC and Orthodoxy the last 16 centuries or so. We can't even agree on the date the first split occured or the real reason.
"I hearby ex-communicate you, you heretic!"
"You can't, because I am ex-communicating you!"
Link Posted: 4/21/2011 2:05:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
So, as you may or may not know, I have been undergoing a crisis with regards to faith for the past few years.

I was raised a Bible believing, pentecostal, charismatic, tongue talking Christian.

The problem is that I no longer believe The Bible is the infallible word of God.

But, I am not exactly an atheistic heathen either.

I do believe in God, I do believe in Jesus, I do believe in the Virgin Birth, I do believe in the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension. I also believe in the Big Bang, Dinosaurs and evolution. I do not believe that accepting both sides is a contradiction.

What I do not believe in is the 6,000 year old Earth, the 6 day creation story, the Tower of Babel story, Noah's Ark, etc. To be honest with you, if the God of the Bible is who it says he is, then I don't think he cares.

So, I have been doing some reading about Catholicism. The Pope seems to be a level headed guy and The Church seems to have moved into modern times for the most part, without giving up the core of the religion or the traditions. I'm thinking this is a good fit for me.

So what do you Catholics think? Is Catholicism right for me?


I would sugest you
1. read your bible
2. find a church that asks you to bring your bible. Reason is to make sure what is taught is in the bible. Let me ask you this the Bible teaches there is Heaven or Hell to spend eternity in. Would you trust a church that does not encourge you to bring your bible to see what is taught in the bible. Point would sign a contract without reading it first.

Isaiah 28:9-13
9 "Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to understand the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just drawn from the breasts?
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little."
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people,
12 To whom He said, "This is the rest with which You may cause the weary to rest," And, "This is the refreshing"; Yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was to them, "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little," That they might go and fall backward, and be broken And snared and caught.
Now this is what the New Testament teaches about churches that want you read their church writings in addition to the bible. Put your trust in Jesus not religions. Jesus is the one who paid the price for your salvation. Not religion. Get to know Jesus through HIs Holy Word, read your bible.


2 Peter 2:1
1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

2 Corinthians 11:12-15
12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast.
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

Here is what is written in the bible about adding to or taking away from Gods Holy Word.

Deut. 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:32
32 Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.
Proverbs 30:6
Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
Ecc.3:14
14 I know that whatever God does,
It shall be forever. Note: warning adding to Gods Holy Word
Nothing can be added to it,
And nothing taken from it.
God does it, that men should fear before Him.
15 That which is has already been,
And what is to be has already been;
And God requires an account of what is past.
Rev. 22:18
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
Link Posted: 4/21/2011 2:18:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By XD-GEM:

You might be interested in reading a book called "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott Hahn. It describes his journey from strict evangelicalism to Catholicism in a way that is easy for people to follow. Basically, he set out to prove the foibles and fallacies of Catholicism and ended up convicted (his word) that Catholicism was actually the Church as founded by Jesus.




I suppose that I am more than a little intrigued by the claim that Scott comes from a background of "strict evangelicalism."

How do you define "strict evangelicalism"?



Link Posted: 4/21/2011 2:34:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By viator:
Originally Posted By XD-GEM:

You might be interested in reading a book called "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott Hahn. It describes his journey from strict evangelicalism to Catholicism in a way that is easy for people to follow. Basically, he set out to prove the foibles and fallacies of Catholicism and ended up convicted (his word) that Catholicism was actually the Church as founded by Jesus.




I suppose that I am more than a little intrigued by the claim that Scott comes from a background of "strict evangelicalism."

How do you define "strict evangelicalism"?



Well, hopefully we won't hijack this tread too much.

Dr. Hahn's bio is here: http://www.salvationhistory.com/personnel/Dr.%20Scott%20Hahn Read between the lines while looking at his educational background and you'll see some of what I mean by noticing from whence his education came..

In general, I would say that strict evangelicalism is on par with "sola scriptura" - the belief that if it ain't in the Bible, it ain't really real. The fundamental (no pun intended) problem with this belief is that in the earliest days of the Church, there was no Bible (at least not in the form as we know it; certainly there was no New Testament). Things were passed on to believers orally and by the traditions of the churches as founded by the various Apostles.

When Dr. Hahn began to research the writings, teachings and beliefs of the earliest Christians, he was shocked to discover that they were much closer to Catholicism than to the Protestant background of his youth and education.

If this answer is insufficient, please don't hijack this thread any further, but start one of you own. There are folks much more well versed in this than I am who would likely be able to answer you more completely.



Link Posted: 4/21/2011 2:56:24 PM EDT
The restating of the stale Protestant Fundamentalist canard that Catholics don't 'read the Bible' is especially funny considering the fact that one of the Catholic members here posts a quite excellent set of Bible readings/analysis on a weekly basis.

But I suppose it's to be expected.
Link Posted: 4/21/2011 6:04:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Maybe on issues like contraception and priest being able to marry they are holding fast to the old ways, but I am not interested in those ideas as they are meaningless to me.


I am curious about this. Why do you say that issues this these are "meaningless" to you?

I am inclined to base my faith on the idea that Christianity should teach you how to behave towards your fellow man and how to live a life that is acceptable to God. The Bible should not be the basis for world history, the origins of The Universe and the origin of species.

That may sound like a trivial matter to determine the direction of your faith, but to many Christians it is outright heresy.



How to behave is certainly part of it. And yes, the Scriptures, while they do contain quite a bit of history, are not meant to be history or science books. They tell us why God created us, how He revealed Himself to us, and many other truths.


Maybe we can get back on track....?
Link Posted: 4/21/2011 6:55:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By XD-GEM:
Originally Posted By viator:
Originally Posted By XD-GEM:

You might be interested in reading a book called "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott Hahn. It describes his journey from strict evangelicalism to Catholicism in a way that is easy for people to follow. Basically, he set out to prove the foibles and fallacies of Catholicism and ended up convicted (his word) that Catholicism was actually the Church as founded by Jesus.




I suppose that I am more than a little intrigued by the claim that Scott comes from a background of "strict evangelicalism."

How do you define "strict evangelicalism"?



Well, hopefully we won't hijack this tread too much.

Dr. Hahn's bio is here: http://www.salvationhistory.com/personnel/Dr.%20Scott%20Hahn Read between the lines while looking at his educational background and you'll see some of what I mean by noticing from whence his education came..

In general, I would say that strict evangelicalism is on par with "sola scriptura" - the belief that if it ain't in the Bible, it ain't really real.




I know Scott so I know what's in the bio. I remember when he was first attending Marquette. My question had nothing to do with his background.

I asked what "strict evangelicalism" meant. Given that you have now introduced a definition of "sola scriptura" that is unfamiliar to me, it appears that the problem is the novel definition of terms.




Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top