The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[soon]

 

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Your silence speaks volumes.

Not really.

What on earth do you want me to say about it? 

[Iron MikeyJ]

49 minutes ago, soon said:

 

Largely it was the Catholic-Industrial-Complex so to speak.  More a role of the Empire that created the church.  So the myths were also propagated in empire and later the many divided kingdoms. But then it becomes an echo chamber that ends up producing Priests who actually do believe it all. And then the artists up their ante to match the doctrines and the cycle spirals out of control.  Some of the beliefs might have survived in to Lutheran dogmatic imaginations or even doctrine, but dont quote me.  Over the years its crept back into Protestant churches such as the Baptists.  Im also sure that parents use it as a tool with children.  Shitty, shitty parents.

And about infant baptism: yes a complete lie invented by catholicism.  Anabaptist means "re-baptizer" meaning we read scripture and said "all this stuff the church is saying is bull shit. So we rebaptized as adults.  Like is the case in scripture.  We only have records of believers being baptized in Scripture. Something an infant cant be obviously. 

While I agree with MANY things you have said in this thread, I find some of your thoughts such as ^ to be incorrect, misinformed, and flat out NOT true. May I ask where you have heard such things? Has a pastor at YOUR church or another church you have attended ever said these things, or things similar? The reason I ask is because it is QUITE prevalent in the protestant community (which I'm not going down THAT road again, so I'm not calling Anabaptists protestants for the sake of this discussion, just pointing out that what I'm about to say DOES INDEED happen) to speak negativity about Catholism during their church service, particularly by pastors/preachers. Which I FIND to be quite appalling, and speaks VOLUMES for that particular Pastor and the denomination as a whole. Many protestant denominations focus their entire service around the fact that "WE" are good Christians, while Catholics on the other hand are bad, or NOT even Christian at all. I have to question the validity of ANY denomination that is spreading ANY form of negativity during a service. God is LOVE, Jesus IS LOVE, so any preacher that turns down a negative road, is NOT in line with the Holy Spirit. So I would argue, they are taking you FURTHER from Christ, not closer. Even if it's a conversation held during Sunday School about Catholics, that is an UNHEALTHY road. If you are discussing the differences between the two, I would say that's fair game. But even then what tends to happen? "Catholics worship Mary" "Catholics commit idolatry", etc. By making SUCH claims, one is casting judgement!!! Which as you know, that leads you AWAY from Christ, not closer.

As I Catholic, I can PROMISE you, our Masses are FULLY focused on Jesus and love. I have NEVER heard a homily where the priest speaks NEGATIVLY about ANY denominations. Quite the opposite really. When protestants are brought up (which is VERY rare, but it does happen), they are referred to as "our brothers and sisters in Christ." 

I know it's easy for protestants to harp on things that happened once upon a time (and I understand you are wanting a formal apology from the church). All I ask is you to keep this in mind, how close to God can your Pastor be if he speaks negatively about ANY denomination? That's not love my friend.

[DieselDaisy]

Settle this on the cricket field,

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/sports/protestants-and-catholics-meet-on-the-cricket-pitch.html

[soon]

 

7 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

While I agree with MANY things you have said in this thread, I find some of your thoughts such as ^ to be incorrect, misinformed, and flat out NOT true. May I ask where you have heard such things? Has a pastor at YOUR church or another church you have attended ever said these things, or things similar? The reason I ask is because it is QUITE prevalent in the protestant community (which I'm not going down THAT road again, so I'm not calling Anabaptists protestants for the sake of this discussion, just pointing out that what I'm about to say DOES INDEED happen) to speak negativity about Catholism during their church service, particularly by pastors/preachers. Which I FIND to be quite appalling, and speaks VOLUMES for that particular Pastor and the denomination as a whole. Many protestant denominations focus their entire service around the fact that "WE" are good Christians, while Catholics on the other hand are bad, or NOT even Christian at all. I have to question the validity of ANY denomination that is spreading ANY form of negativity during a service. God is LOVE, Jesus IS LOVE, so any preacher that turns down a negative road, is NOT in line with the Holy Spirit. So I would argue, they are taking you FURTHER from Christ, not closer. Even if it's a conversation held during Sunday School about Catholics, that is an UNHEALTHY road. If you are discussing the differences between the two, I would say that's fair game. But even then what tends to happen? "Catholics worship Mary" "Catholics commit idolatry", etc. By making SUCH claims, one is casting judgement!!! Which as you know, that leads you AWAY from Christ, not closer.

As I Catholic, I can PROMISE you, our Masses are FULLY focused on Jesus and love. I have NEVER heard a homily where the priest speaks NEGATIVLY about ANY denominations. Quite the opposite really. When protestants are brought up (which is VERY rare, but it does happen), they are referred to as "our brothers and sisters in Christ." 

