s/o catholic/protestant thing - SOF issue

[Mrs Mungo]

:iagree:Like it!!

 

Hmmmm, what's it been three hundred and some posts, and none is any closer to agreeing than before? :001_huh::001_smile::tongue_smilie: Mayhaps, perhaps, just sayin' here, doesn't all of this kind of support why some churches/groups/co-ops/etc have SOF? Maybe to avoid this kind of, well, "discussion" every week? Maybe it's not to keep others out, but bring likeminded people together? Just sayin'...

 

We all have our little square that we have drawn on to stand and say, this is what I believe. More than likely, a lot of our squares are going to disagree with other squares. So we can either stand on our squares and get mad at the other square for disagreeing, or we can practice religious tolerance and say, well, that's too bad we don't agree, but I guess that's ok, and move on down the road... ???

 

Your statements are inconsistent. It doesn't make *any* sense to me whatsoever that you would be labeling the people who join/desire inclusive groups as intolerant. Or that you would demand religious tolerance from them. They *are practicing* religious tolerance and condemning religious intolerance. :confused:

[WishboneDawn]

:iagree:Like it!!

 

Hmmmm, what's it been three hundred and some posts, and none is any closer to agreeing than before? :001_huh::001_smile::tongue_smilie: Mayhaps, perhaps, just sayin' here, doesn't all of this kind of support why some churches/groups/co-ops/etc have SOF? Maybe to avoid this kind of, well, "discussion" every week? Maybe it's not to keep others out, but bring likeminded people together? Just sayin'...

 

We're not talking about church or religious groups, we're talking about homeschooling groups where discussion would, one would think, revolve around homeschooling.

 

If having discussions like this were the issue then the group could simply state as a group norm that there's no religious discussion. Since groups opt instead to restrict membership then their concern is not avoiding this kind of discussion but keeping out the "wrong" sort of people. Which isn't tolerance.

[Mimm]

I think we're overvaluing tolerance when you're supposed to tolerate other people's intolerance. Tolerance isn't inherently good in every single possible situation. People in this thread have pointed out several cases where not tolerating something is morally preferable. The discussion then is when we should be tolerant and when we should not. It's a valuable discussion. (Another thing I will never understand is people coming into threads and saying or implying that the discussion shouldn't be happening... Just don't read it!) When it comes to Christianity, where we are clearly and repeatedly told to accept people, love people, live in harmony and unity with one another, I'm at a loss as to how anyone can defend divisive and judgmental policies for just about any kind of Christian group.

[mandymom]

We're not talking about church or religious groups, we're talking about homeschooling groups where discussion would, one would think, revolve around homeschooling.

 

 

 

Understand that I am saying this as an observer, NOT as one who holds these beliefs (my kids were in public school through this last year)....

 

There are some who see homeschooling as an expression of their religious beliefs and see homeschooling as obedience to God's commands. They don't have the separation between "religion" and "homeschooling". Their beliefs also dictate that they have ultimate and heavy responsibility for what the manner in which their children are raised and educated. Therefor, they are very careful and very purposeful in what their children are allowed to experience, especially while their children are young.

[unsinkable]

I think we're overvaluing tolerance when you're supposed to tolerate other people's intolerance. Tolerance isn't inherently good in every single possible situation. People in this thread have pointed out several cases where not tolerating something is morally preferable. The discussion then is when we should be tolerant and when we should not. It's a valuable discussion. (Another thing I will never understand is people coming into threads and saying or implying that the discussion shouldn't be happening... Just don't read it!) When it comes to Christianity, where we are clearly and repeatedly told to accept people, love people, live in harmony and unity with one another, I'm at a loss as to how anyone can defend divisive and judgmental policies for just about any kind of Christian group.

 

I know, right?!

 

It's almost as puzzling as people who pop into a thread and say something like: "Are you all still talking about this? I've got better things to do with my time than talk about this!"

 

I just want to say: Move on! Ease on down the road! Take off! It's a bright sunny day! Leave us alone! :D:tongue_smilie:

[Mrs Mungo]

Understand that I am saying this as an observer, NOT as one who holds these beliefs (my kids were in public school through this last year)....

 

There are some who see homeschooling as an expression of their religious beliefs and see homeschooling as obedience to God's commands. They don't have the separation between "religion" and "homeschooling". Their beliefs also dictate that they have ultimate and heavy responsibility for what the manner in which their children are raised and educated. Therefor, they are very careful and very purposeful in what their children are allowed to experience, especially while their children are young.

 

Again, there have been cases where I could *teach Sunday school* in the same church where I couldn't sign the SOF for the homeschool group associate with the church because it was more strict than the church's statement of belief. So, that argument doesn't hold, imo.

[Ellesmere]

I think we're overvaluing tolerance when you're supposed to tolerate other people's intolerance. Tolerance isn't inherently good in every single possible situation. People in this thread have pointed out several cases where not tolerating something is morally preferable. The discussion then is when we should be tolerant and when we should not. It's a valuable discussion. (Another thing I will never understand is people coming into threads and saying or implying that the discussion shouldn't be happening... Just don't read it!) When it comes to Christianity, where we are clearly and repeatedly told to accept people, love people, live in harmony and unity with one another, I'm at a loss as to how anyone can defend divisive and judgmental policies for just about any kind of Christian group.

Well said.

 

It doesn't make *any* sense to me whatsoever that you would be labeling the people who join/desire inclusive groups as intolerant. Or that you would demand religious tolerance from them. They *are practicing* religious tolerance and condemning religious intolerance. :confused:

Exactly.

[mandymom]

Again, there have been cases where I could *teach Sunday school* in the same church where I couldn't sign the SOF for the homeschool group associate with the church because it was more strict than the church's statement of belief. So, that argument doesn't hold, imo.

 

The ones I'm thinking of wouldn't even have Sunday School. Adults and children all meet together at their churches. :001_smile:

[8circles]

Oh good Lord.

 

I've been to Erfurt and to Wittemburg. I've actually read Luther's writings in his own hand, by his own pen. He. started. it.

