Nowadays it appears in certain circles that the concept of religion in this little island nation has been twisted to a great degree and is being used mistakenly to drive a wedge between different elements of our society. Citizens (myself included) are becoming more concerned about these trends and are starting to ask: Is the Bahamas becoming a radical Christian nation? Will we eventually get to the point where persons do not cater to a certain business or enterprise because the owner is not affiliated with a particular church? Are we becoming too judgmental or critical of those who do not share the same beliefs?
It is my opinion that less than 10 years ago this nation truly could be termed a Christian one, whose citizens looked equally upon all men and women through the eyes of sinners. According to the precepts of the Bible we ALL are born in sin, but now even the "saved" sinners are closing their doors and their minds to others. How can a "saved" person expect to spread the gospel if the "unsaved" sinner is chastised and lambasted to no end before they even set foot in the church's door? Some of our local pastors have done such a good job of speaking against sin that their members are now firmly set against other sinners, forgetting that they themselves were once in the same position for judgment.
How many of today's Christians came to the church in the past because of the welcoming atmosphere that was present at that time? Now many churches have demonized their own flock and infused prejudice and biases onto concepts where they should NOT be a factor. Yes, a good and faithful Christian should put on the armour of God, but in the same light should not strike down everyone else who is not an immediate member of their particular group in the process. Nor should a Christian at any level deny or reject any soul who wishes to join in their worship - to do so would then place the acceptance factor into the hands of man. Isn’t God supposed to be the sole judge of those who attempt to enter His kingdom? When did man become appointed with being the all-knowing fault-finding judge of character?
Christians in this society are becoming increasingly selective in who they associate and deal with, which shows the deterioration within them of the basic concepts of Christianity, which is a religion that is open to ALL. Ego has infiltrated the top ranks and now they are utilizing their power to lash out at "those who dare to question". They see the breakdown of the materialistic concepts of some of these 21st century churches and are threatened, which is why there is this new campaign calling out that the church is now under attack. Raca, I say – the church has been under attack for centuries. It is not within any man’s power for the existence of the church to remain. It is safe to say that it is the will of God alone. When a man declares war on behalf of God, it is his own ego that carries the blame, for the church will stand or fall only if it is the will of the Creator. MAN cannot save (or destroy) the church. I repeat, that is not within his power. For a Christian to refute this fact and try to throw themselves into some religious war to save their institution means that they would also deny the basic rule that JESUS is their only "Saviour".
There has been enough blatant hypocrisy in some of the various systems of religion for their walls to be broken down to their very foundations. Perhaps this is what needs to and will happen so that people can get back to the true nature of religion without the egos, name-calling, biases and other deteriorative conceptions that plague 21st century churches. Who knows whether this will happen? As the Bible tells us, only God does.


Well said Yorick but ego has been apart to the Church since Constantine created it.

It would be such a LOVEly sight to see all religions embracing one another. Sometimes the walls of religion hinder, instead of promote, the spiritual progress that we all are trying to collectively make. Ego does seem be the fatal flaw in man’s interpretation of his corresponding religion, for it is often the mind which initially grabs onto the concepts of a chosen faith and then creates a bridge for the soul to connect.
It is almost impossible for man to take away the mental process involved in religion and instead allow his soul to grow, for the mind is the filter that we interpret this world through. Because of the nature of the mind, it can be corrupted very easily and then become possessive and protective of the religious choices that the individual has made. This is why the members of each faith tend to hold the members of other persuations at bay instead of embracing them – No man wants to regard his decision as possibly being incorrect, even in part.
I feel that this is detrimental to the progress of some religions, which is why they remain stagnant and often irrelevant in the changing times. Only a few, like Buddhism, allow for a true acceptance of others, for a focused attempt is made to get rid of the ego, the mental barrier which traps and binds man in the solitary world that his mind creates - Because of this barrier, mankind on the whole remains unable to spiritually grow for we are in many ways collective beings. The grouping (gathering) nature of religion proves this.
We can only hope that there will come a day when religious leaders will lose their ego and come together collectively, thereby bringing a large percentage of the world, their respective followings, onto one plateau of thought, but the only way for this to happen is for the egotistical walls and barriers of their respective faiths to come crumbling down. From what I see though, they are so busy patching these barriers up and selfishly protecting the ones already in place that we may never collectively see the light. And this is nothing but a tragedy.


Never mind the sparks this like fireworks on P.I. Well said.

Communion isn't connected to the Loaves and Fish miracle, but to the Last Supper, and therefore is not about feeding the needy. The word 'communion' has a basis- to commune- which means to be in connection with something/sharing with something, in this case God and the flock. The congregation(flock) has a set of beliefs and by the ritual of communion physically show that set of beliefs. Someone who does not believe in the beliefs shouldn't be participating in the ritual.

Is there really a difference in the two religions?
On Saturday I attended two funerals at an Anglican Church and I found what the Rector said to be offensive and in poor taste and also non-Chrisitian.
When it was time for communion he said that only practising and baptized Anglican could receive receive communion and all others stay away.

I think you are mistaken...it is only a Catholic practice not to allow any other denomination to take communion....Anglicans always welcome everyone.

And what made the Rector, offensive and non Christian?

