lacktone wrote:

Dry and Uninspired wrote:

lacktone wrote:

Remaining non-denominational is not acceptable? There are non-denominational houses of worship you could test. I was married in one and to me the absence of the (unnecessary) pageantry and ceremony marking other legacy religions was refreshing. 

 
Non-denominational in what sense? Aren’t so-called non-denominational churches generally Evangelical?

Also, I’m not sure if we actually have any where I live (Slovenia).

That's not for me to know. If I was asked to opine about religion in general I'd say that their individual survivals are all based in evangelism to a greater or lesser extent. In other words, all have a character to them that can be irritating with enough exposure. I don't champion any of them. I consider the notion of worshiping a deity a one-on-one primacy with no reason in logic to channel it through a religion, or middleman so-to-speak. What I will acknowledge is the sense of community innate in religion and that, IMO, is a secular attraction first and spiritual one second.

Anyway, the non-denominational entry I experienced dispensed with the ceremony in its worship sessions and focused on the community with emphasis on the welfare of it's members. Being an atheist (wife a theist) it was a compromise I was comfortable making only because of its secular approach to worship. While in their company I got the feeling that it was a place where the congregation was comprised of people who were done with the more traditional, legacy religions. My upbringing was Catholic and by 8 years old I wanted out of it. I can't possibly be the only person who felt that way. That's how I can contrast the non-denominational I experienced.

 
Oh I see. That’s really interesting.

I was an atheist until I was 18, but Catholicism always presented itself as the only live option for me among the Christianities: or, at least, as Evelyn Waugh put it, it just was Christianity. My reasons were more or less those of Cardinal Newman, though I hadn't read him at the time. In brief, without a certain kind of divinely guided tradition, you can't get creedal Christianity out of the Gospels. The principles other denominations would like to apply to secure their own doctrines are either over- or under-inclusive; they either don't suffice to yield the denomination's doctrines, or yield some of Catholicism's doctrines when they are applied consistently.

I couldn't, of course, put the argument very sharply, and I couldn't now. I'm not an expert in early Church history.