 

Everyone of every single Christian denomination other than Roman Catholic, Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian and LDS can blather on all of they want about "oh, WE'RE not PROTESTANT, we're _________", but guess what? You (general you) would have NOTHING, NOTHING without Luther.

 

Luther. A CATHOLIC priest who got struck by lightning, had a "revelation", got p!ssed at the Pope, went on a hypergraphic bender, and created a new religion. Which spawned about a thousand other sects.

 

And yes, I'm YELLING.

 

The biography of Luther is fascinating. Not the "popular press" one, the actual one - the one in the museum dedicated to him in Wittemburg. One can actually read and see a descent into madness of a brilliant man over a period of time. There was a REASON that other people "took the reigns" from Luther, and it wasn't just to "make the religion fit" to their particular culture or region - the guy was seriously losing it.

 

Calvin may have been the one running things with an iron fist, but ALL of them - Zwingli, Simons, Grebel - they all saw an opportunity opening up that hadn't come around in over a thousand years: the ability to hitch their wagon to something that truly protested the Catholic Church. That was viewed as truly having the support of the people. Something that could stick. And, just like the Catholic Church, which was SO despised for its "money grubbing" ways, there was money to be made. Catholic churches were taken by force. Lands were seized. "Donations" were taken "for the people".

 

No, I'm not making this up. It's all written down in black and white in Wittemburg. Only it's "spun" in a much more "charitable" light.

 

No one is perfect. Not the Catholics, the EO, the LDS, or the Protestants (whatever you want to call your sect [general you]). But it IS history. And just because it may be uncomfortable, or the term may have become unfashionable or disconcerting, does not remove its basis. We do our children a disservice by teaching them anything different.

 

 

 

YES!

 

Wycliff and Huss paved the way for Luther a hundred years before he was even born! To make an analogy: they planted a seed, and Luther ate the fruit off of the tree. (oh, ok, that is a bad analogy - but whatever - it isn't meant maliciously.)

 

 

asta

 

Why on earth would you assume that I'm not aware of reality of history surrounding the church & Luther? I'm fully aware, thanks. Luther started the Protestant movement but it isn't as if we "follow" Luther. I don't care what kind of a nut-job he turned out to be, it has no effect on my beliefs or those of my Lutheran-branch denomination whatsoever.

 

Honestly, I don't get the patronizing attitude. Not calling people Protestant when they say they aren't isn't denying history. It's polite.

 

Assuming that Carol doesn't know basic history of the church? I just shake my head & chuckle.

 

I think the tone of your post clarifies exactly the attitude that I get on this forum from some RC/EO towards Protestants. Thanks for making it so clear.

[hollyandab]

I wrote thoughtfully and sincerely and your response is to call me "huffy and puffy" towards people who have done & said evil towards Christians and have made no apologies.

 

This isn't about how it affects me. Please stop saying that I am taking it personally or that anyone is whining about not being able to play in someone else's backyard. It is not true and you keep saying that, as you keep passing along judgments on other people's faith.

 

Please rethink the flippant remarks that you are making. I hope you will pause and consider how insulting your words are.

 

An organization that practices religious bigotry is wrong. Stating this fact is not whining and pointing the finger anymore than noticing that a racist or homophobic person is narrow-minded and prejudiced.

 

Oh my goodness!! I am sooooo sorry!! I truly and honestly was trying to help and encourage everyone here to not worry about what others think!!! How you took that to be insulting to you, well, just wow, I am so sorry. I did NOT mean it to be awful and insulting. I meant to simply say, that if what others are doing is insulting to you, it IS possible to leave it to God!!!!! He will be the final judge! If they are horrible, hating, bigoting people, then they will answer to God for that!

 

And I am NOT judging your faith! This has NOTHING to do with your faith!! I don't even know what sect of religion you are from. I believe that everyone has a right to believe and feel the way they do! I'm sorry, but isn't that the definition of religious tolerance? Now, if these groups were going out of their way to picket in front of your house or your church and try to take away your right of religious freedom... that is TOTALLY different! As I see it, they are simply wanting to be by themselves!!!!! If you want to have a group that excludes me because I don't agree with your position on religion, then I have no problem with that!! Why is this bad of me??? Why is it bad and insulting to your faith that I feel we all have the right to think the way we wish??!! I may think that you're wrong if you were to exclude me, just as you AND I think it's wrong of these groups to exclude others, but that's where it ends for me!! I only wanted to encourage you, try to help you see it from their point of view since I grew up that way!! You have totally misunderstood my intent. I fault myself for that, because I obviously am doing a horrible job of trying to convey my view of religious tolerance. I go to a church that is the most accepting, welcoming, non-discriminating, loving of EVERYONE, no matter their faith, views, position, race... it just doesn't matter!! Come as you are! And yet somehow I managed to offend. Ugh!!!! SO, so, so, so, so sorry!

 

As far as calling you huffy and puffy, I am again sincerely sorry. I did NOT mean that YOU were being huffy and puffy!! I meant ANYONE in general who would get huffy and puffy over these affairs was not turning it over to God. I guess I got carried away with my words. I wasn't meaning you. Wow, I must reallllly stink at this whole blogging thing. I don't even know what to say. My head is spinning and my eyes are watering and I feel nauseous because this was so far from my intent.

 

I guess I had better stay away from these discussions. I was simply offering my experience, having grown up in a very, very, very conservative group. I don't agree with their way of thinking, but I do know that they don't do it to be malicious, they do it because they sincerely believe that is how God is asking them to live. They may be misguided, and even wrong, but they truly love God. Are they lacking in grace? Most definitely, but I am trying to extend grace to them, but maybe I'm just being stupid. Maybe I am simple minded and inconsistent and everything else others have flung at me. I was trying to extend my experiences to you, helping you see it from their point of view, but I have obviously failed, and for that I am sorry.

