Zone1 Question for Christians.

[ding]

I never had any use for Christians. And they proved me right.

I just checked. 63% of the Democratic vote comes from Christians.

If your goal is to drive away those voters, you are doing an excellent job.

 

[Arlette]

I just checked. 63% of the Democratic vote comes from Christians.

If your goal is to drive away those voters, you are doing an excellent job.

 

[ding]

View attachment 1040550

Would you like to abolish and ban Christianity? It's ok to say what you really believe.

 

[Arlette]

Would you like to abolish and ban Christianity? It's ok to say what you really believe.

No. As far as crutches go it's pretty harmless if practiced properly. Better than hard drugs.

 

[ding]

No. As far as crutches go it's pretty harmless if practiced properly. Better than hard drugs.

If properly practiced it leads to peace and prosperity in troubled times. You should be so lucky. The best you can hope for is to suffer without complaint.

But something tells me that wasn't an honest answer you gave.

 

[Arlette]

If properly practiced it leads to peace and prosperity in troubled times. You should be so lucky. The best you can hope for is to suffer without complaint.

But something tells me that wasn't an honest answer you gave.

Religion is on a slow but steady decline for decades. That is not a testament that Christianity is practiced properly but that people reject it for some reason.

You asked and now you know.

 

[ding]

Religion is on a slow but steady decline for decades. That is not a testament that Christianity is practiced properly but that people reject it for some reason.

You asked and now you know.

You seem way too invested. You might want to do some soul searching. Bigotry is not a good look.

 

[Arlette]

You seem way too invested. You might want to do some soul searching. Bigotry is not a good look.

Go find some trans kids to preach to

 

[Meriweather]

The reason Catholics don't attack protestant dogma is because we are secure in our beliefs.

What I find staggeringly senseless is when I listed Catholic teachings and practices that Protestants dropped and that I continue to follow, hadit asserts I do this because I feel "superior". This assessment is befuddling--on the order of reasoning that people who major in accounting do so to feel superior to those majoring in journalism. Or, the reason my sister gave up flower/vegetable gardening to start dry gardening arrangements is to feel superior to me who continues struggling with flowers and vegetables! (I'm smitten by what she is creating.)

Also befuddling is that because I don't attend Protestant services it is because I feel "superior". Again, kind of like me attending the journalism classes instead of accounting classes because I feel "superior".

I've come to this conclusion: As I don't feel the least superior, someone must feel inferior. I'm wondering why this is.

 

[hadit]

And you skip right past all the statements and posts I've made where I've said I do NOT see Catholicism as superior. Why do this?

You admitted you think of Catholicism as "rich" and other denominations as "poor". What did you mean by that?

 

[Meriweather]

Apostates gonna apostate.

Perhaps that's it. It comes across more like someone who deep down knows s/he made the wrong decision, took the wrong way, and then tries too hard to justify and find excuses for that act. I have Puritan and Quaker ancestors. Puritans constructed meeting houses without any adornment, feeling strongly that adornment was distracting to their worship. Quakers don't baptize nor do they have communion or any other sacrament. Their belief is that outward symbols such as water or bread and wine, are unnecessary because these beliefs should be experienced internally only, that the symbols of water or bread and wine are a distraction from inward reflection.

I greatly respect both these practices to the point where I was truly galled when I learned the LDS Church was/is baptizing Quakers posthumously as is their practice.

 

[Meriweather]

You admitted you think of Catholicism as "rich" and other denominations as "poor". What did you mean by that?

Keep in mind, I made no such "admission". I stated facts. Catholicism is rich in tradition and other denominations are not.

 

[hadit]

What I find staggeringly senseless is when I listed Catholic teachings and practices that Protestants dropped and that I continue to follow, hadit asserts I do this because I feel "superior".

You said the Protestants were all about dropping everything. Why did you not deal with my reaction in that the leaders of the Reformation were themselves Catholic priests, well trained in the Catholic church, who read the Scriptures for themselves and through prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit, realized that many of the things the church of the day were mandating on the congregants were causing more spiritual problems than helping? The services being conducted in a language they did not understand, which means they had no idea what they were responding to, were not united as a body in worship, because again, not knowing what the priest was actually calling them to do, no Scriptures read to them in their native language, which left them totally dependent on the person interpreting the language to get it right and not inject their own bias, etc.? No, this is not saying you feel superior, this is an honest evaluation of the thoughts of the Reformation leaders, which I feel you dismiss. You come across as saying that the church had a few minor problems that could have been easily fixed if they had just stayed Catholic, but that isn't the case. Remember, these guys knew full well the risks they were running by coming out with these challenges to church authority. To say Protestantism is all about dropping everything minimizes and ignores the reality of the situation. They dropped some traditions because they couldn't find Scriptural support for mandating them and wanted freedom in Christ, not to be bound by traditions. Now, you need to hear this. Traditions are not in themselves a bad thing, but we need to be careful about imposing them on people.