If I were there I would have confronted him right there and then. A ceremony as un-Christian as that needs to be interrupted, Just 1 of the many reason I don't go to church.

Thank God, you would have made all kind of combruxion in the church...

At the Baptist Church that I use to attend, one had to be a born again Christian in order to take communion. If you are not, you were refused.
Also, one had to read a declaration before communion stating that you did not engaged in drinking liquor or even selling it etc.

Moreover, I was brought to believe that the unleaven bread and the grape juice had mystical powers; if one ate it and was not born again, their soul would be corrupted...

Perhaps they just said that to scare little children. But I still believe that...

Thank God, you would have made all kind of combruxion in the church...
Dn't you know that's what some people live for.

At the Baptist Church that I use to attend, one had to be a born again Christian in order to take communion. If you are not, you were refused.
Also, one had to read a declaration before communion stating that you did not engaged in drinking liquor or even selling it etc.
Moreover, I was brought to believe that the unleaven bread and the grape juice had mystical powers; if one ate it and was not born again, their soul would be corrupted...
Perhaps they just said that to scare little children. But I still believe that...
Thats wrong ,the real purpose behind the communion is to show your belief in a risen Christ.But we all know about the doctrines of men.

Thats wrong ,the real purpose behind the communion is to show your belief in a risen Christ.But we all know about the doctrines of men.


It is a matter of opinion...different strokes for different folks...
Most Baptist think that Anglicans and Catholics interpret the Bible wrongly...

It is a matter of opinion...different strokes for different folks...
Most Baptist think that Anglicans and Catholics interpret the Bible wrongly...
This do in rememberance of me. Whats to interpet?

This do in rememberance of me. Whats to interpet?

consubstantiation vrs transsubstantion (spelling might be a tad off), whether it's in tradition as started by Jesus or if the communion bread and wine actually transform into Christs body and blood as refered to in 'this is my body...' statement by Jesus.

consubstantiation vrs transsubstantion (spelling might be a tad off), whether it's in tradition as started by Jesus or if the communion bread and wine actually transform into Christs body and blood as refered to in 'this is my body...' statement by Jesus.
:uh:

This do in rememberance of me. Whats to interpet?

lol...
The interpretation comes in when you question to whom was Jesus intending to do this rememberance.
Baptist believes that his intentions was toward the church. And the church being those who accepted Jesus as the path to God. And those being 'born again Christians.' Therefore if one is not born again, one should not take part.

But who knows...

Transubstantiation vs. mystery

I always prefer to involve in a good political (FNM vs. the new and/or old PLP - still corrupt nonetheless) debate most time then a debate about my faith (the Catholic faith) which I hold deeply and personally for all of my life vs. any other faith. Like politics, religion is personal and each and every person has a belief based on their own personal experience and convictions. BUT TO ME, religions is more serious and as such, I fully respect each persons belief and and only for clearity would want to confront them.

Yet, I have been following this discussion and really did not want to get involve in but there were some aspects of it that I find a little off balance. First, those who do not accept the christian (Catholic, Anglican, Baptist or any other Christian demonitation) should not want to in my view want to participate in their communion. I firmly believe that if I receive the communion, I then accept the full teaching of the communion, understand it fully and would go and communion with the faithful. The idea been that we are one, we have one common belief.

I fully support the fact that Anglicians, have no problem with other christians participating in their communions. I guess their might have been some miss understanding if anyone heard an Anglicians priest say otherwise. However, as a Catholic, I will not for no reason participate in a communion service of no other christian church or religion for that matter. Not only for the fact that I do not understand the process but more important because I may not accept that belief and if I participate I would be sending a message that I accept or that I want to or am a part of that particular communion.

For me, it is out of respect that I do not participate and so I just do not. We have to be mindful, that religions are way of life for many and in doing so one should have a full understanding before they approach one of the central focus of that particular faith.

To me it is similar to becoming a national of a country. One of the important responsibilities of that citizen is to vote. If I am not (by any process necessary) allowed to vote, I should not. Voting is for citizens and should be respected as such. I hope that this example is one that everyone can understand. It to me brings home the point that despite the difference of views, everyone is allowed to vote and more central to may argument, everyone allowed to vote have choices and vote according to their beliefs or associations.

The Anglican Church does not believe in Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is the belief that Jesus' physical body and blood are present in the Holy Communion elements. The bread and wine physically are transformed.The Anglicians/Episcopal Church believes Jesus is spiritually present in the the Holy Communion elements. If a person persists and asks just "how" Jesus is present spiritually, the usual answer is to accept it as mystery. This answer is not intended to dismiss the question. This answer is given because its acceptable to have mystery in life, and things which are way beyond human comprehension. We don't have to understand everything there is to know about Holy Communion. What's more important to Catholics is that we believe and trust Jesus that he said he would be present to us.

I hope that this gives a little more understanding to the beliefs of Catholics vs. Anglicians.

What Say You ?

Being a Roman Catholic, I felt what the rector did was right.People should not partake in something that they do not understand fully.Holy Communion is in fact the Body and Blood of Jesus. If you do not fully understand that how can you partake in it. As you are all aware, that it takes many years of classes as Roman Catholics and as Anglicans to understand this, and to partake in the Body and Blood of Christ.