The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

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:

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:

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? 

My response is this...

Jesus was alive for 33 years, but only ministered for 3. Could he have addressed every problem or question people then, and now had. Yes, he was God, he could have done whatever he wanted. But he didn't want blind loyalty, that's not love, that's fear. So he didn't want to effect free will. So after he was crucified, the Catholic church became the keepers of God's message and laws. Within the church, many centuries of debate took place on these issues, including oral sex I'm sure. So the church used it's best judgment (with the Holy spirit) to help fill in the gaps that Jesus didn't directly address. Many of which came from Saints (which some saints were mystics, with quite remarkable skills). So yes, some of the Saints helped fill in some of the "gaps" as well, but I don't believe they were just "making stuff up". You might view it that way, and you are entitled to that belief. 

Now Im not going to sit here and pretend that the church has figured out EVERY single issue to be 100% pleasing with God's will. But I DO believe they have THE MOST figured out, not just within Christianity, but religion over all. With Orthadox being a close 2nd. Besides it's the DOCTRINES of the church that are absolute truths. Some of the other issues, such as oral sex, I'm sure are debatable. Again, you can still be Catholic and engage in oral sex. But in the eyes of the church, you are commiting a sin. But we are ALL SINNERS. 

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Yes, he was God,

Haven't you read your Nicene Creed lately?

[soon]

11 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

So after he was crucified, the Catholic church became the keepers of God's message and laws. 

 

Just wanted to get clarity on this.  I take it you mean, after Jesus resurrection and ascension?

[Iron MikeyJ]

29 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Haven't you read your Nicene Creed lately?

Every Sunday sir, and your point is?

23 minutes ago, soon said:

Just wanted to get clarity on this.  I take it you mean, after Jesus resurrection and ascension?

Yes, of course.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[soon]

55 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

So after he was crucified, the Catholic church became the keepers of God's message and laws. 

 

What year was the Roman Catholic Church was founded?

[Len Cnut]

14 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Oh, I don't think we've seen the last of that wise-guy. He's out there somewhere. Watching. Waiting.

P.S. The Catholic church/Vatican is a false idol and presumes to know the will of God! 

You know how they say the bibles been altered and that?  What if every time it says will it actually said willy?   And God gave man free willy!  It is the willy of God!  I mean we were made in his image right, I wonder what its like!

[soon]

9 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

You know how they say the bibles been altered and that?  What if every time it says will it actually said willy?   And God gave man free willy!  It is the willy of God!  I mean we were made in his image right, I wonder what its like!

[Gibson87]

7 hours ago, 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.

Read the Book of Solomon. God allows sex to be used for pleasure within the marriage. 

Not that I follow that rule, just something I remembered from religion class

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 hour ago, Gibson_Guy87 said:

Read the Book of Solomon. God allows sex to be used for pleasure within the marriage. 

Not that I follow that rule, just something I remembered from religion class

Yes, sex CAN be pleasurable. Its just SUPPOSED to be used within a marriage that is OPEN to the idea of reproduction. Having a baby doesn't always result from sex, so in THOSE cases pleasure was the only result,  and that's perfectly fine. 

Pleasure AND reproduction are supposed to go hand and hand, when one is missing, that's when the church has a problem. That's why they don't approve of contraceptives, they block the reproduction aspect of it.

[Iron MikeyJ]

4 hours ago, soon said:

What year was the Roman Catholic Church was founded?

The day Christ began his ministry.

Actually, scratch that. I would say the Church technically began the day Gabriel appeared to Mary and said "Hail Mary, the Lord is with thee. Blessed is the fruit of thy womb." 

That would probably be the technical beginning, because that's when the NEW covinant began. 

Also Catholic means UNIVERSAL, so that's all the Church is, the Universal Church of God.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[Iron MikeyJ]

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Haven't you read your Nicene Creed lately?

I should have said IS not was.

[DieselDaisy]

36 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I should have said IS not was.

