your religion, do you believe in god?

by **Bucky** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 09:33:13

You need to start this poll over from scratch to see how many views have been changed as a result of WFC

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 09:58:08

I think it would be pretty cool if Jesus' second coming was as a member of Black Sabbath

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:01:05

VoxOrion wrote:Christianity has three branches - Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. Somehow Anglican never reached the status of branch, I guess because they're fundamentally Protestant. Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc are denominations. The Amish would be a sect.

The protestantism of the Episcopal church is one of those things we like to discuss over coffee after services. If you were baptized in the Roman Catholic church, we consider you a member already, and if you want to join, all you need to do is be received. However, if you were baptized say a Presbyterian, and you want to join the Episcopal church, you need to be baptized again. This is because Episcopalians have the notion of apostolic succession. The Roman Catholic church, however, does not accept the apostolic succession of the Anglican clergy, and this is one of the prime stumbling blocks in the ecumenical movement in the two churches.

There's more to it than that, I could go on, but I won't unless prompted. Suffice it to say that at least in the US, culturally and socially, Episcopalians are probably more like Protestants than Catholics. But the way the church is organized is more Catholic than Protestant, as with the service. We have mass tonight.

by **TheDude24** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:56:31

SideshowBob wrote:
The Red Tornado wrote:Why differentiate between Catholic and Christian if youre not going to differentiate between the protestants? (some of which have more differences than say an Episcopalian have with a Catholic)

Just read this thread and want to point out that the basic choices of the original poll kind of bother me as a practicing Eastern Orthodox Christian. Lumping together all non-Catholic Christians is wrong on the surface IMHO, but it's particularly egregious to at the very least not list the three separate major branches of Christianity as choices.

I guess it particular bothers me because of the number of overbearing Evangelical Protestants who feel the need to tell me I'm "not Christian" even though my religion has been around for 2 centuries and is closely descended from the teaching of people who actually, y'know, knew Jesus. So, I kind of resent being lumped in a category that would feature such folks.

Exhibit A of why we have religious wars. What happened to love your neighbor? Let's hug it out.

by **VoxOrion** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:14:59

TenuredVulture wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:Christianity has three branches - Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. Somehow Anglican never reached the status of branch, I guess because they're fundamentally Protestant. Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc are denominations. The Amish would be a sect.

The protestantism of the Episcopal church is one of those things we like to discuss over coffee after services. If you were baptized in the Roman Catholic church, we consider you a member already, and if you want to join, all you need to do is be received. However, if you were baptized say a Presbyterian, and you want to join the Episcopal church, you need to be baptized again. This is because Episcopalians have the notion of apostolic succession. The Roman Catholic church, however, does not accept the apostolic succession of the Anglican clergy, and this is one of the prime stumbling blocks in the ecumenical movement in the two churches.

There's more to it than that, I could go on, but I won't unless prompted. Suffice it to say that at least in the US, culturally and socially, Episcopalians are probably more like Protestants than Catholics. But the way the church is organized is more Catholic than Protestant, as with the service. We have mass tonight.

I would think succession is the more purely theological stumbling block, but the liberalization of the Anglican church's views would probably present a greater stumbling block in reality (at least over the past 30-40 years). I've read that most of the (few) married Catholic priests are converts from the Anglican church, so I think they must agree quite a lot in terms of priestly formation.

It's interesting that you mention baptism - the Catholic Church accepts any baptism performed by any Christian denomination as long as you were baptized "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". I know Catholics can go to mass at Eastern Orthodox churches because it's considered valid (as long as no Catholic masses were available) - I'm not sure if the same is true in reverse. I think they consider marriage valid if it's performed in most Protestant and Eastern Orthodox churches as well.

by **kruker** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:18:32

Warszawa wrote:I think it would be pretty cool if Jesus' second coming was as a member of Black Sabbath

His brother was a badass.

NSFW:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPdFrW076R0[/youtube]

by **SideshowBob** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:57:50

VoxOrion wrote:[ I know Catholics can go to mass at Eastern Orthodox churches because it's considered valid (as long as no Catholic masses were available) - I'm not sure if the same is true in reverse.

It is. The (mainstream) Eastern Orthodox churches and Roman Catholicism are largely in communion in terms of practice, though certainly not in terms of leadership. It's pretty much the same deal -- if there is no Orthodox church accessable, it is permissible to attend services at a Catholic Church and even receive Communion there.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 13:15:47

VoxOrion wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:Christianity has three branches - Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. Somehow Anglican never reached the status of branch, I guess because they're fundamentally Protestant. Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc are denominations. The Amish would be a sect.

The protestantism of the Episcopal church is one of those things we like to discuss over coffee after services. If you were baptized in the Roman Catholic church, we consider you a member already, and if you want to join, all you need to do is be received. However, if you were baptized say a Presbyterian, and you want to join the Episcopal church, you need to be baptized again. This is because Episcopalians have the notion of apostolic succession. The Roman Catholic church, however, does not accept the apostolic succession of the Anglican clergy, and this is one of the prime stumbling blocks in the ecumenical movement in the two churches.

There's more to it than that, I could go on, but I won't unless prompted. Suffice it to say that at least in the US, culturally and socially, Episcopalians are probably more like Protestants than Catholics. But the way the church is organized is more Catholic than Protestant, as with the service. We have mass tonight.

I would think succession is the more purely theological stumbling block, but the liberalization of the Anglican church's views would probably present a greater stumbling block in reality (at least over the past 30-40 years). I've read that most of the (few) married Catholic priests are converts from the Anglican church, so I think they must agree quite a lot in terms of priestly formation.