 

Please accept my apology for not realizing I was being offensive. We must just have completely different ways of saying and understanding things...that is the problem with these forums. Words (at least mine) sometimes come across wrong. I am also one who tries to see things from everyone's point of view, and that comes across wrong also.

 

I do hope you can forgive me and also forgive those who are not gracious enough to include you and others into their lives. They really are just lacking in grace. But then, we are all sinners... that's why we need the Lord.

 

Hoping you understand me better, and that I REALLY do love anyone and everyone,

 

Holly in KY

[hollyandab]

Understand that I am saying this as an observer, NOT as one who holds these beliefs (my kids were in public school through this last year)....

 

There are some who see homeschooling as an expression of their religious beliefs and see homeschooling as obedience to God's commands. They don't have the separation between "religion" and "homeschooling". Their beliefs also dictate that they have ultimate and heavy responsibility for what the manner in which their children are raised and educated. Therefor, they are very careful and very purposeful in what their children are allowed to experience, especially while their children are young.

 

 

Oh, oh, oh!!! This is what I was trying to say!!! Please disregard all of my previous posts and listen to this one!!!

[hollyandab]

I think we're overvaluing tolerance when you're supposed to tolerate other people's intolerance. Tolerance isn't inherently good in every single possible situation. People in this thread have pointed out several cases where not tolerating something is morally preferable. The discussion then is when we should be tolerant and when we should not. It's a valuable discussion. (Another thing I will never understand is people coming into threads and saying or implying that the discussion shouldn't be happening... Just don't read it!) When it comes to Christianity, where we are clearly and repeatedly told to accept people, love people, live in harmony and unity with one another, I'm at a loss as to how anyone can defend divisive and judgmental policies for just about any kind of Christian group.

 

 

Again, I am not defending their divisive and judgmental policies. I'm defending their right to them. And I'm fine with it if you disagree with me, but please don't say that I am being divisive. I think if anything, I am trying to unite. But obviously I'm doing a poor job of it. :tongue_smilie: I don't really know how saying everyone has the right to their own view is divisive. I really don't.

 

Holly

[justamouse]

Okay, I TOTALLY do NOT want to get into a debate... I just want to throw something out there--food for thought perhaps. Instead of comparing Protestants and Catholics, and where the Protestants and Lutherans and Catholics and all that come from, I would like to take it back further. I'm talking about the New Testament Church further. Forget Luther, the Pope, Wycliff, all of them. (And no, I'm not literally saying to forget them...we need to understand history...I know, please don't take this the wrong way...) However, go back to the Early Church--the church in Acts. That is how our church ought to look like. Excited, on fire, people being saved--awesome!! Religious establishments have made a mockery out of what God had intended for His church.

 

Love, love, LOVE that our church doesn't look to any man in history, other than the God-Man Jesus Christ and what HE established in the New Testament Church!!

 

And I am NOT going to get sucked into a debate, because it's really quite simple!! Read the book of ACTS!! :001_smile:

 

Blessings from KY on a beautiful sunny day!!

Holly

 

Darlin, that church was Catholic ( and EO). Just say'n. Read Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius, St. Clement, Polycarp.

 

The first 'church' meetings were in Synagogues till the Jewish community had enough of that crazy Christianity sect, and told them to go get their own digs. But the first 'churchs' were across the streets from Synagogues and funny, if you read the actual writings, they sound a Mass-or a Divine Liturgy. And Justin Martyr wrote his buddy Marcus Aurelius a letter (because they were getting killed) stating *precisely* how the services were run in hopes that Marcus would see that they weren't 'cannibals' (because they died for not denying that the Eucharist wasn't the *real* body and blood of Christ).

 

So yeah, bring on Acts. :D

Edited July 14, 2011 by justamouse

[justamouse]

I want to say, "Go, asta!" :lol:

 

Lutherans don't call themselves Reformed, but they ARE Protestant (not all Protestants are Reformed, but all Reformed are Protestant).

 

Go Asta. :lol:

[Mimm]

Again, I am not defending their divisive and judgmental policies. I'm defending their right to them. And I'm fine with it if you disagree with me, but please don't say that I am being divisive. I think if anything, I am trying to unite. But obviously I'm doing a poor job of it. :tongue_smilie: I don't really know how saying everyone has the right to their own view is divisive. I really don't.

 

Holly

 

No one in this thread is advocating that we attempt to take people's rights to have opinions or beliefs. I'm not exactly sure how one would go about even attempting that. So yes, everyone has the right to have their beliefs. It never occurred to me that this was the sum total of your argument because it's fairly obvious. What the people in this thread are saying is that people should not have certain beliefs and policies because they are divisive and judgmental and counter to the commandments Christians have to live in unity and love one another. People have the right in terms of free will and living in a more or less free nation to be jerks and exclude people all they want. But should they? Is it morally right to do so? Is that behavior in keeping with how we are to live as Christians? No.

[hollyandab]

Darlin, that church was Catholic ( and EO). Just say'n. Read Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius, St. Clement, Polycarp.

 

The first 'church' meetings were in Synagogues till the Jewish community had enough of that crazy Christianity sect, and told them to go get their own digs. But the first 'churchs' were across the streets from Synagogues and funny, if you read the actual writings, they sound a Mass-or a Divine Liturgy. And Justin Martyr wrote his buddy Marcus Aurelius a letter (because they were getting killed) stating *precisely* how the services were run in hopes that Marcus would see that they weren't 'cannibals' (because they died for not denying that the Eucharist wasn't the *real* body and blood of Christ).

 

So yeah, bring on Acts. :D

 

Iwas specifically referring to when Paul and others in Acts were meeting in homes, singing praises to God, studying the Word...very simple. No formality. A very simple church indeed... But I guess it doesn't matter how we worship, just that we do.

 

I've been unintentionally offending others here, so I hope what I said is ok. I really was just wanting to go to the New Testament Church for reference.