I know it's easy for protestants to harp on things that happened once upon a time (and I understand you are wanting a formal apology from the church). All I ask is you to keep this in mind, how close to God can your Pastor be if he speaks negatively about ANY denomination? That's not love my friend.

Which are the things you dont agree with?

Im not sure why you think that my general knowledge about the Medieval Catholic Church comes from my pastor.  I've learned very little, if anything, about that time period or catholicism from sermons.

 

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, soon said:

Unfortunately for you Christian Scripture doesn't speak to oral sex.  Theres a hand job in the OT though and also an entire book that is just romance and sex poetry... with three parties even.  Like we were discussing; sexuality wasnt a focus for Jesus. But I guess the answer I should offer you is that, the Christian Scripture says that a married couple should thoroughly enjoy their sex life.  And theres nothing baring the notion that they can get it on in ANY ways they both enjoy. 

Then I think I need to ask our catholic friend. Hey, @Iron MikeyJ, why won't your catholic god allow you to give head? There is nothing in the bible that prevents it, why do you take it to an even worse level?

[Iron MikeyJ]

27 minutes ago, soon said:

 

Which are the things you dont agree with?

Im not sure why you think that my general knowledge about the Medieval Catholic Church comes from my pastor.  I've learned very little, if anything, about that time period or catholicism from sermons.

 

If you were referring to things the church did in medieval times, I can't speak on that. I just know (from personal experience) that the church is a very positive and loving place now. So sorry for my confusion. 

As for what I said in regards to protestant denominations speaking poorly of Catholics during service, I know that happens quite a bit. If your church doesn't do that, that makes me happy.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Not really.

What on earth do you want me to say about it? 

Well, to claim agnosticism you are remarkably protective of christianity, not even acknowledging obvious wrongs. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by SoulMonster

[soon]

1 minute ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

If you were referring to things the church did in medieval times, I can't speak on that. I just know (from personal experience) that the church is a very positive and loving place now. So sorry for my confusion. 

As for what I said in regards to protestant denominations speaking poorly of Catholics during service, I know that happens quite a bit. If your church doesn't do that, that makes me happy.

Oh, I see: I wasnt clearly defining that I was talking about the medieval times becoming an echo chamber.  Thanks for helping us have clarity.

That period of time has a lot of sad and regrettable events and practices.  

 

[SoulMonster]

44 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

While I agree with MANY things you have said in this thread, I find some of your thoughts such as ^ to be incorrect, misinformed, and flat out NOT true. May I ask where you have heard such things? Has a pastor at YOUR church or another church you have attended ever said these things, or things similar? The reason I ask is because it is QUITE prevalent in the protestant community (which I'm not going down THAT road again, so I'm not calling Anabaptists protestants for the sake of this discussion, just pointing out that what I'm about to say DOES INDEED happen) to speak negativity about Catholism during their church service, particularly by pastors/preachers. Which I FIND to be quite appalling, and speaks VOLUMES for that particular Pastor and the denomination as a whole. Many protestant denominations focus their entire service around the fact that "WE" are good Christians, while Catholics on the other hand are bad, or NOT even Christian at all. I have to question the validity of ANY denomination that is spreading ANY form of negativity during a service. God is LOVE, Jesus IS LOVE, so any preacher that turns down a negative road, is NOT in line with the Holy Spirit. So I would argue, they are taking you FURTHER from Christ, not closer. Even if it's a conversation held during Sunday School about Catholics, that is an UNHEALTHY road. If you are discussing the differences between the two, I would say that's fair game. But even then what tends to happen? "Catholics worship Mary" "Catholics commit idolatry", etc. By making SUCH claims, one is casting judgement!!! Which as you know, that leads you AWAY from Christ, not closer.

As I Catholic, I can PROMISE you, our Masses are FULLY focused on Jesus and love. I have NEVER heard a homily where the priest speaks NEGATIVLY about ANY denominations. Quite the opposite really. When protestants are brought up (which is VERY rare, but it does happen), they are referred to as "our brothers and sisters in Christ." 

I know it's easy for protestants to harp on things that happened once upon a time (and I understand you are wanting a formal apology from the church). All I ask is you to keep this in mind, how close to God can your Pastor be if he speaks negatively about ANY denomination? That's not love my friend.

So why do you practise infant baptism when you have no bible verses indicating that's what your god wants?

[soon]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Then I think I need to ask our catholic friend. Hey, @Iron MikeyJ, why won't your catholic god allow you to give head? There is nothing in the bible that prevents it, why do you take it to an even worse level?

Speaking of our catholic friends: anyone else notice how KK started this thread and then bailed on us?

Is he just pranking us: lurking and watching us all have the inevitable debates?  Laughing at us?