The son is of the same substance (homoousion) as the father. 

[Dazey]

9 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The son is of the same substance (homoousion) as the father. 

I thought homoousion was frowned upon in the church. 

[soon]

10 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

The day Christ began his ministry.

Actually, scratch that. I would say the Church technically began the day Gabriel appeared to Mary and said "Hail Mary, the Lord is with thee. Blessed is the fruit of thy womb." 

That would probably be the technical beginning, because that's when the NEW covinant began. 

Also Catholic means UNIVERSAL, so that's all the Church is, the Universal Church of God.

Okay.  Im sorry, I cant take this seriously. Its awesome to see that you are really happy and passionate about the renewal of your faith.  Its really great to see a Catholic study scripture and engaging in their own fresh look at the stuff.  And I dont wanna contribute to deflating any of that.  But we're all being honest here. So....

Any time one hears a Catholic say 'did you know Catholic means universal...' honestly, one knows their fixing to hear a load of shit.  It is not the powerful apologetic tool y'all seem to think it is.

When you are changing your mind as you type, it is perfectly with in your rights to erase the previous part that you no longer agree with.

Neither of those events are what Catholicism says.  And what they say is also not true.  Interestingly they, like you, tend to bounce between 2 NT stories. 'Peter on this rock....' and the Lords Supper.

In your estimation, the Roman Catholic Church predates Christs human viability and then persecuted itself from 65-313ce.  In your churches estimation, they began when Christianity began, but then systematically removed Chrsits importance, completely changed or ignored his teachings and practices, until it finally merged with a Pagan Empire.  

Doesn't history show that the first 'Pope in Rome' was likely around 440ce?

 

[Iron MikeyJ]

2 minutes ago, soon said:

Okay.  Im sorry, I cant take this seriously. Its awesome to see that you are really happy and passionate about the renewal of your faith.  Its really great to see a Catholic study scripture and engaging in their own fresh look at the stuff.  And I dont wanna contribute to deflating any of that.  But we're all being honest here. So....

Any time one hears a Catholic say 'did you know Catholic means universal...' honestly, one knows their fixing to hear a load of shit.  It is not the powerful apologetic tool y'all seem to think it is.

When you are changing your mind as you type, it is perfectly with in your rights to erase the previous part that you no longer agree with.

Neither of those events are what Catholicism says.  And what they say is also not true.  Interestingly they, like you, tend to bounce between 2 NT stories. 'Peter on this rock....' and the Lords Supper.

In your estimation, the Roman Catholic Church predates Christs human viability and then persecuted itself from 65-313ce.  In your churches estimation, they began when Christianity began, but then systematically removed Chrsits importance, completely changed or ignored his teachings and practices, until it finally merged with a Pagan Empire.  

Doesn't history show that the first 'Pope in Rome' was likely around 440ce?

 

No, PETER was the FIRST Pope. I wasn't in ANY way diminishing Christ's importance. The Catholic church has not "systematically" removed his importance. That's just plain incorrect thought on your end. I dont know where you would get such information...

As for when the church was established, it was AT VERY LEAST, when Peter went to Rome. He WAS the first Pope, and was Marytered in Rome. The church has documentation of every pope, going ALL the way back to Peter. Many nonCatholic and nonOrthadox denominations don't like these facts, because it makes their denomination seem "less than". But that doesn't mean it's NOT true. Catholics and Orthadox have Apostolic succession. Its just the truth my friend. I often wonder how other denominations can not see, that when they read the Apositles Creed and it says "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" how you can not see that you have directly abandoned something from the Creed? I know many would jump on the "evils" of Catholism, which for sake of argument I'll give you. But then to be ANYTHING other than Orthadox is a direct violation of the Creed you just professed. 

Heck man, it's even on Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

[soon]

10 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

No, PETER was the FIRST Pope. I wasn't in ANY way diminishing Christ's importance. The Catholic church has not "systematically" removed his importance. That's just plain incorrect thought on your end. I dont know where you would get such information...