This assessment is befuddling--on the order of reasoning that people who major in accounting do so to feel superior to those majoring in journalism. Or, the reason my sister gave up flower/vegetable gardening to start dry gardening arrangements is to feel superior to me who continues struggling with flowers and vegetables! (I'm smitten by what she is creating.)

Also befuddling is that because I don't attend Protestant services it is because I feel "superior". Again, kind of like me attending the journalism classes instead of accounting classes because I feel "superior".

You would refuse to take communion in a Protestant church, even if they consecrated it especially for you. And why? Because you could not take communion in a Catholic church again. Why would you disdain communion that way and insist on division of the Body?

I've come to this conclusion: As I don't feel the least superior, someone must feel inferior. I'm wondering why this is.

And you're arguing semantics. You don't think Catholicism is superior, just "richer" and other denominations are "poorer". You don't think Catholicism is superior, but do you see church unity as anything other than the other denominations becoming Catholic? You don't think Catholicism is superior, but wouldn't take communion at a Protestant service, even if they consecrated it first, because it's not "Catholic". I appreciate that you don't believe you're trying to assert superiority, and I accept that you don't want to, but I don't think you realize how you come across with some of the things you say.

 

[hadit]

Perhaps that's it. It comes across more like someone who deep down knows s/he made the wrong decision, took the wrong way, and then tries too hard to justify and find excuses for that act.

You think my curiosity and pressing you on why you believe the way you believe is founded in guilt on my part? Nonsense. I have stated many times that I am on a lifelong quest to uncover the true foundations of Christianity, to set aside the good for the best, and I've found that Jesus really only has a few commandments that He needs us to follow. If we get them right, everything else falls in place.

I find Catholicism to have characteristics of the Mennonites, in that centuries old traditions are imposed that should be updated to maintain the standards that are being expressed, while making them relevant to the day. Case in point, women's head coverings. Does anyone think a lace doily means anything to the world today, that it means the woman is being submissive to Christ, her father or her husband? Conservative Mennonites did when I was growing up. That covering would probably be more meaningful as the wedding ring, signifying that a woman is off the market, so leave her alone. But they didn't fail to argue over the dimensions of the doily and whether it should have strings or not.

I have Puritan and Quaker ancestors. Puritans constructed meeting houses without any adornment, feeling strongly that adornment was distracting to their worship.

So did Mennonites in their meeting houses and clothing. Women were to have their hair up with no decoration. Heck, my wife got in trouble as a teenager for having ribbons in her hair. I know about plain and simple living.

Quakers don't baptize nor do they have communion or any other sacrament. Their belief is that outward symbols such as water or bread and wine, are unnecessary because these beliefs should be experienced internally only, that the symbols of water or bread and wine are a distraction from inward reflection.

I greatly respect both these practices to the point where I was truly galled when I learned the LDS Church was/is baptizing Quakers posthumously as is their practice.

You don't understand my background. As a Conservative Conference Mennonite (my grandfather left the Amish because he found the church to be corrupt), not only did we dress very modestly, but we had no musical instruments in church and communion was an extremely serious event, preceded by self-examination and confession of sin, and was always conducted with foot washing. Hear me on this. Jesus, at the same time as He gave us communion, commanded us to wash each other's feet as well. Do you literally wash each other's feet, as practiced by Mennonites, or is that something that is only figurative, not literal? I saw that priests wash congregants' feet on Maundy Thursday, but that's not what Jesus commanded, is it? He said to do it for each other. If we're going to be literal about things, let's be literal.

I like what you said about respecting practices, and I respect yours, just don't always understand them and don't understand what appears to be an abject fear of not doing them, or of doing them incorrectly.

 

[Meriweather]

Why did you not deal with my reaction in that the leaders of the Reformation were themselves Catholic priests, well trained in the Catholic church, who read the Scriptures for themselves and through prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit, realized that many of the things the church of the day were mandating on the congregants were causing more spiritual problems than helping? The services being conducted in a language they did not understand, which means they had no idea what they were responding to, were not united as a body in worship, because again, not knowing what the priest was actually calling them to do, no Scriptures read to them in their native language, which left them totally dependent on the person interpreting the language to get it right and not inject their own bias, etc.? No, this is not saying you feel superior, this is an honest evaluation of the thoughts of the Reformation leaders, which I feel you dismiss. You come across as saying that the church had a few minor problems that could have been easily fixed if they had just stayed Catholic, but that isn't the case. Remember, these guys knew full well the risks they were running by coming out with these challenges to church authority. To say Protestantism is all about dropping everything minimizes and ignores the reality of the situation. They dropped some traditions because they couldn't find Scriptural support for mandating them and wanted freedom in Christ, not to be bound by traditions. Now, you need to hear this. Traditions are not in themselves a bad thing, but we need to be careful about imposing them on people.