Holly

[hollyandab]

No one in this thread is advocating that we attempt to take people's rights to have opinions or beliefs. I'm not exactly sure how one would go about even attempting that. So yes, everyone has the right to have their beliefs. It never occurred to me that this was the sum total of your argument because it's fairly obvious. What the people in this thread are saying is that people should not have certain beliefs and policies because they are divisive and judgmental and counter to the commandments Christians have to live in unity and love one another. People have the right in terms of free will and living in a more or less free nation to be jerks and exclude people all they want. But should they? Is it morally right to do so? Is that behavior in keeping with how we are to live as Christians? No.

 

Yes, that was the very simple fact that I was trying to make. They have a right to be jerks, and we can disagree...but can I add that we don't need to be hurt by their narrow-mindedness?? Is that coming across wrong? I personally used to be hurt by them after leaving their way of thinking, but God has set me free from that hurt and hatred. I wanted to share that gift with others who were possibly insulted or hurt also by their narrow-mindedness. Maybe I misunderstood many of the posts here. I really thought that they were hurt and insulted by these groups. Possibly I read into that because I had been hurt. We all respond to things due to occurences in our own past. Thank you for understanding me! (even if you don't agree!--either way--thanks!)

 

Holly, who is slinking back into the hole from whence I came...

Edited July 14, 2011 by hollyandab
spelling

[Ellesmere]

I meant to simply say, that if what others are doing is insulting to you, it IS possible to leave it to God!!!!!

And no one said that God is not the Judge in this situation. But no one should feel ashamed of calling hatred what it is. It is bigotry, plain and simple and if I call it that, I should not be accused of being whiny, not following Jesus's example, or wasting time.

 

And I am NOT judging your faith! This has NOTHING to do with your faith!! I don't even know what sect of religion you are from.

You judge when you tell people that they are not practicing the NT church model and shout at them to go read the book of Acts, as if they haven't figured out where that book is. You judge when you say, "Wow. Shouldn't we be following His example?" -- which is essentially your judgment on me that I am not following it.

 

I believe that everyone has a right to believe and feel the way they do! I'm sorry, but isn't that the definition of religious tolerance? Now, if these groups were going out of their way to picket in front of your house or your church and try to take away your right of religious freedom... that is TOTALLY different! As I see it, they are simply wanting to be by themselves!!!!! If you want to have a group that excludes me because I don't agree with your position on religion, then I have no problem with that!! Why is this bad of me??? Why is it bad and insulting to your faith that I feel we all have the right to think the way we wish??!!

Fred Phelps has had his First Amendment rights protected, yes? He and his hate groups don't need anyone protecting tolerance for the intolerant.

 

No one is saying we don't have the right to have our own thoughts or even to set up exclusionary homeschool co-ops. But it is wrong to say we should just shrug off religious bigotry. Would you have me just brush off racism, too? Was it a bad idea to stand against racial segregation, especially against those who will firmly oppose interracial marriage and use the Bible to somehow defend such a position?

The exclusive group doesn't simply want to be alone. They want to convert the world around them and save them from the "evils" of the Protestant, Catholic, or whatever other church around them that doesn't agree.

 

As far as calling you huffy and puffy, I am again sincerely sorry.

Thank you for apologizing.

 

I don't agree with their way of thinking, but I do know that they don't do it to be malicious, they do it because they sincerely believe that is how God is asking them to live.

Well, here we agree. I know that by and large, most of the people in these exclusive groups have a genuine love for souls and have been indoctrinated. I think I've said that but this is a long thread, and it may have been somewhere else. Bottom line, I don't completely abhor the time I did in a fundamentalist circle because God's word overpowered the distortions of truth that I was fed and I met some truly kind people there that I still call friends.

 

Doesn't mean that I'm not going to point out the bigotry that exists, though. Understand that I grew up with some racist family members that I love dearly. I know how to separate the soul from the view they currently hold. I know they may not always hold to it.

 

I do hope you can forgive me and also forgive those who are not gracious enough to include you and others into their lives. They really are just lacking in grace. But then, we are all sinners... that's why we need the Lord.

Again, no one has expressed hatred or bitterness towards them and I haven't said I have an unforgiving spirit towards them. You don't need to keep saying that.

 

I appreciate that you took time to respond.

 

 

Holly, I understand tone can be hard to read. So, imagine I'm saying everything quietly and without sarcasm. I discuss because it's an opportunity to share, be sharpened, corrected and opened up to other people's experiences. But I will say this -- there is no bitterness, whining, hatred, or intolerance being expressed in saying that bigotry is wrong. And it's wrong to just ignore it and not stand for what is true.

 

I'm thankful for the people who showed me how wrong it was to use the Bible to promote hateful beliefs against fellow Christians and humans. And that can be done without lovingly and without bitterness. Does that make sense to you?

Edited July 15, 2011 by Clairelise
clarity.

[mommaduck]

Iwas specifically referring to when Paul and others in Acts were meeting in homes, singing praises to God, studying the Word...very simple. No formality. A very simple church indeed... But I guess it doesn't matter how we worship, just that we do.

 

I've been unintentionally offending others here, so I hope what I said is ok. I really was just wanting to go to the New Testament Church for reference.

Holly

 

Are you sure that that is all there was to it? Were you there? The Catacombs and history are showing a different story that goes beyond just "meeting in homes, singing praises, and reading".

 

You can't read the book of Acts in a vacuum and say that that was all there was to it. It's not a complete picture.

Edited July 15, 2011 by mommaduck

[hollyandab]

Holly, I understand tone can be hard to read. So, imagine I'm saying everything quietly and without sarcasm. I discuss because it's an opportunity to share, be sharpened, corrected and opened up to other people's experiences. But I'm standing firm. There is no bitterness, whining, hatred, or intolerance being expressed in calling bigotry what it is.

 

 

Thank you, I appreciate that. I understand where you are coming from. And I agree that all of that is ugly, and calling it ugly is ok. But I also think that it is possible, through Christ, for me to hate the ugly narrowmindedness and still love the people, even if they don't love me back, and even if they are ugly back to me... And, I'm not saying you don't love them... :001_smile: Not remotely saying that!!

