Archive

Catholicism

  • sleeper
    Hardcore militant atheist here. Went to a private Catholic school then went to college and became enlightened to the fraud and abusive brain washing that occurs in the cult of religion.

    It really is the biggest scam on the planet; sapping the money and intellect of otherwise good people. I don't know why it's a good thing to circumvent all logic and reason to pray to a god that's never and can never be proven.
  • friendfromlowry
    sleeper;1291312 wrote:It really is the biggest scam on the planet; sapping the money and intellect of otherwise good people. I don't know why it's a good thing to circumvent all logic and reason to pray to a god that's never and can never be proven.
    Eh....I guess I agree with this.
  • adog
    My way to get to Heaven...................


    [video]<iframe width="420" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/video]
  • adog
    My way to get to Heaven

    <object height="315" width="420">
    <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="315" width="420"></object>
  • HitsRus
    I was born and raised Catholic, and educated at a private catholic high school. I lost my faith in my youth but found myself called back soon after marraige. Strangely enough, education and exposure to buddhism brought me back to the religion of my youth....so I consider myself a 'Zen Catholic'. I have found that it helps keep me grounded mentally, physically, and spiritually. I am calmer, and more happy, more optimistic and less cynical, and I live a healthier lifestyle.
  • OSH
    O-Trap;1291302 wrote:I don't see any part that prohibits denominationalism. I see that there is supposed to be a "lack of divisiveness" and an absence of quarreling, but I don't see why denominationalism automatically assumes those.

    Two groups of people are permitted to have different views. They should simply get along and love each other in spite of that, not feud because of it.
    Where's the person's identity supposed to lie? In Methodism? Catholicism? Protestantism? Anglicanism? Mormonism? Baptist? Or in Christ?

    Doesn't biblical principle of mutual subjection emphasize submission to one another as opposed to unquestioned obedience to a human leader or hierarchical organization -- i.e., preacher, pastor, minister, council, etc.? Paul taught that every "church" is to be self-governed and an autonomous organism, not a "structured" system of deacons, elders, superintendents, presidents, popes, etc. Each "church" is directly responsible and accountable to God.

    There's basically no evidence in the Bible that a "church" is to regulate, control, or intrude upon the affairs, teachings, or practices of another assembly. This is exactly what Paul denounces in I Corinthians. The "church" of Jesus Christ isn't hierarchical...that's what denominations make it. It has alienated the family of God into tribes. Throughout the Bible, and specifically the New Testament, there's notions of unifying the "church." That is the ekklesia. The body of believers.

