to think that your religion can't be that important to you

[theevildead2]

if you can just "switch to catholicism" when it suits you?

There is a bit on the news at the moment about women maybe being allowed to be bishops. Apparently some of our local priests will be leaving the church if women get this right???

I said in terms of what the Bible says...as that is what was being discussed.

That is what the BIble says. I didn't write it, don't blame me. I'm not backtracking anything. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but we shouldn't condemn those that do it...we should condemn what they do.

I am reminded of bit of the West Wing.

LRD sorry for disappearing, had to calm a nightmare.

Not sure I'm much of a an authority on the history of humanism but from what I've read, it was obviously a social / philosophical environment contemporaneously but I'm not sure the cause / effect relationship is all that clear? Happy to learn more if you have it!

In fact, I reckon the RC church would probably regard the commission of homosexual acts as way higher on the sin list than, say, marital rape. But that's why I'm not one anymore.

Open, I just wondered if you take the Bible literally? In everything, I mean?

Fallen - I love that bit!

tigger - I don''t think it's obvious that humanism was purely social/philosophical. I could be wrong though, it's not really my area. My feeling though is that some people were very strongly motivated by religion, to seek for a more accurate Bible. I don't think they'd have focused so much on religious texts if they'd not been interested in religion?

I may be being anachronistic though - hopefully someone will come along and know more.

Btw, I meant to say, hope the nightmare was not too bad!

narkypuffin,

I agree. Religion can be the haven for bigotry.

It sucks out all intelligent thought in an effort to control. Bigots can hide behind the bible's words quite nicely.

" Right, try again - do you believe that gay people are to be equally compared to murderers, rapists, et al?"

Actually, i thought the point about " a sin being a sin" was the opposite

ie we are all sinners because we do wrong things ( lie , cheat, steal, gossip, be selfish) so we should not judge others

but I'm not an expert

Oh, just extremely overtired today so to be expected. We have a childrens song from church we sing together which generally does the trick.

will await input from someone more knowledgeable than us together then!

Well I'm not nearly as clever as some of you but I am a practicing christian one and I would dearly love to develop my spirituality and theology in the years to come now the DC are growing up. I am comfortable with the High(ish) Anglican Church. The rituals are very traditional and I find them comforting, ie, a sung Eucharist, the bells, the intercessions, the formality of the worship. I also find the liberal interpretation of the bible refreshing and the fact that independent thought is encouraged and there is consideration about how customs and practices have developed through the ages and have been modified, forgetting not that the bible was written thousands of years ago, the Old Testament generations before Christ and the New Testament. I find this very interesting when compared to the evangelical and more trendy versions of the Anglican Religion, ie, the clapping, the baring the soul in public, the modern hymns and music and jolly togetherness of it all. Not least because it is in this far less traditional environment that what is written in the bible is interpreted literally and dictatorially and the congregation appears to be instructed rather than guided. I feel so much happier and more secure when I am allowed the interpret what is written for myself.

I think transubstansiation became really important only retrospectively, it wasn't a central reason behind the rise of protestinism, it was fringe at best, and I don't think its a big concern to many day to day christians (as opposed to the more serious, observant types).
I've studied the reformation as well as christian theology and religious philosophy. I'm happy to assert that transubstantiation is not even really taught as central to either branch of the faith, though no doubt its a central tenet.

If you follow the bible and all sins are of equal measure, then surely eating shrimp or working on the sabbath are as big sins as homosexual practice? Therefore you should preach against all of the sins of the bible, not just the ones yours and other religions have chosen as a big one?

Oh, once, me too! I love the language and the ritual and the freedom to think, it suits me. You put that beautifully.

Buzz, the Eucharist has been a crucial question for centuries before the Reformation. It was also a hugely important question in medieval England, from around 1350 onwards. It is really not a retrospective concern in this country (and this is my area of research!). Basically, there's a movement called Lollardy, which was fundamentally concerned with what happened to the bread and wine at the Mass.