 

Agree or no... It's ok either way! :001_smile:

 

Holly

[mommaduck]

 

I don't call myself white, but I am. I call myself European-American, usually. I have a friend who doesn't call herself Oriental, although her ancestry is from the Orient. She calls herself Asian-American. The words white and Oriental have taken on connotations over the years that don't reflect or go beyond their factual meaning. So it is with the word Protestant, a point that several have tried to make, calmly and repeatedly, in the face of being yelled at and insulted. If this were applied to ethnicity, it would be denounced as racism. I don't consider it a perfect parallel, but simply as a matter of clarity and basic respect it is polite and better to refer to people the way they prefer, as long as that is not untruthful.

Apples and oranges. People aren't using connotations here, but rather referring to historical fact.

[milovany]

Iwas specifically referring to when Paul and others in Acts were meeting in homes, singing praises to God, studying the Word...very simple. No formality. A very simple church indeed... But I guess it doesn't matter how we worship, just that we do.

 

I've been unintentionally offending others here, so I hope what I said is ok. I really was just wanting to go to the New Testament Church for reference.

Holly

 

It's honestly quite a stretch to think that the apostles went from highly liturgical Jewish services straight to sitting on the grass, having a potluck, singing some spontaneous praise songs and the like without nary a mention of this change in Acts. So it's much more likely that they continued on with the liturgical traditions that God had already given them, which were purposefully designed (except now with Christ's incarnation/death/resurrection as the foundation).

 

This is especially the case when you consider two things:

 

1) The writings coming out from that same church say differently (i.e., from the first century on, the church was liturgical with set prayers, hierarchy including bishops, priests and deacons, the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ, a creed for baptism, etc.); and

 

2) The descriptions we have of heaven show that there we'll have something that resembles a liturgical church there (and the Jewish services as described in the OT), not a loose, free-flowing, spontaneous church such as you're describing. When considering this, the onus is kind of on you (or generally speaking, people who think what you describe is the case) to prove your case. Show that God wanted the church to be different than the Jewish worship (the church's precursor) and different from heaven (the eternal manifestation of the church).

 

Believe me, I understand and appreciate your enthusiasm! But the Bible, and the writings given us by those directly taught by the Apostles, do speak much of a visible church with liturgical worship.

Edited July 15, 2011 by milovaný

[TechWife]

Your comment strikes me as humorous... Likewise, I would assume that an "inclusive" group is going to frown on much religious talk, no matter how intrinsic that is to the lives of particular member families.

 

:001_huh: OK, this is striking me as humorous. The "inclusive" group you describe doesn't sound very inclusive if they don't want people to talk about something that is intrinsic to their lives!

[mommaduck]

:001_huh: OK, this is striking me as humorous. The "inclusive" group you describe doesn't sound very inclusive if they don't want people to talk about something that is intrinsic to their lives!

 

No kidding! Though I don't go shoving my faith down other people's throats, I've referred to my faith when speaking to the leader of our inclusive group and asked her about her faith (earth based paganism). It's a non-issue and a part of who we each are. I want to know her, so I have no problem with it.

[hollyandab]

Are you sure that that is all there was to it? Were you there? The Catacombs and history are showing a different story that goes beyond just "meeting in homes, singing praises, and reading".

Well, this is what I read in Acts..??? No??? Guess I was thinking of Acts 2:41-47. Now, I don't mean to say that this is the ONLY way of worshipping...just that this simple way of worshipping was used as an example and is obviously an approved way of worshipping. My church has more than 3,500 people attending...obviously we don't meet in someone's home on Sunday morning! (although we do meet in homes during the week!) And our interpretation of singing praises to God is singing VERY loudly!! :D I'm just referring to the fact that the New Testament Church was meeting daily, breaking bread, singing praises... Sounds really awesome and simple! It would have been so neat to have been part of that. I love the book Twice Freed--fictional story based on the book of Philemon in the Bible. I think Patricia St. John does a wonderful job of showing the New Testament Church meeting and worshipping (and no, she wasn't there either...just her interpretation based on the New Testament) --with thousands being saved daily. Wow! So cool!

 

Now, please, I don't mean that your way of worshipping is wrong... :tongue_smilie: I have no idea how you worship! That's none of my business! I just thought that throwing in a little simplicity to a heavy discussion would be food for thought...but if not...that's fine!

 

Just little ol' me with little ol' thoughts, not sayin' anyone is wrong or right,

Holly

[WishboneDawn]

:001_huh: OK, this is striking me as humorous. The "inclusive" group you describe doesn't sound very inclusive if they don't want people to talk about something that is intrinsic to their lives!

 

If it's a homeschooling group I don't see a disconnect. You're there because of the homeschooling, no? All homeschoolers are welcome. If you want to talk religion go out for coffee with some of the ladies afterwards. Really, sex is intrinsic to most of our lives but if we decided to talk about it at a homeschooling meeting and were told it wasn't really appropriate I don't think it would be seen as an issue of inclusivity.:)

[hollyandab]

It's honestly quite a stretch to think that the apostles went from highly liturgical Jewish services straight to sitting on the grass, having a potluck, singing some spontaneous praise songs and the like without nary a mention of this change in Acts. So it's much more likely that they continued on with the liturgical traditions that God had already given them, which were purposefully designed (except now with Christ's incarnation/death/resurrection as the foundation).

 

This is especially the case when you consider two things:

 

1) The writings coming out from that same church say differently (i.e., from the first century on, the church was liturgical with set prayers, hierarchy including bishops, priests and deacons, the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ, a creed for baptism, etc.); and

 

2) The descriptions we have of heaven show that there we'll have something that resembles a liturgical church there (and the Jewish services as described in the OT), not a loose, free-flowing, spontaneous church such as you're describing. When considering this, the onus is kind of on you (or generally speaking, people who think what you describe is the case) to prove your case. Show that God wanted the church to be different than the Jewish worship (the church's precursor) and different from heaven (the eternal manifestation of the church).