    There are more than 33,000 Christian denominations in the world today!
    "When the Greeks got the gospel, they turned it into a philosophy; when the Romans got it, they turned it into a government; when the Europeans got it, they turned it into a culture; and when the Americans got it, they turned it into a business." - Richard Halverson
  • O-Trap
    OSH;1291605 wrote:Where's the person's identity supposed to lie? In Methodism? Catholicism? Protestantism? Anglicanism? Mormonism? Baptist? Or in Christ?
    The latter. However, "doing" church with people who identify with a particular ideology within the spectrum of those who find their identity in Christ is no worse than choosing to go to one university, society, or book club as opposed to another.
    OSH;1291605 wrote:Doesn't biblical principle of mutual subjection emphasize submission to one another as opposed to unquestioned obedience to a human leader or hierarchical organization -- i.e., preacher, pastor, minister, council, etc.?
    Certainly. Where does denominationalism require obedience to a human leader or hierarchical organization? Denominationalism is merely the collection of people who agree on some particular set of facets as they pertain to a faith that more than they accept. It doesn't require human authority or hierarchy at all.
    OSH;1291605 wrote:Paul taught that every "church" is to be self-governed and an autonomous organism ...
    Merely out of curiosity, which passage are you referencing with this?
    OSH;1291605 wrote:... not a "structured" system of deacons, elders, superintendents, presidents, popes, etc. Each "church" is directly responsible and accountable to God.
    Interesting, given Paul's contemporary, Peter, becoming the first bishop of Rome. I'm thinking Peter had a pretty good gauge of Jesus' intent for his early church.
    OSH;1291605 wrote:There's basically no evidence in the Bible that a "church" is to regulate, control, or intrude upon the affairs, teachings, or practices of another assembly.
    In what way do denominations do this?
    OSH;1291605 wrote:This is exactly what Paul denounces in I Corinthians. The "church" of Jesus Christ isn't hierarchical...that's what denominations make it.
    Some may, but that's certainly not a requirement of denominationalism.
    OSH;1291605 wrote:It has alienated the family of God into tribes.
    So long as all the tribes recognize one another as brethren, I don't see how worshiping differently equates to division by default. You and I might disagree on Trinity theory. I might attend a body who believes as I do, while you attend a body who believes as you do. If I still accept you as my brother in Christ and as a member of the body of Christ, and you do so with me, then where have we erred?
    OSH;1291605 wrote:Throughout the Bible, and specifically the New Testament, there's notions of unifying the "church." That is the ekklesia. The body of believers.
    Absolutely. We ought to see ourselves as one. That doesn't mean we cannot gather in smaller groups, formed via common beliefs about the secondary elements of belief.
    OSH;1291605 wrote:There are more than 33,000 Christian denominations in the world today!
    I agree that that seems needless, but again, I don't think there are 33,000 groups out there thinking that they are the only ones who are in good standing with God, thus dividing what was meant to be a "body" (a single unit).
  • I Wear Pants
    I was raised Catholic and very much believed in it. Was an alter server and all that jazz. I'm an agnostic atheist now.
  • OSH
    O-Trap;1291615 wrote:The latter. However, "doing" church with people who identify with a particular ideology within the spectrum of those who find their identity in Christ is no worse than choosing to go to one university, society, or book club as opposed to another.
    I guess I don't know where you were going with this.
    O-Trap;1291615 wrote:Certainly. Where does denominationalism require obedience to a human leader or hierarchical organization? Denominationalism is merely the collection of people who agree on some particular set of facets as they pertain to a faith that more than they accept. It doesn't require human authority or hierarchy at all.
    You must obey the preacher, pastor, priest, or whoever in the building, or what he/she has to say. You have to abide by the rules that the denomination sets -- i.e., when you have the Sabbath, when and how the Eucharist is taken, when and how baptism occurs, when and how you tithe, what you can wear, what you can eat, what you can do, where you can go, so on and so forth. Denominations have made this all happen.
    O-Trap;1291615 wrote:Merely out of curiosity, which passage are you referencing with this?
    You can pick anywhere in Paul's writings talking how each group is under the authority of ONLY Jesus Christ. There is no earthly rule. Acts 15 shows the prime example of a body that had unilateral authority, which Paul and Barnabas quickly figured that one group of believers spread false teaching to another -- things were taken care of and all was good again.
    O-Trap;1291615 wrote:Interesting, given Paul's contemporary, Peter, becoming the first bishop of Rome. I'm thinking Peter had a pretty good gauge of Jesus' intent for his early church.
    I'm glad you mentioned that. Does the title of "bishop" then have the same connotation that it does now? What about preacher/pastor only being mentioned once in the New Testament?
    O-Trap;1291615 wrote:In what way do denominations do this?
    How many times do you hear of denominations railing against how other denominations practice? Not doing the Eucharist properly. Not baptizing by submersion. Not taking the tithe every week, month, etc. Telling others the "proper" way to worship -- with or without music, contemporary or not, etc. Boasting on what day is actually the Sabbath. Need more?
    O-Trap;1291615 wrote:Some may, but that's certainly not a requirement of denominationalism.
    Sure hierarchical structure is a requirement of most denominations. What denomination doesn't have a hierarchy? Even having pastors, preachers, or ministers that stand up in front of congregations is included in that hierarchy. How many denominations have a leader above the pastor/preacher? Probably most, if not all.
    O-Trap;1291615 wrote:So long as all the tribes recognize one another as brethren, I don't see how worshiping differently equates to division by default. You and I might disagree on Trinity theory. I might attend a body who believes as I do, while you attend a body who believes as you do. If I still accept you as my brother in Christ and as a member of the body of Christ, and you do so with me, then where have we erred?
    You may accept someone of a different denomination, but that's not a wide acceptance. Denominations want to "win" every other denomination over to their "church." That's not a healthy body of Christ.
    O-Trap;1291615 wrote:Absolutely. We ought to see ourselves as one. That doesn't mean we cannot gather in smaller groups, formed via common beliefs about the secondary elements of belief.
    Correct. But those smaller groups of common belief systems are not to be identified other than "Christians" or however else one wants to call it (i.e., Christ followers, family of God, etc.). Denominationalism tears apart the fabric of unity...no doubt about it. The body of Christ should not have disunity in it.
    O-Trap;1291615 wrote:I agree that that seems needless, but again, I don't think there are 33,000 groups out there thinking that they are the only ones who are in good standing with God, thus dividing what was meant to be a "body" (a single unit).
    Surely there are MANY who believe they are the only ones in good standing. If you count Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in the "Christian denomination" category, they fall into that "good standing" thought -- and if you ask them, they are Christian.

