The Flutterlands wrote:So, I went to an Episcopalian Mass, today, and really it's no different than a Roman Catholic Mass except that certain things were switched around a bit. Couple of things that bothered me a little was taking communion without having to go to a priest for confession and the fact that the pews were inclosed with doors which felt like somewhat of a fire hazard. Other than that, though, I really think I've found a new home in the faith.
That's great news! Welcome back to the faith!!
Geanna wrote:I was raised Catholic, I don't have an issue with people choosing to follow or believe in a religion, but I see religion as a personal thing. Proselytising to me, corrupts the premise of faith, they didn't seek out such on their own but were "converted".
Religion is not a personal thing, because it's never about you alone. It's always, to a large extent, about how you relate to other people. It's a social thing.
And what's wrong with... persuasion? After all, conversion is just a type of persuasion.
Most people believe most of the things they believe (not just on religious matters) because someone, at some point, persuaded them.
Geanna wrote:I'm also of the mind that one isn't a true Christian if they don't do things because they'll go to hell, or that they'll do things because it gets them to heaven. To me, that's contradictory of true faith, you're either doing it because you expect a reward or because you're afraid of punishment. Faith should be about you doing, or believing in such without any form of expectance, good or bad.
On that point, I agree completely.
To be fair, Catholic and Orthodox churches in North America don't get much older, either...
Jochistan wrote:What are your guy's views on "Fornication" or Premarital sex? most of my Christian friends, even the more devout ones (the ones that pray daily and correct me when I take Jesus's name in vain around them) don't seem to have much of a problem with it.
Which is weird. I was always taught that it as explicitly prohibited.
It is explicitly prohibited. It is a sexual sin, every bit as serious as adultery or homosexual intercourse or any other sexual sin. Personally, I think Christians should pay special attention to pre-marital sex right now, precisely because we live in a culture which shrugs it off at best or actively encourages it at worst.
This is not to say that we should condemn the people who have done this sin, any more than we should condemn those who have done any other sin. We are all sinners, and we must never forget that. But we should condemn the act of committing this sin in itself, and condemn it very clearly.
The Archregimancy wrote:The family of the Millenarian Fifth Monarchist leader Praise-God Barebone - after whom the Cromwell-era Barebone's Parliament was named - gave us one of the richest veins of odd Puritan names.
In addition to Praise-God Barebone himself, there's his brother Fear-God Barebone, Praise-God's son (and both prominent 17th-century economist and founder of the principle of fire insurance) If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barebone (who decided to go by 'Nicholas' after a childhood of being called 'Damned Barebone'), and the latter's brother Jesus-Christ-Came-into-the-World-to-Save Barebone (who apparently had fewer objections to being called 'Saved Barebone').
You can't be serious.
*checks google*
Huh. You are serious. Wow. It's little tidbits of information like this that remind me just what kind of fanatical fundamentalists the Church was dealing with at the time of the Reformation.
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:Gim wrote:So, they can add words, which they made and which are not inspired by God, in however fashion they want and call that the Scripture. Clearly, by addition, they deviate the words of the Bible as a whole.
Says you. The Mormons would vehemently contest that the words of the Book of Mormon, the pearl of Great price are infact inspired. After all it's not like God handed the Bible to Christians on a platter. It was written and assembled by men. On that count the Mormons have equal ground to claim the same inspiration.
Addition to the bible is not a deviation. In fact the Catholic Church didn't close the canon until the Protestant reformation.
You do realize that the Mormon addition is a story about Jesus visiting a "13th tribe of Israel" who supposedly lived in America in the first century, right? And that they further tell a story of how these Jews (for whom there is precisely zero archaeological evidence) supposedly converted to Christianity, until some of them apostatized and God turned them into Native Americans as punishment? Oh, and of course black people are the cursed descendants of Cain and all that stuff.
These aren't just a few innocent additions of a few extra stories from the life of Jesus. They are ludicrous retcons of the original story, changing absolutely everything about the Jesus we know. They butcher the original story worse than The Phantom Menace butchered Star Wars. And they throw in a large dose of 19th century racialism for good measure.
And funny you should mention the fact that God didn't hand the Bible to Christians on a platter... because, according to the Mormons, that's precisely what God did with the Book of Mormon. In a completely out-of-character move, an angel supposedly just handed an already-written book to a prophet (Joseph Smith).
Tafhan wrote:Constantinopolis wrote:Let's be clear: Homosexual intercourse is a sin, in the same way that heterosexual intercourse is a sin in the case of pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex.
Being gay is not a sin.
So? how does saying, "you are who you are, just don't fuckin' do it" make it sting any less?
No one should feel offended or "stung" by statements that basically amount to "you should not have sex". Chastity is a very good thing. For many people (including all who are gay, but probably an ever greater number who are straight), chastity is their calling. There are precisely two Christian approaches to sexuality - chastity and marriage - and although marriage is the right one for the majority of people, the minority who are called to chastity is not tiny. It is, in fact, a sizable minority.
There have been Christian societies in history where 10-20% of the population was engaged in the monastic life (as monks and nuns). I would guess that the proportion of people for whom chastity is the correct approach hovers somewhere in that interval - ten to twenty percent (and note: you don't have to be monastic to live in chastity).
To live in chastity is a great and holy thing. The fact that our culture abjectly devalues the chaste life is a tragedy. Actually, it's more than a tragedy, it's an outrage. Christians should be actively - indeed, aggressively - celebrating chastity as a noble way of life. We should be aggressively pushing back against our hyper-sexualized culture, against the notion that you need to be having sex to be happy, against the idea that having sex is a measure of personal or social success. We need to celebrate - widely and openly - the call to chastity, especially in the form of the monastic life.
)