 

Believe me, I understand and appreciate your enthusiasm! But the Bible, and the writings given us by those directly taught by the Apostles, do speak much of a visible church with liturgical worship.

 

 

Well, why isn't it possible? Jesus was the very opposite of what the Jews were expecting! He shook stereotypes, He challenged thinking, He threw out man-made tradition... He made an impact on this human race more than any man who ever lived or ever will live... And, speaking of sitting on the grass, isn't that what he did when he taught and fed the 5,000? I love the diversity and freedom that we have in Christ. After growing up in a lot of legalism, finding the freedom in Christ has been a wonderful thing! It's not about me--it's all about Him! So praise Him like the Psalmist, dance like David! Or, don't dance like him! I believe that God tells us to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. If we are meaning it from our heart, then (IMHO) it doesn't matter how, or what style, or what we're wearing or look like. God looks at the heart, not the outside, and that's what I think matters. I fully support you worshipping the way you described, (not that it matters what I think). God just wants our hearts!

 

Make any sense? But you don't have to agree...and I'm not trying to change your mind, just telling you my story!!! :001_smile: That's what is awesome about God's grace!

 

Holly

[Ellesmere]

Thank you, I appreciate that. I understand where you are coming from. And I agree that all of that is ugly, and calling it ugly is ok. But I also think that it is possible, through Christ, for me to hate the ugly narrowmindedness and still love the people, even if they don't love me back, and even if they are ugly back to me... And, I'm not saying you don't love them... :001_smile: Not remotely saying that!!

 

Agree or no... It's ok either way! :001_smile:

 

Holly

 

I never said it is impossible to do good to those who despise you.

 

That is not the point. This is not about letting insults roll off the back or keeping a good relationship with my racist family members or anti-fill-in-the-blank friends.

 

The point is that it is legitimate to point out bigotry, for many reasons. Just one of which is that it may help someone in those circles to understand the error of those anti-Christian teachings.

 

This doesn't have to be an agree or disagree point. I'm not talking about being personally hurt or offended. If an Anglican or Orthodox or Methodist is called unchristian and banned from a Christian fellowship, that doesn't personally insult me. If a Jewish person faces discrimination, that doesn't directly affect me, as I'm not Jewish. If someone of a different race experiences racism, that also doesn't personally hurt me, but it is wrong, hateful, and it deserves criticism.

 

All again said quietly and without sarcasm. :)

[mommaduck]

Well, this is what I read in Acts..??? No??? Guess I was thinking of Acts 2:41-47. Now, I don't mean to say that this is the ONLY way of worshipping...just that this simple way of worshipping was used as an example and is obviously an approved way of worshipping. My church has more than 3,500 people attending...obviously we don't meet in someone's home on Sunday morning! (although we do meet in homes during the week!) And our interpretation of singing praises to God is singing VERY loudly!! :D I'm just referring to the fact that the New Testament Church was meeting daily, breaking bread, singing praises... Sounds really awesome and simple! It would have been so neat to have been part of that. I love the book Twice Freed--fictional story based on the book of Philemon in the Bible. I think Patricia St. John does a wonderful job of showing the New Testament Church meeting and worshipping (and no, she wasn't there either...just her interpretation based on the New Testament) --with thousands being saved daily. Wow! So cool!

 

Now, please, I don't mean that your way of worshipping is wrong... :tongue_smilie: I have no idea how you worship! That's none of my business! I just thought that throwing in a little simplicity to a heavy discussion would be food for thought...but if not...that's fine!

 

Just little ol' me with little ol' thoughts, not sayin' anyone is wrong or right,

Holly

 

Well, why isn't it possible? Jesus was the very opposite of what the Jews were expecting! He shook stereotypes, He challenged thinking, He threw out man-made tradition... He made an impact on this human race more than any man who ever lived or ever will live... And, speaking of sitting on the grass, isn't that what he did when he taught and fed the 5,000? I love the diversity and freedom that we have in Christ. After growing up in a lot of legalism, finding the freedom in Christ has been a wonderful thing! It's not about me--it's all about Him! So praise Him like the Psalmist, dance like David! Or, don't dance like him! I believe that God tells us to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. If we are meaning it from our heart, then (IMHO) it doesn't matter how, or what style, or what we're wearing or look like. God looks at the heart, not the outside, and that's what I think matters. I fully support you worshipping the way you described, (not that it matters what I think). God just wants our hearts!

 

Make any sense? But you don't have to agree...and I'm not trying to change your mind, just telling you my story!!! :001_smile: That's what is awesome about God's grace!

 

Holly

You missed the part where I stated that you can't read Acts in a vacuum and expect to get a full picture.

 

I think this is simply where we will disagree: you sound like you are saying that what happens or doesn't happen during worship doesn't matter. I believe it does. We can let it go at that.

 

(if you are curious, you can find Divine Liturgy on youtube ;) )

[justamouse]

Well, why isn't it possible? Jesus was the very opposite of what the Jews were expecting! He shook stereotypes, He challenged thinking, He threw out man-made tradition... He made an impact on this human race more than any man who ever lived or ever will live... And, speaking of sitting on the grass, isn't that what he did when he taught and fed the 5,000? I love the diversity and freedom that we have in Christ. After growing up in a lot of legalism, finding the freedom in Christ has been a wonderful thing! It's not about me--it's all about Him! So praise Him like the Psalmist, dance like David! Or, don't dance like him! I believe that God tells us to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. If we are meaning it from our heart, then (IMHO) it doesn't matter how, or what style, or what we're wearing or look like. God looks at the heart, not the outside, and that's what I think matters. I fully support you worshipping the way you described, (not that it matters what I think). God just wants our hearts!

 

Make any sense? But you don't have to agree...and I'm not trying to change your mind, just telling you my story!!! :001_smile: That's what is awesome about God's grace!

 

Holly

 

 

You remind me of myself. BTDT. Believe it or not, a few of us who have done the whole organic housechurch thing have moved onto very liturgical churches because as we've read the historical documents, we realized that the first century church was *highly* liturgical.