    "God made man in his image, and man returned the favor." -- Voltaire
  • Belly35
    My family was Catholic and I was sent to Catholic Schools (discipline reasons), was kicked out of Catechism Classes, band from Alter boy responsibilities after the incenses situation on Sunday morning. Seems the smoke was a little much. If two spoonfuls creates smoke, six will be better :laugh:
    I married a Lutheran women and enjoyed the teaching and the Lutheran doctrine. Later my wife and I looked for something more and now worship at a Non Denomination Church.</SPAN>
  • O-Trap
    OSH;1291684 wrote:You must obey the preacher, pastor, priest, or whoever in the building, or what he/she has to say. You have to abide by the rules that the denomination sets -- i.e., when you have the Sabbath, when and how the Eucharist is taken, when and how baptism occurs, when and how you tithe, what you can wear, what you can eat, what you can do, where you can go, so on and so forth. Denominations have made this all happen.
    I've been to a lot of churches across a pretty wide array of denominations, and I can only think of one or two where this was actually the case.

    Denominations are defined more by ideology than form (in most cases), which is why you'll see VERY many denominations that look remarkably similar on a given day. There may be subtle nuances, but aside from that, there are stark similarities.

    Good lord, the only "rules" that any church of which I've been a part has set were rules on core beliefs, and that was only for membership. Not for attendance. Hell, I attended a Catholic service for almost a year just for the experience of it, and while I'd never done confession, been baby-baptized, been confirmed, etc. I was perfectly welcome. And let's just say there are staunch differences between my worldview and the standard Catholic worldview in both ideology and function. I was welcomed as a brother from a different church, much like any member of the Philippian church would have been welcomed in the church at Galatia.

    Not once have I been instructed by a preacher, pastor, priest, etc. to do anything ... except for my dad, who has been a pastor for most of his life, but that had to do more with the parental relationship. ;)

    I have been welcome to worship at Catholic mass, the Vineyard church, the Episcopal church, the Brethren church, several Baptist denominations, the Lutheran church, the Presbyterian church, the Nazarene church, various non-denominational churches (of which my current church is, technically), and the Grace Brethren church. I'm sure I'm forgetting some, but you get the gist. Not once would I have been required to live a certain way in order to be welcome to worship in community with them.

    I've studied the development of denominations from the Reformation to contemporary times, and neither in form nor function was that ever the purpose or overwhelming result after the Reformation (admittedly, the Reformation itself had some ugly examples of this, with the killing of the Anabaptists over adult baptism, the killing of Jon Hus, the killing of Catholics by Luther and his followers, the killing of Luther and his followers by Catholics, etc.). Ultimately, when we place one denomination into a position of superiority, we are most certainly in the wrong, as Paul clearly stated when he chastised the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 3 for boasting about whose party of thought to which they belonged.

    Think of it like this: We, as a body, are like a football team. The denominations are like positions. You might be a right tackle, and I might be a tight end, but that does not make either one of us more or less a football player than the other.
    OSH;1291684 wrote:You can pick anywhere in Paul's writings talking how each group is under the authority of ONLY Jesus Christ. There is no earthly rule. Acts 15 shows the prime example of a body that had unilateral authority, which Paul and Barnabas quickly figured that one group of believers spread false teaching to another -- things were taken care of and all was good again.