The Eucharist is taught as a central point of Catholicism, Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. I can't imagine why you think it's not!

The bible does not say homosexuality is wrong

Man does

The bible does not say women can't be spreaders of the word/ in as much authority as men can.

Man does. Women were as much 'priests/ spreaders of the word' (there weren't priests) in early Christian times

Lots of people are liberal Christians and have their own interpretation of the bible. And it's all about interpretation.

narkypuffin, I would have thought that a lot of the spouses of the clergy would LOVE the idea of living outside the parish and never having to set foot inside church!

I suppose, with regard to the OP, they feel that they are staying still, while their church leaves them.

It all makes me feel that I can never set foot in a church again. Can't wait until ours is sold off for housing tbh.

15 years in catholic school, including catholic college, might give me some insight into how modern day catholicism is taught!

I know about the importance of the eucharist and transubstantiation, what I meant what is was not as important in/for the reformation as it has sometimes been said.

It's not really a case of switching denominations. The Church of England has always been an extremely broad denomination, deliberately set up as such to include and appease both the Catholics and Protestants duirng the Reformation. Much of the services are written in a deliberately imprecise way, to be acceptable both to proponents of transubstantiation (the bread and wine at communion turns into Jesus's real body - the Catholic view) and consubstantiation (the bread and wine represents Jesus - the Protestant view). So many areas of the Church of England have always been Catholic in theology and in ritual and in every possible way except having the Pope as their leader.

For many, then, switching from Church of England to Roman Catholic will entail very little of a change. But I think the clergy who switch will be in for a shock. The Church of England is broad, tolerant, inclusive and welcoming of internal debate. The Roman Catholic Church is unashamedly inflexible and hierarchicial...

. Buzz, how on earth did you manage to avoid the Nicene Creed in that time?

I am not Catholic so I may well be wrong, but I've been to Catholic services and thought that was quite basic?

In England, the Eucharist is fundamental to the pre-Reformation movement, and crucial to Elizabeth I's ideas about the Anglican Church. I don't know how much more important it could have been, really. But it may be we're coming at this from different perspectives, I guess?

homosexuals/murderers/rapists/liars/alcoholics

I woudn't put liar or alcoholic in the same category as rapist or murder either. So it sounds like OpentoLawsuits does just takes the bible quite litterally. And as he/she said she hates the sin and loves the sinner I wouldn't assume they were a natural bigot. Just followed their religion and does consider all sins equal?

I am an athiest so I find it all a bit confusing tbh.

I didn't miss it. It just was taught as history, not as modern relavence.

theevildead2,

I think we can safely assume OTLS is a bigot if he/she accepts anything without intelligent question. To condemn anything because an ancient book tells you to is blindness in the extreme. Would love to fast forward a few years if OTLS's child is gay and see how he/she deals with that little conundrum.

But it's right there, throughout the service, isn't it? I don't see how anyone could be a practicing Catholic and not understand it?

After all, you go up to receive the bread and wine and the priest says 'The Body of Christ', doesn't he? And you sing the 'Holy, holy, holy,' to introduce the Eucharist, don't you?

Imo, one would need teaching in order not to take the transformation of bread/wine into body/blood literally, wouldn't one?

I find it equating rape to alcoholism to be more upsetting but I accept people take religion for what they do. Hopefully if OTLS had a homosexual child she'd be able get past it and love her child unconditionally, even if she doesn't accept homosexuality (the way someone who isn't keen on their child's heterosexual partner would).

You misunderstand me. I know about it, its in the service, yes I get it. Catholics aren't taught to understand the service or the relevance of the components and the theology. Thats for the big fellas in black, not the likes of us. We should kneel and sit and repeat after me when told.

Its hardly surprising that 15 years of catholic teaching did nothing but encourage my atheism.

What LaurieFairyonthetreeEatsCake said.