[SoulMonster]

Just now, soon said:

Speaking of our catholic friends: anyone else notice how KK started this thread and then bailed on us?

Is he just pranking us: lurking and watching us all have the inevitable debates?  Laughing at us?

I like to think he is busy reading about the Norse colonization of the Americas.

[Iron MikeyJ]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Then I think I need to ask our catholic friend. Hey, @Iron MikeyJ, why won't your catholic god allow you to give head? There is nothing in the bible that prevents it, why do you take it to an even worse level?

It's the spilling of a man's "seed". Anytime the seed is NOT used as a way to impregnate your wife, it is a sin.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Iron MikeyJ said:

It's the spilling of a man's "seed". Anytime the seed is NOT used as a way to impregnate your wife, it is a sin.

That's fascinating. On a superficial level it is of course stupid since we men produce more seed than we could ever need. We have enough to spill plenty at the ground, give it handsomely to the brothers of Onan, and deposit it in any orifice available, yet still impregnate a wife at least once per year. 

And why is this particular OT verse still valid to catholics and not, say, the verse that forbids castrated men to enter a church? Theyh both come from the OT. The explanation, I believe -- and I might be on a limb here -- is anything both godly: It all comes down to practical management of a religion. Laws that would make catholics bountiful, that would stimulate pregnancies and the growth of the religious sect, makes sense in the competitive landscape of religions. While a verse with little practical meaning in modern times, and that really has become archaic and pointless, is easily "forgotten", thrown on the scrap yard of bible verses that aren't relevant any more.  

[DieselDaisy]

36 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, to claim agnosticism you are remarkably protective of christianity, not even acknowledging obvious wrongs. 

Not believing in something, in this example Catholicism, does not inherently require one to actively seek out the errors of whatever it is they do not believe in and reiterate them in tedious error-prone conversations. You can just as easily not believe in something by simply not believing in something, and going about your daily life.

[Iron MikeyJ]

34 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

That's fascinating. On a superficial level it is of course stupid since we men produce more seed than we could ever need. We have enough to spill plenty at the ground, give it handsomely to the brothers of Onan, and deposit it in any orifice available, yet still impregnate a wife at least once per year. 

And why is this particular OT verse still valid to catholics and not, say, the verse that forbids castrated men to enter a church? Theyh both come from the OT. The explanation, I believe -- and I might be on a limb here -- is anything both godly: It all comes down to practical management of a religion. Laws that would make catholics bountiful, that would stimulate pregnancies and the growth of the religious sect, makes sense in the competitive landscape of religions. While a verse with little practical meaning in modern times, and that really has become archaic and pointless, is easily "forgotten", thrown on the scrap yard of bible verses that aren't relevant any more.  

When Christ came, he created a NEW convienant with man. So some laws he specifically addressed, such as sacrificing of animals or the sabbath being Sunday NOT Saturday. Others he did NOT address, so those laws are still enforced by the church. 

[soon]

When I get married...

 

 

[SoulMonster]

27 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

When Christ came, he created a NEW convienant with man. So some laws he specifically addressed, such as sacrificing of animals or the sabbath being Sunday NOT Saturday. Others he did NOT address, so those laws are still enforced by the church. 

Are you saying Jesus specifically addressed the story about Onan and not the story outlawing the entry of castrated men into church?

[soon]

Me when I stop by the United Church to mac on those liberal gals

[Iron MikeyJ]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Are you saying Jesus specifically addressed the story about Onan and not the story outlawing the entry of castrated men into church?

No, I am not implying anything other than what I directly said. As a Catholic, the laws that Jesus specifically addressed, we go by what HE said. Those that he did not, we still abide by Jewish customs. 

I will fully admit to not being an expert on every single passage/story inn the bible. I could however FIND the answers to ANY question you might have. I am a HUGE fan of https://www.catholic.com/all

I can GUARANTEE, these folks can answer ANY question you might have, far better than I can.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

No, I am not implying anything other than what I directly said. As a Catholic, the laws that Jesus specifically addressed, we go by what HE said. Those that he did not, we still abide by Jewish customs. 

I will fully admit to not being an expert on every single passage/story inn the bible. I could however FIND the answers to ANY question you might have. I am a HUGE fan of https://www.catholic.com/all

I can GUARANTEE, these folks can answer ANY question you might have, far better than I can.

I just read all of the laws that Jesus give to his disciples, and I can't say I see anything that supports the idea that blowjobs are sin. Jesus never reaffirms the Onan story (but I guess catholics interpret the verse about chopping off one's hand if it insults, in that direction, although it could be about any sin of the hand, not necessarily spilling the seed (through masturbation)). So I guess Jesus was fine with it.

Does this mean you will stop having to pray for forgiveness for having oral sex, now?