    I agree that there is no earthly rule. I'm suggesting that denominations don't require an earthly rule. They're essentially formal schools of thought.
    OSH;1291684 wrote: I'm glad you mentioned that. Does the title of "bishop" then have the same connotation that it does now? What about preacher/pastor only being mentioned once in the New Testament?
    To the former question, it depends on who you ask, and the context. Within the Catholic church, I contest that it does not have the same connotation as it does now.

    As to the latter, I can think of more than one example, so I'm curious to which one you're referring.

    For what it's worth, I think the role of the "pastor" in the average church today is grossly misconstrued as something it wasn't intended to be.
    OSH;1291684 wrote:How many times do you hear of denominations railing against how other denominations practice?
    Virtually never, and like I said, I've spent time worshiping with a wide variety of denominations and fellowships (there is a difference ;)).
    OSH;1291684 wrote:Not doing the Eucharist properly. Not baptizing by submersion. Not taking the tithe every week, month, etc. Telling others the "proper" way to worship -- with or without music, contemporary or not, etc. Boasting on what day is actually the Sabbath. Need more?
    I have heard the music thing once, in a particular Baptist church whose pastor knew I disagreed with him, and I was still welcome to worship with them.

    For what it's worth, "worship" isn't just singing or musical at all. Everything done in a service should be worshipful.

    Even with denominations who have disagreed with me on some of the things you've mentioned, some of which even knowing that fact, I was always welcome to worship as a brother in Christ. Hell, I joke about our differences with many of the pastors/deacons/etc. of other churches, covering everything from Predeterminism to Millenialism to Trinity theory (the Pentacostal friend and I have fun with this one regularly). Those differences are in genuine belief. We still recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, no one inherently closer to God than another.
    OSH;1291684 wrote: Sure hierarchical structure is a requirement of most denominations. What denomination doesn't have a hierarchy? Even having pastors, preachers, or ministers that stand up in front of congregations is included in that hierarchy. How many denominations have a leader above the pastor/preacher? Probably most, if not all.
    In ideology, perhaps. Often not in form. And the ideology element is simply to maintain identity as an ideological unit. Sort of like the Evangelical Theological Society making sure all the members (ie, claiming to be part of the society) are indeed Evangelicals in ideology.
    OSH;1291684 wrote: You may accept someone of a different denomination, but that's not a wide acceptance. Denominations want to "win" every other denomination over to their "church." That's not a healthy body of Christ.
    Based on what do you draw this? It seems like you're making a slew of assumptions that don't actually exist. I have never been part of a denomination that sought that, and in most cases, what I've seen between different denominations within a small area is that they are happy to work together on community-building projects. Different ideologies, but not different cores, and so long as they understand that, I don't see the problem.
    OSH;1291684 wrote:Correct. But those smaller groups of common belief systems are not to be identified other than "Christians" or however else one wants to call it (i.e., Christ followers, family of God, etc.).
    That's not only silly; it's counterproductive. If my group has a unique theological belief, which might agree with others 90% of the time, but differentiates 10% of the time, there is nothing anti-biblical about distinguishing that fact. It's the beauty of the variety of minds that exist within the body. Disagreement is not equitable to dissension. You and I obviously have different ideologies. There is nothing inherently wrong with identifying with those camps of belief, so long as we, presumably both believers, treat each other as such.
    OSH;1291684 wrote:Denominationalism tears apart the fabric of unity...no doubt about it.
    No. People use denominations to tear apart the fabric of unity. Blaming denominationalism for fragmentation of the body is like blaming a knife for a stabbing.
    OSH;1291684 wrote:The body of Christ should not have disunity in it.
    I agree, but that doesn't mean that we can't have, and recognize, our differences.
    OSH;1291684 wrote:Surely there are MANY who believe they are the only ones in good standing.
    If there are, I have never, ever met one.
    OSH;1291684 wrote:If you count Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in the "Christian denomination" category, they fall into that "good standing" thought -- and if you ask them, they are Christian.
    Fair enough. That may be a question of core belief. Christian or not, given the difference in core belief, I'd say the distinction between a Mormon and an Evangelical view is more than simply denominational.
  • Pick6
    Otrap and his novels...
  • O-Trap
    Pick6;1291754 wrote:Otrap and his novels...
    I wish I could say less and feel like I was still getting my point across.
  • jmog
    said_aouita;1290884 wrote:The normal baptism as a kid but now a days I like asking questions and thinking with an open mind.
    I now realize Jesus is overrated by Catholics.
    If Jesus is overrated by Catholics then what do you say about their beleifs on Mary? :)
  • I Wear Pants
    jmog;1291860 wrote:If Jesus is overrated by Catholics then what do you say about their beleifs on Mary? :)
    I always got angry when people misunderstood what was going on with Mary. Catholics do not worship her. It's better said by others (as usual):
    Why do Roman Catholics, Anglicans (Episcopalians) and Eastern
    Orthodox Christians pray to the Saints?-