[8circles]

You remind me of myself. BTDT. Believe it or not, a few of us who have done the whole organic housechurch thing have moved onto very liturgical churches because as we've read the historical documents, we realized that the first century church was *highly* liturgical.

 

Go Asta. :lol:

 

I want to say, "Go, asta!" :lol:

 

 

Bless your hearts.:rolleyes:

[mommaduck]

Bless your hearts.:rolleyes:

 

:tongue_smilie: (I've had a really bad week with Murphy following us everywhere...allow me one moment of happy immaturity to forget my real worries)

[justamouse]

Bless your hearts.:rolleyes:

 

I know I'm your favorite person. Feel free to ignore me.

[Carol in Cal.]

Apples and oranges. People aren't using connotations here, but rather referring to historical fact.

 

You have misunderstood my point. Perhaps you'd like to read it again.

[mommaduck]

You have misunderstood my point. Perhaps you'd like to read it again.

 

No, I just disagree that being called a Protestant is offensive when it's a correct term. I would not call LDS Protestant though, because that would be incorrect. BTW, I'm mixed ethnically, but would typically be called white. Depending upon the conversation, I may take "white" offensively or not...depends on if it's being used for accuracy or generality. For a discussion such as this, imo, it's not offensive. However, no matter the conversation, someone, somewhere will be determined to be offended. Eventually you have to shrug and move on. It still can't be compared to racism. Honestly, if someone takes it as that kind of offense, then I would have to wonder about them.

[asta]

Ok, before this gets locked...

 

We need a new word for "you".

 

Every other language has one, why not English?

 

In French, "tu" means you, familiar.

 

As in, I'm actually talking to mommaduck, I'm actually responding to something SHE has said.

 

"Vous" means you, formal. Or plural. As in, I'm talking to the general populace out there. I'm not singling out a particular person - even if I have quoted a specific bit of something they have posted to keep the conversation relevant.

 

Which is why so many people on this board have gotten to the point of writing you [general you] in their posts. Just so there will be no confusion that it is not a personal issue or attack.

 

Unlike the ever so lovely passive-aggressive "bless your heart". Of which entire threads have been written. Smiley.

 

Have a great morning, all.

 

 

asta

[hollyandab]

Ok, before this gets locked...

 

We need a new word for "you".

 

Every other language has one, why not English?

 

In French, "tu" means you, familiar.

 

As in, I'm actually talking to mommaduck, I'm actually responding to something SHE has said.

 

"Vous" means you, formal. Or plural. As in, I'm talking to the general populace out there. I'm not singling out a particular person - even if I have quoted a specific bit of something they have posted to keep the conversation relevant.

 

Which is why so many people on this board have gotten to the point of writing you [general you] in their posts. Just so there will be no confusion that it is not a personal issue or attack.

 

Unlike the ever so lovely passive-aggressive "bless your heart". Of which entire threads have been written. Smiley.

 

Have a great morning, all.

 

 

asta

Hey! This is EXACTLY what I was thinking when I woke up early this morning still feeling befuddled as to why some posters thought I was talking directly to them. And then I realized that I would use the QUOTE button to snag something someone said, and then continue to talk in generalities using the word "you." If that person I quoted thought I was speaking directly to and about them, then yes, they would be offended! Just like right now, I quoted Asta, but I'm not talking directly to her...I'm talking to the general populous "you." Ahhhh, so glad you pointed this out, Asta! (Now I am talking to you! Heehee!) And I'm sorry to anyone else that I used the QUOTE button on--I was only using it as a jumping off point and was never intending to preach at you, specifically you!

 

Maybe there is hope for us all, afterall!! :001_smile:

 

Have a good morning and Friday,

Holly :001_smile:

[8circles]

Ok, before this gets locked...

 

We need a new word for "you".

 

Every other language has one, why not English?

 

In French, "tu" means you, familiar.

 

As in, I'm actually talking to mommaduck, I'm actually responding to something SHE has said.

 

"Vous" means you, formal. Or plural. As in, I'm talking to the general populace out there. I'm not singling out a particular person - even if I have quoted a specific bit of something they have posted to keep the conversation relevant.

 

Which is why so many people on this board have gotten to the point of writing you [general you] in their posts. Just so there will be no confusion that it is not a personal issue or attack.

 

Unlike the ever so lovely passive-aggressive "bless your heart". Of which entire threads have been written. Smiley.

 

Have a great morning, all.

 

 

asta

 

I'm so glad you got in your last bit of condescension before the thread was locked. Just to clarify, have you actually been to France to read the words tu & vous? 'Cause that would make a difference. Maybe I saw you there.

 

Continuously bringing-up church history to prove your point does nothing when the conversation isn't about church history, it's about church present. I never said the term "Protestant" was incorrect my point was that it was inaccurate. If you can be more specific, you should be. Or you can be lazy & then shout CHURCH HISTORY when anyone calls you on it.

[asta]

I'm so glad you got in your last bit of condescension before the thread was locked. Just to clarify, have you actually been to France to read the words tu & vous? 'Cause that would make a difference. Maybe I saw you there.

 

Continuously bringing-up church history to prove your point does nothing when the conversation isn't about church history, it's about church present. I never said the term "Protestant" was incorrect my point was that it was inaccurate. If you can be more specific, you should be. Or you can be lazy & then shout CHURCH HISTORY when anyone calls you on it.

 

I live in Europe.

[8circles]

I live in Europe.

 

And?

[mommaduck]

I'm so glad you got in your last bit of condescension before the thread was locked. Just to clarify, have you actually been to France to read the words tu & vous? 'Cause that would make a difference. Maybe I saw you there.

 

Continuously bringing-up church history to prove your point does nothing when the conversation isn't about church history, it's about church present. I never said the term "Protestant" was incorrect my point was that it was inaccurate. If you can be more specific, you should be. Or you can be lazy & then shout CHURCH HISTORY when anyone calls you on it.