It's interesting that you mention baptism - the Catholic Church accepts any baptism performed by any Christian denomination as long as you were baptized "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". I know Catholics can go to mass at Eastern Orthodox churches because it's considered valid (as long as no Catholic masses were available) - I'm not sure if the same is true in reverse. I think they consider marriage valid if it's performed in most Protestant and Eastern Orthodox churches as well.

While my baptism would be accepted, I still could not receive communion at a Catholic church. Anyone who is baptized can receive communion at an Episcopal church.

As far as the ecumenicism goes, I believe the real push dates back to the more active days of John Paul II's papacy. And while the American Episcopal church is very liberal these days, the worldwide Anglican communion isn't. Which is a whole other set of issues.

by **VoxOrion** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 15:38:50

Yeah, I think the only people allowed to take communion in a Catholic Church are Catholics and Orthodox Christians. I read recently that there is at least one cluster of Anglican Churches in England that are in talks to join the Catholic Church. I read that the biggest problem here isn't the Anglican church blocking it, or the RC Church not wanting to receive them - but the property. The Anglicans can't be expected to hand over all that real estate, but the converts seem to expect to keep their church and not disperse to the local parishes as would be the norm for Catholics.

On the "liberal" issue - I was wondering why I'm starting to see signs in front of Espiscopalian churches that say "Bible Believing Christ Centered" or some such - is that code for "We're not with the rest of them"?

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 16:17:30

I guess. The leadership is way ahead of the laity on this, and it's important to note that the laity isn't exactly reactionary. I think recent decisions by the church aren't even liberal, they're deliberately provocative, and seem to be designed to hasten a split more than anything else.

by **pacino** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 18:05:15

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1FlqJ9AV2A[/youtube]

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 20:33:03

I consider myself pretty strong on civil liberties, and a pretty strong advocate of non-establishment. But I fail to see what harm a national day of prayer does to anyone. Perhaps we could spend part of the day going over what the non-establishment is all about and why it's a good idea.

Or, we could start an thing asserting that Obama plans a government takeover of all religion just like he did with healthcare, finance, the automobile industry and the internet and that's why he's in favor of the national day of prayer.

by **pacino** » Mon Jun 07, 2010 18:07:38

for crashburn:

Baer: After covering the “eight rival religions,” you give atheism a tenuous position within that pantheon by adding a ninth chapter dedicated to the topic. You write that “atheism is a religion of sorts, or can be.” Isn’t this a contradiction in terms?

Prothero: One argument of my coda on the New Atheism is that many atheists are religious against their own intentions. But not all New Atheists are religious. It depends on the person. But atheism as a whole would be less religious if it were less emotional and less evangelistic.

Baer: Proselytizing atheists like Dawkins have carved out a niche within a largely religious public sphere. Would a less emotional, less evangelistic atheism be capable of maintaining even this degree of influence?

Prothero: I feel quite certain that a less emotional and less evangelistic atheism would garner far more influence. Atheism has a brand problem. Lots of the people who do not believe in God refuse to call themselves atheists. Why? Because they don’t want to be associated with proselytizers.

by **Barry Jive** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 00:11:48

any relation?

by **CrashburnAlley** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 00:38:53

No, no relation. And holy shit is it annoying to hear yahoos say that atheism is a religion. ATHEISM IS THE DENIAL OF AN EXISTENCE OF GOD. That's it. Anything else is on the person, since there is no atheist bureaucracy a la the Catholic Church and there is no holy book (although many atheists do swear by The God Delusion).

"atheists r relijus 2" may be my least favorite talking point ever.

by **thephan** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 09:23:56

TenuredVulture wrote:I consider myself pretty strong on civil liberties, and a pretty strong advocate of non-establishment. But I fail to see what harm a national day of prayer does to anyone.

The fervent confusion between freedom OF religion VS the much touted freedom FROM religion.

There is even more confusion when people say, "Its in the constitution", as it is not. The constitution only says this: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The First Amendment only says the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This segments State from establishing church, ala Church of England and the sway of the Roman empire that was recently and historically ruling Europe as the Roman Catholic Church.

In the end, it is just another splinter bred by the current theme of lack of respect for anyone who does not think like me which is poisoning US society. Sides of the isle, sides of the street, religious preference, etc. Prayer favors some groups and offends others beliefs and therefore must be attacked.

by **phatj** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:00:50

CrashburnAlley wrote:No, no relation. And holy $#@! is it annoying to hear yahoos say that atheism is a religion. ATHEISM IS THE DENIAL OF AN EXISTENCE OF GOD. That's it. Anything else is on the person, since there is no atheist bureaucracy a la the Catholic Church and there is no holy book (although many atheists do swear by The God Delusion).

"atheists r relijus 2" may be my least favorite talking point ever.

What's the evidence that God doesn't exist?

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:01:33

human centipede

by **The Savior** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:02:02

i believe in biged

by **CrashburnAlley** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:05:34

phatj wrote:
CrashburnAlley wrote:No, no relation. And holy $#@! is it annoying to hear yahoos say that atheism is a religion. ATHEISM IS THE DENIAL OF AN EXISTENCE OF GOD. That's it. Anything else is on the person, since there is no atheist bureaucracy a la the Catholic Church and there is no holy book (although many atheists do swear by The God Delusion).

"atheists r relijus 2" may be my least favorite talking point ever.

What's the evidence that God doesn't exist?

None is needed. The burden of proof isn't on atheists.

If I told you an invisible mutant bunny lived under the sink in my kitchen, you probably wouldn't believe me. In fact, you'd probably go so far as to say that I'm lying -- that said rabbit does not exist.

So would you have the burden of proof here -- to prove that this invisible mutant bunny does not exist?

At any rate, an atheist failing to prove that God doesn't exist wouldn't make the atheist "religious". 8-)

Archived

your religion, do you believe in god?

what religion are you?

Quick Reply