As for when the church was established, it was AT VERY LEAST, when Peter went to Rome. He WAS the first Pope, and was Marytered in Rome. The church has documentation of every pope, going ALL the way back to Peter. Many nonCatholic and nonOrthadox denominations don't like these facts, because it makes their denomination seem "less than". But that doesn't mean it's NOT true. Catholics and Orthadox have Apostolic succession. Its just the truth my friend. I often wonder how other denominations can not see, that when they read the Apositles Creed and it says "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" how you can not see that you have directly abandoned something from the Creed? I know many would jump on the "evils" of Catholism, which for sake of argument I'll give you. But then to be ANYTHING other than Orthadox is a direct violation of the Creed you just professed. 

Heck man, it's even on Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

I am aware that Catholics have access to wikipedia.

What creed are you suggesting I just professed?

[Iron MikeyJ]

Anabaptists don't say the Apostles Creed?

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

I thought homoousion was frowned upon in the church. 

Homoiousia (similar substance) and heteroousia (different substance) - the latter would be Arianism. 

[Dazey]

11 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Anabaptists don't say the Apostles Creed?

They really should. He was great in Rocky 2. 

[soon]

11 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Anabaptists don't say the Apostles Creed?

No, and plenty denominations don't.  Some prefer the Nicene Creed (325ce).  Well, they call it that, but are actually using a second draft of the Nicene Creed from the First Council of Constantinople (381ce).  Lutherans adopted their own edit of the Apostles Creed.

And in that 2nd draft from Constantinople is where the hermeneutics of Catholic = "universal" does mater.  You'll note that whereas "Holy Spirit" is capitalized, that "holy catholic Church" is not written as a Title, but as a reference to a world wide plurality, a unity of Christianity.  A universal believe in the God of Scripture.

Before I geek out in frivolous ways about all that stuff, I should answer your question more specifically.

Anabaptists exist in many ways.  Anarchist in nature by Catholic standards.  Most have, as do some protestant churches, a Confession of Faith instead of a Creed.  Most Anabaptist confessions of faith are a quite a bit longer then then the Apostles Creed (390ce).  This makes sense as the confessions of faith arent written to defend against "heretical influences" but rather serve as an in depth exploration of Biblical Faith.  

Some Anabaptists are happy to use the original Nicene Creed.  Not for legalistic ends though.  With our baptism rooted in scripture, and with our belief that Christianity exists as a communal event, we consider baptism to be, in part, an entry into a community.  So we do require a confession of faith to state to the community about to receive us.  Given that the Confession is long, we simply affirm our general agreement with the Confession by saying "yes" when asked.  And for the ceremonial aspect we can choose to say the Nicene creed as a communal event during the ceremony proceeding the actual baptism.  Basically if asked why we still use it, its because we find nothing wrong with it and dont intended to just angrily dismiss everything about Catholicism: its just there, so we can use it.  At my baptism we shared in the original Nicene Creed and then prayed the Lords prayer.  Could have just as easily said "This yahoo believes, shall we receive him?"  And then tossed me in the pond.

[soon]

26 minutes ago, Dazey said:

They really should. He was great in Rocky 2. 

haha!  Ill have to get a transcript and travel to the communes and recite the great tale by candle light.  

[soon]

[Iron MikeyJ]

9 minutes ago, soon said:

No, and plenty denominations don't.  Some prefer the Nicene Creed (325ce).  Well, they call it that, but are actually using a second draft of the Nicene Creed from the First Council of Constantinople (381ce).  Lutherans adopted their own edit of the Apostles Creed.

And in that 2nd draft from Constantinople is where the hermeneutics of Catholic = "universal" does mater.  You'll note that whereas "Holy Spirit" is capitalized, that "holy catholic Church" is not written as a Title, but as a reference to a world wide plurality, a unity of Christianity.  A universal believe in the God of Scripture.

