Zone1 Easing Divisions/Restoring Unity?

[Donald H]

Of course I got your point, just as I know you know I could not resist a bit of teasing, too.

Yes, and that's fine and fair game.

My point, of course, not about some breaking away from one, some from a second, and now we have a third.

It's a third by definition because it's not one of the two that combined. They can choose what to call it and even adopt the name of one of the two originals!

Why not two uniting to become one?

That's the idea and they are choosing names that suggest a united church. Unity.
Now you're being negative and intolerant about your own invention. You can't bear to find common ground with an atheist.

 

[Meriweather]

That's the idea and they are choosing names that suggest a united church. Unity.
Now you're being negative and intolerant about your own invention. You can't bear to find common ground with an atheist.

No, I am not being negative. I am trying to understand how a third church creates unity between the original two churches.

 

[Donald H]

No, I am not being negative. I am trying to understand how a third church creates unity between the original two churches.

Look to established successes of the last 30 or forty years.

Or in fact, look back to what churches came together to be the 'United' church.

And that brings us back to your original concept that I would presume would include the Catholic church.

 

[Meriweather]

Look to established successes of the last 30 or forty years.

Are those the non-denominational churches?

 

[Blaster]

The division of the Catholic church needs to be repaired before trying to unite all churches.

There is a disconnect between the Pope and many in the clergy.

 

[Donald H]

Are those the non-denominational churches?

I'm not sure about that but the name suggests it.
This isn't a debate for me now, but if you want to lead into a related discussion, I may have opinions that could interest you.

 

[Donald H]

There is a disconnect between the Pope and many in the clergy.

No thanks!
You've made your bed, ...............................

 

[Meriweather]

This isn't a debate for me now, but if you want to lead into a related discussion, I may have opinions that could interest you.

Yes, that would interest me.

 

[Meriweather]

There is a disconnect between the Pope and many in the clergy.

The Pope (any pope) is rarely discussed at Mass where the focus is on the day's scripture readings, not current events.

 

[Donald H]

Yes, that would interest me.

I can at least agree with your purpose in that the reasons why Christianity divided into so many different sects, are all bad reasons.

That's good reason for the Catholic church to campaign on making it right.

A question for you: Was the Catholic church in the wrong in any instances that caused the divisions? In your opinion that is?

Or would the Catholic church itself claim to be on the side of right in all cases, due to it being the original Christianity?

 

[Meriweather]

A question for you: Was the Catholic church in the wrong in any instances that caused the divisions? In your opinion that is?

Or would the Catholic church itself claim to be on the side of right in all cases, due to it being the original Christianity?

I look to the Twelve Apostles. One was completely wrong, so my rule of thumb is that the Catholic Church is wrong 1/12 of the time. Then take a look at Peter, James, and John--all of whom were wrong on occasion.

Let's take Purgatory as a for instance. A purifying time after death is brought up in scripture, and I believe it is both reasonable and logical to take it seriously. In the Catholic faith the question became, what can one do to mitigate time in Purgatory?

This answer goes back to the basis of Catholicism: One, Christ's life, death, and resurrection redeemed the entire world, meaning everyone has access to the Kingdom of God. Two, Christ's life, death, and resurrection opened the way of salvation to everyone. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." so w go directly to Christ's teachings: One, repentance/turning away from sin for the forgiveness of sins. Two, discern the will of God and follow it.

The Children's Catechism began in the question and answer format:

Who Made Me?
God made me.

Why Did God Make Me?
To know Him, love Him, and Serve Him.

To tie this together with less time in purgatory: Continue to work on turning away from sin, and when you do sin, make up for it. As an example, if your sin is gluttony, turn from it; when you fail, part of repentance might be to give to the poor. Why? Because Jesus taught that clearing the house of demons without replacing it with something results in even more demons taking up residence. Therefore, if you have enough worldly goods where gluttony is forever knocking at your door, being giving to the poor.

Okay, so what happens? The Vatican needs a new Church or wants whatever, and a few popes/bishops direct giving to the Church and make it an indulgence. The purpose of "indulgence" was never to collect money for the church; the purpose was to help free one from committing a sin by directing them to a more worthwhile service to God.

Any wonder why some begin asking, "Isn't that buying one's way into heaven?" Also, "Isn't that hijacking what we intend as a service for God to use for your own benefit/coffers?"