One can recognize and understand the thoughts and reasoning--while at the same time recognizing that the "cure" acted upon was excessive. Consider a badly wounded arm of the Catholic faith. Instead of tending to healing the wound, the consensus of some was, "Amputate!" While some ran off to the Protestant Reformation, many remained continuing what was already happening, the Catholic Reformation. They, too, had recognized the wound, but had decided amputation was excessive.

Note, once again you are talking about your feelings and then you hurl an accusation at me that I dismissed all this. In fact, I've studied all of this--both sides. I understand both sides. I understand why the Catholic Church stood firm in its teachings garnered both in scripture and tradition. I understand why the Protestant Reformation thought this was too much a burden. And I pointed out that Catholics did not see any burden, but saw the lightness of freedom in following both tradition and scripture. This is not dismissing the fact Protestants, none-the-less, felt burdened and hence chose the amputation.

 

[hadit]

Keep in mind, I made no such "admission". I stated facts. Catholicism is rich in tradition and other denominations are not.

Thank you for clearing that up, because your first statement was simply that you view yourself as the rich young ruler, unable to give up your riches, which carries a much different meaning.

Now, I will contest that statement, because you apparently have little or no knowledge of what it means to be Amish or a Conservative Conference Mennonite. I would say that those denominations are even more tradition bound than Catholicism, because the traditions extend to everyday life, not just church practices. The Amish are like the Middle Ages Catholic church, in that services are conducted in German, not English, and hymns are sung in German as well. Most Amish do speak Pennsylvania Dutch and have an idea of what's going on, but church services are not conducted in their native tongue. You should study them before saying they are not rich in tradition.

 

[hadit]

One can recognize and understand the thoughts and reasoning--while at the same time recognizing that the "cure" acted upon was excessive. Consider a badly wounded arm of the Catholic faith. Instead of tending to healing the wound, the consensus of some was, "Amputate!" While some ran off to the Protestant Reformation, many remained continuing what was already happening, the Catholic Reformation. They, too, had recognized the wound, but had decided amputation was excessive.

Note, once again you are talking about your feelings and then you hurl an accusation at me that I dismissed all this. In fact, I've studied all of this--both sides. I understand both sides. I understand why the Catholic Church stood firm in its teachings garnered both in scripture and tradition. I understand why the Protestant Reformation thought this was too much a burden. And I pointed out that Catholics did not see any burden, but saw the lightness of freedom in following both tradition and scripture. This is not dismissing the fact Protestants, none-the-less, felt burdened and hence chose the amputation.

That's a good explanation, and I respect the thought you put into it. I said you dismissed it because I didn't see a response to it. Please do not ascribe negative emotions to everything I post, anymore than you want me to do so.

 

[Meriweather]

You would refuse to take communion in a Protestant church, even if they consecrated it especially for you. And why? Because you could not take communion in a Catholic church again. Why would you disdain communion that way and insist on division of the Body?

You pass over too much of what I say. I said, being Catholic, even when I know I will be attending a non-Catholic service, I first attend Mass and receive communion. Catholic teaching is that one receives communion only once a day. This is not insisting on division of the body of Christ. It is witnessing others joining the body of Christ--even when that service is in Memory of Christ. Why the determination for finding something to criticize, something I did wrong?

 

[hadit]

You pass over too much of what I say. I said, being Catholic, even when I know I will be attending a non-Catholic service, I first attend Mass and receive communion. Catholic teaching is that one receives communion only once a day. This is not insisting on division of the body of Christ. It is witnessing others joining the body of Christ--even when that service is in Memory of Christ. Why the determination for finding something to criticize, something I did wrong?

Are you saying that you would not go visit a dear Christian friend and go with them to their worship service, then have communion with them (even if they consecrated the communion, knowing you would be there?) without first going to Mass, then refusing communion? I know Mass is very important to you and am not minimizing it in the least. I just do not understand what appears to be an obsession with doing everything the "Catholic" way, to the exclusion of other Christian beliefs.

 

[Meriweather]

And you're arguing semantics. You don't think Catholicism is superior, just "richer" and other denominations are "poorer". You don't think Catholicism is superior, but do you see church unity as anything other than the other denominations becoming Catholic? You don't think Catholicism is superior, but wouldn't take communion at a Protestant service, even if they consecrated it first, because it's not "Catholic". I appreciate that you don't believe you're trying to assert superiority, and I accept that you don't want to, but I don't think you realize how you come across with some of the things you say.

Some other denominations leave things out. It has even been pointed out that Reformers went through scripture and decided to take things out. I point out that Catholics have retained tradition as well as scripture while other denominations forego tradition. Because these traditions have been retained by the Catholic Church, I do have more and the denominations I have attended with family and friends have less. I note the differences. When non-Catholic family and friends come with me to Mass, they note the differences. They note the burdens, they do not see riches, or if they do, they feel they are distractions. Different perspectives have always interested me. People see things differently. And these differences have nothing to do with superiority, it has to do with differing perspectives--and respecting these perspectives.

No, I am not arguing semantics. I'm merely offering a different perspective that, naturally, can be dismissed.