Before I geek out in frivolous ways about all that stuff, I should answer your question more specifically.

Anabaptists exist in many ways.  Anarchist in nature by Catholic standards.  Most have, as do some protestant churches, a Confession of Faith instead of a Creed.  Most Anabaptist confessions of faith are a quite a bit longer then then the Apostles Creed (390ce).  This makes sense as the confessions of faith arent written to defend against "heretical influences" but rather serve as an in depth exploration of Biblical Faith.  

Some Anabaptists are happy to use the original Nicene Creed.  Not for legalistic ends though.  With our baptism rooted in scripture, and with our belief that Christianity exists as a communal event, we consider baptism to be, in part, an entry into a community.  So we do require a confession of faith to state to the community about to receive us.  Given that the Confession is long, we simply affirm our general agreement with the Confession by saying "yes" when asked.  And for the ceremonial aspect we can choose to say the Nicene creed as a communal event during the ceremony proceeding the actual baptism.  Basically if asked why we still use it, its because we find nothing wrong with it and dont intended to just angrily dismiss everything about Catholicism: its just there, so we can use it.  At my baptism we shared in the original Nicene Creed and then prayed the Lords prayer.  Could have just as easily said "This yahoo believes, shall we receive him?"  And then tossed me in the pond.

I actually really like hearing that Anabaptists use the Nicene Creed 👍

As for denominations changing or adopting their "own" versions of the Apostles Creed, I find that to be VERY true, and very unfortunate. When words are changed, it is no longer the Apostles Creed imo. Now I'm not saying a denomination can't profess their own Creed, because they can (hence the Nicene Creed). But it's NO longer the Apostles Creed, but a NEW one. So as a Catholic, I have to chuckle at the thought of "Lutherans adopting their own Apostles Creed." That's in correct imo, they adopted THEIR own Creed, not the Apostles Creed.

[soon]

4 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I actually really like hearing that Anabaptists use the Nicene Creed 👍

As for denominations changing or adopting their "own" versions of the Apostles Creed, I find that to be VERY true, and very unfortunate. When words are changed, it is no longer the Apostles Creed imo. Now I'm not saying a denomination can't profess their own Creed, because they can (hence the Nicene Creed). But it's NO longer the Apostles Creed, but a NEW one. So as a Catholic, I have to chuckle at the thought of "Lutherans adopting their own Apostles Creed." That's in correct imo, they adopted THEIR own Creed, not the Apostles Creed.

Yeah, there were some Anabaptists who called for the 'Bible as the Creed.'  Which of course has a lot of merit on the surface.  But as Anabaptists a pillar of our faith is the 'mutual discernment of Scripture' and as such daily we confront the reality that we all have a unique reading.  This is a strength when we humbly discuss and through our various gifts come to a shared perspective.  

So, we use a creed from 325ce and you use a later one from 390ce... true church, called it!  

[DieselDaisy]

 

4 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I actually really like hearing that Anabaptists use the Nicene Creed 👍

As for denominations changing or adopting their "own" versions of the Apostles Creed, I find that to be VERY true, and very unfortunate. When words are changed, it is no longer the Apostles Creed imo. Now I'm not saying a denomination can't profess their own Creed, because they can (hence the Nicene Creed). But it's NO longer the Apostles Creed, but a NEW one. So as a Catholic, I have to chuckle at the thought of "Lutherans adopting their own Apostles Creed." That's in correct imo, they adopted THEIR own Creed, not the Apostles Creed.

We do this all the time. The earliest versions of the Apostles' Creed are in Greek or Latin. To simply render the Creed in the vernacular (e.g. English, German) is to adopt one's own version of the Creed. Protestantism sought to liberate religious text by making it accessible to laymen and rendering it in the vernacular. 

The Nicene Creed did not replace the Apostles' Creed. It merely expanded upon the Trinity by affirming the consubstantiality of Christ.