 

The present is created from the past. You can't "just" look at the present without looking at the past to see how we got here. Those that don't know/look at the past are bound to repeat it, over and over and over and over....

[8circles]

The present is created from the past. You can't "just" look at the present without looking at the past to see how we got here. Those that don't know/look at the past are bound to repeat it, over and over and over and over....

 

What is it that I've said that indicates that I'm either not aware of or not looking at church history?

[mommaduck]

What is it that I've said that indicates that I'm either not aware of or not looking at church history?

 

This:

 

Continuously bringing-up church history to prove your point does nothing when the conversation isn't about church history, it's about church present. I never said the term "Protestant" was incorrect my point was that it was inaccurate.

 

It is correct and it is accurate. It is not specific and for good reason. I'm not going to list the 27k groups out of 33k, etc. For simplicity's sake, Protestant is the the correct and accurate term. Those few and rare exceptions know who they are and know they are not being referred to. It's really not that difficult to comprehend.

 

Church history should be brought up.

[asta]

It's time for Visual Latin. So I'll just dance on out of here to Sam Cooke.

 

 

asta

[8circles]

This:

 

 

 

It is correct and it is accurate. It is not specific and for good reason. I'm not going to list the 27k groups out of 33k, etc. For simplicity's sake, Protestant is the the correct and accurate term. Those few and rare exceptions know who they are and know they are not being referred to. It's really not that difficult to comprehend.

 

Church history should be brought up.

 

There is nothing in there that shows ignorance or avoidance about church history. & I disagree. It isn't hard to either state the group you're talking about or the particular doctrine if it's a belief shared by many. That isn't difficult to comprehend.

 

It's interesting that was described as so common & pervasive within Protestantism upthread is now described as few & rare exceptions. Forgive me for not understanding your view.

Edited July 15, 2011 by momoflaw

[Carol in Cal.]

No, I just disagree that being called a Protestant is offensive when it's a correct term. I would not call LDS Protestant though, because that would be incorrect. BTW, I'm mixed ethnically, but would typically be called white. Depending upon the conversation, I may take "white" offensively or not...depends on if it's being used for accuracy or generality. For a discussion such as this, imo, it's not offensive. However, no matter the conversation, someone, somewhere will be determined to be offended. Eventually you have to shrug and move on. It still can't be compared to racism. Honestly, if someone takes it as that kind of offense, then I would have to wonder about them.

 

The point is that its meaning has shifted over the years, to the point where it's really entirely inaccurate. It's not that it's offensive, although I do think that insisting on calling someone something that they have objected to is pretty uncivil, but it's that it's inaccurate--it has BECOME inaccurate.

[Carol in Cal.]

This:

 

 

 

It is correct and it is accurate. It is not specific and for good reason. I'm not going to list the 27k groups out of 33k, etc. For simplicity's sake, Protestant is the the correct and accurate term. Those few and rare exceptions know who they are and know they are not being referred to. It's really not that difficult to comprehend.

 

Church history should be brought up.

 

But what does the term imply? Does it imply, as is often alleged, lack of familiarity with church history? If so, it's inaccurate. Does it imply, as is often alleged, lack of belief in infant baptism? If so, it's inaccurate. Does it imply, as is often alleged, lack of the Real Presence in Holy Communion? If so, it's inaccurate. Does it imply, as is often alleged, Solo Scriptura? If so, it's inaccurate. Does it imply, as is often alleged, lack of historical liturgical worship and the church year? If so, it's inaccurate. Does it imply, as is often alleged, rejection of all tradition? If so, it's inaccurate. Does it imply, as is often alleged, an eagerness to divide? If so, it's inaccurate.

 

It's not necessarily a pejorative term, although some here are clearly using it that way, but it's a pretty non-descriptive and useless one.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Carol in Cal.

[mommaduck]

I never said that the definition of Protestant includes "lack of knowledge of church history". You are alleging that. Protestantism is a general term. You know that. Again, I'm not going to sit and list the hundreds or thousands of individual churches it applies to in THIS discussion.

 

Since we want to leave out proper terms and facts in order to paint a prettier picture, I'll bow out of this conversation now. I like to deal with reality, not wishful thinking.

 

I've been in so many different churches, even ones that weren't sola scriptura, and none of them would have had a problem with the term Protestant. They would have acknowledged it's accuracy. Personally, I think some here are protesting (pun not intended), simply because they feel the need to protest against anything and everything.

Edited July 15, 2011 by mommaduck

[Carol in Cal.]

I never said that the definition of Protestant includes "lack of knowledge of church history". You are alleging that. Protestantism is a general term. You know that. Again, I'm not going to sit and list the hundreds or thousands of individual churches it applies to in THIS discussion.

 

Since we want to leave out proper terms and facts in order to paint a prettier picture, I'll bow out of this conversation now. I like to deal with reality, not wishful thinking.

 

Many times, though, that argument is made by Roman Catholics--I believe that it was made on this thread. Frankly, it's insulting, as is an accusation of 'wanting to leave out proper terms and facts in order to paint a prettier picture.' There is no wishful thinking in my posts, except a wish to have a mutually respectful, civil, accurate discussion, if any.

[mommaduck]

Which we were trying to have. But instead people want to make a mountain out of a molehill. So you don't like the term Protestant. It's not offensive, it's accurate and correct. Certain people have CHOSEN to take it offensively. If it's not being done to paint a prettier picture, then perhaps it's being done to simply wreck the discussion.

 

I tell you what. Why don't YOU list ALL the groups that YOU want under "Protestant" and we'll go with YOUR personal definition. Then please give me a general term for the other groups that generally fall under "Protestant" (this is reminding me of Asta's "you" vs "you"). We'll use the Carol Dictionary.

 

 

I have to ask though, SPECIFICALLY, WHY do you have a problem with the term "Protestant"?(because it's sometimes said in a nasty tone by some people is not acceptable. Because it's a general term is not acceptable. Because you just don't like it is not acceptable. A REAL reason please).

Edited July 15, 2011 by mommaduck