    In St. Timothy 2:5, St. Paul says that &#8220;there is one Mediator between God and man- Christ Jesus&#8221;. When we pray to the Blessed Mother and other saints we are not bypassing Jesus. Rather, they are going to Christ through Mary and the Saints, asking them to intercede (pray) for us before the Throne of Grace in Heaven. Much like we might ask each other to pray for us at certain times. In Revelation 8:3-4 Scripture teaches us that the saints in heaven will intercede for us before Christ&#8217;s throne if they are petitioned in prayer. According to St. John Chrysostom, church father in the 4th century, &#8220;When you perceive that God is chastening you, fly not to His enemies, but to His friends,
    the martyrs, the saints, and those who were pleasing to Him, those who have great power.&#8221;

    October 2012
    from The Messenger, newsletter of
    St Paul's by the Lake, Chicago, IL
  • O-Trap
    I Wear Pants;1291868 wrote:I always got angry when people misunderstood what was going on with Mary. Catholics do not worship her. It's better said by others (as usual):
    One can still indeed take issue with that belief, but I do recognize that they aren't worshiping the saints or Mary.
  • Heretic
    All I know is that after reading this thread, I'm glad I'm not religious.

    Shit's too damn complicated with all these denominations and whether they should exist. Best to just worship myself and be done with it all!
  • O-Trap
    Heretic;1291880 wrote:All I know is that after reading this thread, I'm glad I'm not religious.

    Shit's too damn complicated with all these denominations and whether they should exist. Best to just worship myself and be done with it all!
    It's not actually unlike many academic communities. Only there, they call them something more nebulous: a "school of thought."
  • Automatik
    Heretic;1291880 wrote: Best to just worship myself and be done with it all!
    Damn straight! I am a god. F everything else! :laugh:
  • jmog
    I Wear Pants;1291868 wrote:I always got angry when people misunderstood what was going on with Mary. Catholics do not worship her. It's better said by others (as usual):
    Nobody (at least I didn't) say they worshipped her, but there is not doubt they hold a much higher "reverence" or some beliefs about Mary that simply aren't Biblical.

    The best I can think of is that Catholicism believes that Mary was an eternal virgin, in other words she never had sex even after Jesus was born. Somehow it is missed that Jesus had younger brothers by Mary and Joseph that were not immaculately conceived.
  • ricola
    I tend to agree with and see things from otrap's point of view here. Have been to a lot of churches (including Catholic) and have never felt like i couldn't worship with or wasn't accepted there
  • mhs95_06
    Steel Valley Football;1291104 wrote:Catholic here.

    Everyone else is wrong and going to Hell.
    Mormon here. Everyone else doesn't have the full truth, but most are going to heaven to some degree.
  • O-Trap
    Protestant here.

    We all suck, and we're all crazy, but some of us will be rescued from it.
  • I Wear Pants
    jmog;1292038 wrote:Nobody (at least I didn't) say they worshipped her, but there is not doubt they hold a much higher "reverence" or some beliefs about Mary that simply aren't Biblical.

    The best I can think of is that Catholicism believes that Mary was an eternal virgin, in other words she never had sex even after Jesus was born. Somehow it is missed that Jesus had younger brothers by Mary and Joseph that were not immaculately conceived.
    Every denomination of every religion that I know of misses quite a few significant things.
  • I Wear Pants
    Atheist here.

    None of us are going anywhere but back into dirt unless we're rich bastards like Sleeper who I'm sure will pay to have his body sent to space or some shit. :)