In short, if one uses what was called "indulgences" to refrain from sin and to serve God, then that is a guide to following the Way of Salvation, the Way of Christ in their present life.

A second issue is one of Confession and why it is a Sacrament. When people began demanding why the Sacrament when we can go straight to God for forgiveness (or repent for forgiveness) the Church's response seem to be, "Because we say you must confess through the Sacrament!"

In my opinion, there was no need for that. Simply explain that the Sacraments of Church follow the life and footsteps of Jesus. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is a beautiful thing, but is it truly necessary for a weekly confession of each time one cussed or growled at someone? Or, if you are kid, to list how many times you disobeyed a parent? Sometimes the Church failed at explaining the proper history and purpose of the Sacraments, almost with a shrug of, "That's the way it was always done." Not a good enough reason (in my opinion).

 

[Donald H]

I look to the Twelve Apostles. One was completely wrong, so my rule of thumb is that the Catholic Church is wrong 1/12 of the time. Then take a look at Peter, James, and John--all of whom were wrong on occasion.

Thanks, I didn't know that.
I think that a further explanation of that alone would suffice.

Let's take Purgatory as a for instance. A purifying time after death is brought up in scripture, and I believe it is both reasonable and logical to take it seriously. In the Catholic faith the question became, what can one do to mitigate time in Purgatory?

This answer goes back to the basis of Catholicism: One, Christ's life, death, and resurrection redeemed the entire world, meaning everyone has access to the Kingdom of God. Two, Christ's life, death, and resurrection opened the way of salvation to everyone. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." so w go directly to Christ's teachings: One, repentance/turning away from sin for the forgiveness of sins. Two, discern the will of God and follow it.

The Children's Catechism began in the question and answer format:

Who Made Me?
God made me.

Why Did God Make Me?
To know Him, love Him, and Serve Him.

To tie this together with less time in purgatory: Continue to work on turning away from sin, and when you do sin, make up for it. As an example, if your sin is gluttony, turn from it; when you fail, part of repentance might be to give to the poor. Why? Because Jesus taught that clearing the house of demons without replacing it with something results in even more demons taking up residence. Therefore, if you have enough worldly goods where gluttony is forever knocking at your door, being giving to the poor.

Okay, so what happens? The Vatican needs a new Church or wants whatever, and a few popes/bishops direct giving to the Church and make it an indulgence. The purpose of "indulgence" was never to collect money for the church; the purpose was to help free one from committing a sin by directing them to a more worthwhile service to God.

Any wonder why some begin asking, "Isn't that buying one's way into heaven?" Also, "Isn't that hijacking what we intend as a service for God to use for your own benefit/coffers?"

In short, if one uses what was called "indulgences" to refrain from sin and to serve God, then that is a guide to following the Way of Salvation, the Way of Christ in their present life.

A second issue is one of Confession and why it is a Sacrament. When people began demanding why the Sacrament when we can go straight to God for forgiveness (or repent for forgiveness) the Church's response seem to be, "Because we say you must confess through the Sacrament!"

In my opinion, there was no need for that. Simply explain that the Sacraments of Church follow the life and footsteps of Jesus. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is a beautiful thing, but is it truly necessary for a weekly confession of each time one cussed or growled at someone? Or, if you are kid, to list how many times you disobeyed a parent? Sometimes the Church failed at explaining the proper history and purpose of the Sacraments, almost with a shrug of, "That's the way it was always done." Not a good enough reason (in my opinion).

And to all of that, you're not taking into consideration that I'm an atheist and so have little to no interest in the rest of it. With due respects to your personal interests.

I've shown some respect for your position and your beliefs by just asking for further explanations. Do you intend to carry on a discussion that shows some respect for mine?

In other words, if you can gain more satisfaction by discussing the matter with a Christian, then I can move aside and let it happen.

 

[LibertyKid]

As we are not cookie stamps of one another, our religious differences are to be expected. While I dislike NATO as a bureaucracy, I do like the motto: An attack on one is an attack on all.

Certainly we can and should discuss the differences, all great faiths have them. For example a common saying is Two Jews, three opinions. Within the Catholic faith we see the same, so I am guessing it is much the same within every faith and every denomination.

On the other hand, division within Christianity annoys me. A lot. I see no reason why the division between Catholic and Orthodox needs to continue. Resolve it already.