[soon]

Just a short interview with Willie nelson about his faith:

Rebellious Christian country singer Willie Nelson is a firm believer of God, and even though there are some people who might question his faith and think that his Christian values lean more towards the unconventional side, the singer maintains that his love for God has never wavered.

Nelson is now 82 years old and still performs 150 nights a year. He has a brand-new autobiography called "It's a Long Story" where he firmly declares his love for Jesus Christ.

"I was a believer as a kid," he wrote in the book, "just as I am a believer as a man. I've never doubted the genius of Christ's moral message or the truth of the miracles He performed. I see His presence on earth and resurrection as perfect man as a moment that altered human history, guiding us in the direction of healing love."

His journey towards Christianity was a bit rocky at first, since he belonged to a Methodist church that preached that "straight is the gate." However, Nelson "can't remember being afraid of venturing beyond that straight gate."

Throughout his life, the singer dabbled with marijuana use and even expressed fascination with eastern religion. He even stated his belief in reincarnation, and attributed it to the ancient Chinese belief of Taoism.

When it comes to writing and singing songs, however, Nelson knows there is only one God to thank for. "I sing okay, I play okay, and I know that I can write a good song, but I still feel like I've been given a whole lot more than I deserve," he said.

There are times when Nelson even mulls if he was really the one who wrote the song, or if God is simply using him to express His message. "Am I just a channel chosen by the Holy Spirit to express these feelings?" he asked.

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/country-star-willie-nelson-ive-never-doubted-the-genius-of-christs-moral-message/55480.htm

[SoulMonster]

For no other reason than being bored while waiting for the kids to fall asleep, I went to @Iron MikeyJ 's site to read about what catholic experts have to say about various topics regarding sex. What surprises me is that they never point to scripture or Jesus' word for all their intricate words, but rather to tradition and church fathers. It was also very unintentionally amusing. Just read this about Mutual Mastubation Between Married Couples:

Quote

Assuming that by mutual masturbation you mean stimulation of the genitals outside the context of the conjugal act, the answer is no. The reason is because it involves freely using the sexual faculty while actively frustrating its immediate end of getting semen into the vagina, as well as frustrating the faculties’ ultimate ends of procreation (which includes the rearing of children) and unitive love, thus making the act a perverted act.

Obviously, it frustrates the procreative end inasmuch as the activity is per se incapable of producing a child. But it also frustrates the unitive end inasmuch as unitive love depends on the biological union of male and female that strives for the end of begetting children. Without the “one flesh” union that is generative in nature, there can be no real spousal union.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is unequivocal in its teaching on the immorality of masturbation:

By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved" (2352).

The "magisterium of the Church" and the "moral sense of the faithful" agrees that it is a "gravely disordered action"?  What about Jesus? Doesn't he get to have a say in this?

And here from the pages about Oral Sex:

Quote

The second and moral reason is that, unfortunately, a couple may develop a concrete preference for oral stimulation over natural sexual intercourse—what St. Alphonsus calls an affectus sodomiticus, an attraction to sodomitical sex. So they get into the situation emotionally of preferring an unnatural act and having the natural one only because they are morally bound to. This is all the more common in our time where many young people engage in oral sex exclusively so as to avoid conception, and once they are married, they end up preferring it.

People sometimes prefer oral stimulation because it gives them more pleasure, but the pleasure is not the measure of what is to be preferred in sexual relations but rather the standard is what makes the couple relate to each other in the integrity of the marital act. This means that they should train their hearts to prefer face to face (not face to groin!) communication in the expression of their love and should prefer that use of their genitals that is directly related to human procreation, not some kind of elaborate acrobatics that ludicrously overemphasizes the pleasure of one or the other.

This being said, even the relatively (but not completely) austere St. Alphonsus allows oral contact with the spouse's genitals obiter, that is, "in passing," as a brief expression of reverence or affection without oral penetration. That ought to be romantic enough for anyone and would avoid developing an affection for an unnatural act.

Phew! Looking at the groin of your loved one is okay.

But again, who cares about St. Alphonsus, what did Jesus say? Again, no referencing to his words. 

These are ridiculously detailed, and extremely constrictive, laws that seems to have no better foundation that what some old geezers thought when interpreting vague verses in the bible. Bascially, whatever these prunes through has now become canon in one of the largest religions in the world. Why do anyone bother to follow this when it is likely to be wrong and has such weak foundations in the words of Jesus? 

[Len Cnut]

12 minutes ago, soon said:

Throughout his life, the singer dabbled with marijuana use

'dabbled'   

[soon]

The always provocative and edgy Hauerwas on practicing Christianity in present day North America.

 

I love the part (1:40) when he talks abut people saying 'I believe Jesus is Lord, but thats just my personal opinion' and then bursts out laughing at the absurdity he sees in such a statement.