How might other differences within the same faith be resolved? There are thousands of Christian denominations, four within Judaism, two within Islam. How can any of these divisions be resolved? Can we at least stop the attacks on each other?

Division in Christianity is due, IMO, to the overwhelming weight that is put on the Bible needing to be the infallible word of God and owning THE correct translation.
However, Jesus never taught or spoke of a Bible, the need to have new scriptures. His belief system was pretty simple when it falls within the first four letters/gospels (and even then the RCC decided what to include and not).

It's all the other stuff that people want to argue about that is found within "The Bible". The only thing perfect about the bible is how it has perfectly divided the Church that Christ was to establish. If a need to have a book that contained the truths of God and what it meant to be saved and obtain eternal life, why inspire men to create a book that has divided men theologically for 2000 years?

 

[Meriweather]

I've shown some respect for your position and your beliefs by just asking for further explanations. Do you intend to carry on a discussion that shows some respect for mine?

In other words, if you can gain more satisfaction by discussing the matter with a Christian, then I can move aside and let it happen.

Anything you wish to discuss from your perspective would be warmly welcomed and appreciated. Are you aware I am not only from a family of Catholics, but also from one of atheists! (And Protestant and Buddhists. We are quite an assortment, and I am looking forward to your views.

 

[Meriweather]

Division in Christianity is due, IMO, to the overwhelming weight that is put on the Bible needing to be the infallible word of God and owning THE correct translation.
However, Jesus never taught or spoke of a Bible, the need to have new scriptures. His belief system was pretty simple when it falls within the first four letters/gospels (and even then the RCC decided what to include and not).

I agree with you that Jesus' views were easy and light. Because of this it was widely embraced, and when that happens to any idea, communities and rites grow up in and around it.

I am not that interested in following what the hierarchy is up to. It seems Jesus' teachings only stretch as far as working in my daily life--not the daily life of the diocese or Vatican.

 

[Donald H]

Anything you wish to discuss from your perspective would be warmly welcomed and appreciated. Are you aware I am not only from a family of Catholics, but also from one of atheists! (And Protestant and Buddhists. We are quite an assortment, and I am looking forward to your views.

I'll have to think on it. I have no burning issues to discuss and this was yours to start with.
In my opinion the onus is on you.

My prerogatives will be in the shrinking of Christian influence in the world and that relates to this topic you initiated, and as we've discussed already. (actually all religions')

I don't suppose any of that will take place that would either negatively or positively influence either of us to any great extent during our remaining lives.

I'll just say that you have an atheist's ear and you can use that any way you please.

 

[Meriweather]

My prerogatives will be in the shrinking of Christian influence in the world and that relates to this topic you initiated, and as we've discussed already. (actually all religions')

Which influence(s) should be shrunk or shrunk further? For example, any Christian influence on divorce, sexual discipline, public prayer is pretty much non-existence these days, isn't it?

 

[Donald H]

Which influence(s) should be shrunk or shrunk further? For example, any Christian influence on divorce, sexual discipline, public prayer is pretty much non-existence these days, isn't it?

I was thinking that there needs to be a law that could protect children from being indoctrinated into becoming believers before they are old enough to make their own choice.

That's not so progressive as to not be imaginable. Parents are forbidden by law against partaking in certain activities with their young children in a physical way. Similar laws could be enacted that would prevent parents from doing mental harm to a child.

Some certain prohibitions can also be put on the state that would protect children, in addition to those already demanded in the public schools.

 

[Donald H]

Which influence(s) should be shrunk or shrunk further? For example, any Christian influence on divorce, sexual discipline, public prayer is pretty much non-existence these days, isn't it?

You raised an issue over 'sexual discipline'. I need to ask you what discipline you could be referring to that would be the business of any church?

I first think of the church speaking out against doing bodily harm, but then we know the Catholic church founded the practice for it's cause of making beautiful music.

 

[Meriweather]

I was thinking that there needs to be a law that could protect children from being indoctrinated into becoming believers before they are old enough to make their own choice.

My atheist husband (an avid football player/fan) had that same conversation! No exposure to religion until they were adults and could decide for themselves. I enthusiastically agreed, saying, "And we will do the same for football! No exposure to football until they are adults and can decide for themselves!"