Christian discussion: Everyone welcome, but please respect the intent of the thread

[Bluetiger]

I really like this blog a lot. This seems like the perfect week to share.

Why did Jesus die on the cross?

Thanks for sharing. I'll read it when I have some time in the evening.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

Ech, social justice interpretation of crucifixion. Formally interesting, but from mystical perspective really, really flat.

[MisterOJ]

Happy Easter, brothers and sisters.

He is risen!

[Bluetiger]

Happy Easter, brothers and sisters.

He is risen!

Thanks! Happy Easter for all of you ;)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Happy Easter!

[Fragile Bird]

Happy Easter!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Happy Palm Sunday to my Orthodox brethern!

[Arakan]

Happy Easter to all of you :).

Great thread btw and I have two questions, hopefully someone can answer them:

1) Church of England

Can someone "explain" the CoE to me? Officially they are counted under the Protestant Church brand but from my superficial view they "look" like Catholics, "smell" like Catholics, "tastes" like Catholics. at least they seem much closer to the RCC than to Lutherans or Calvinists. A form of how to properly classify them?

2) Orthodox Christians in America

Will there one day be a Orthodox Church of America "to unite them all"?

Myself I am Orthodox which is a bit of an "anomaly" as ethnic German but my mother is Lutheran which is funny because for the Orthodox Church that is like saying you belong to the church of the Flying Spagetthi Monster ;).

The could thing is, I always had 2x Christmas and Easter ;). Anyway I would consider myself more of a cultural Christ whereas theologically I am against the institution of church as a whole (well maybe that's also political ;) ) and while I very much believe in the "teachings" of Jesus, I am sceptical about any form of afterlife (not neccessarily God per se). Does this already make me an agnostic?

With regard to the problematic situation between the Orthodox and Catholic church. Yes there are theological differences, yes there political differences (supremacy of the pope) but at the end of the day I think this is mich more due to the conflicted history of those two confessions. many Orthodox (especially those living under Muslim rule for centuries) still feel "betrayed" by the Catholics. But the theological differences at the end of the day are so minor, abstract and technical in nature that pressumably 95-99% on both sides couldnt give a s***. Papal supremacy on the other hand is quite a problem ;).

[Ormond]

Someone from England could answer this more fully than I could, but the Church of England is sort of halfway between Protestantism and Catholicism. There are very "High" parts of the Church of England that are sometimes called "Anglo-Catholic" that have a worship style and theology very close to that of the Roman Catholic church in every way except acknowledging the Pope. There are other parts of the Church of England which are quite definitely Protestant in their theology.

You have something similar in the Episcopal Church in the United States -- some parishes are very "high" and include a lot of people who will insist they are more Catholic than Protestant, while many others are much more definitely Protestant in their atmosphere.

So Anglicans contain a rather broad range and include both more "Catholic" and more "Protestant" parishes.

[Baitac]

Happy Easter to all. I enjoyed a wonderful Seder dinner with Messianic Jewish friends on Good Friday. I very much feel sad that we have lost so much of our original Jewish traditions.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

Happy Easter to all. I enjoyed a wonderful Seder dinner with Messianic Jewish friends on Good Friday. I very much feel sad that we have lost so much of our original Jewish traditions.

What was the Seder like? I've never had the honor of being invited to one.

[Arakan]

Someone from England could answer this more fully than I could, but the Church of England is sort of halfway between Protestantism and Catholicism. There are very "High" parts of the Church of England that are sometimes called "Anglo-Catholic" that have a worship style and theology very close to that of the Roman Catholic church in every way except acknowledging the Pope. There are other parts of the Church of England which are quite definitely Protestant in their theology.

You have something similar in the Episcopal Church in the United States -- some parishes are very "high" and include a lot of people who will insist they are more Catholic than Protestant, while many others are much more definitely Protestant in their atmosphere.

So Anglicans contain a rather broad range and include both more "Catholic" and more "Protestant" parishes.

Thanks for the answer :).

I swear by God, to classify all those different branches of Christianity is a nightmare of a task ;).

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

Can someone "explain" the CoE to me? Officially they are counted under the Protestant Church brand but from my superficial view they "look" like Catholics, "smell" like Catholics, "tastes" like Catholics. at least they seem much closer to the RCC than to Lutherans or Calvinists. A form of how to properly classify them?

That probably depends whether you're talking about 'high church' which is closer to Catholicism or 'low church' which is closer to teaching of John Kalvin if I remember correctly. England schism was more political one than ideological one. They basically accepted every Christian accepting that king of England is a leader of Church. That's why both Catholics both strict Protestants were persecuted.

Will there one day be a Orthodox Church of America "to unite them all"?

Within Byzantium tradition or uniting all "east to Rome" traditions?

many Orthodox (especially those living under Muslim rule for centuries) still feel "betrayed" by the Catholics.

Ech, they'd never forget those 4th crusade. ;)

But then hey it was Eastern guys who even allowed Muslim conquest to happen. If they weren't squabbling among themselves they would crush Muslims before they leave Arabian Peninsula for good :P

But the theological differences at the end of the day are so minor, abstract and technical in nature that pressumably 95-99% on both sides couldnt give a s***. Papal supremacy on the other hand is quite a problem

I believe Filioque is much more important problem than power issues between Bishop of Rome and four other great patriarchs.

Probably easier to resolve, but much more important.

I enjoyed a wonderful Seder dinner with Messianic Jewish friends on Good Friday. I very much feel sad that we have lost so much of our original Jewish traditions

But if we hadn't lost them, we would have lost much more of our pagan traditions we manages to pull into christianity.

I swear by God, to classify all those different branches of Christianity is a nightmare of a task

Just ignore all branches that appears after 1200. It would be much easier ;)

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

That probably depends whether you're talking about 'high church' which is closer to Catholicism or 'low church' which is closer to teaching of John Kalvin if I remember correctly. England schism was more political one than ideological one. They basically accepted every Christian accepting that king of England is a leader of Church. That's why both Catholics both strict Protestants were persecuted.

According to Anglicans, the correct answer is apparently Zwingli. Since John Knox (and John Calvin guilty by loose association) was a sore point for the English monarchs (i.e. Elizabeth), the CoE looked more towards Zwinglianism over Calvinism. The anti-Calvinist perspective in some strands of the CoE were solidified as a result of the English Civil War and then the later Oxford Movement (i.e. the "we've always been Catholic" movement back towards the RC) of the 19th century.

[MisterOJ]

So, this week, I have felt led to invite a family to church.

They have a transgender son, who I wrote a bit about in the OP of this thread, and they are in the process of letting him live as a girl. We live in a small, rural town in southern Kentucky. It's not going to be easy for them to live here. They will face a lot of challenges and hardships. I'm not even sure if they are religious. But this week I felt the need to just let them know that if they want to go to church at some point, there is at least one church here that would welcome them in as brothers and sisters without judging their decisions.

Before I did that, though, I sat down and talked about it with my pastor. I knew he would be on board, but I just wanted to run it by him to make sure it was the right thing anyway. Talking to him put me more at ease, but then I started to second guess myself. Should I have just invited them without talking to my pastor first? What would you have done if you felt so led?

[Ormond]

So, this week, I have felt led to invite a family to church.

They have a transgender son, who I wrote a bit about in the OP of this thread, and they are in the process of letting him live as a girl. We live in a small, rural town in southern Kentucky. It's not going to be easy for them to live here. They will face a lot of challenges and hardships. I'm not even sure if they are religious. But this week I felt the need to just let them know that if they want to go to church at some point, there is at least one church here that would welcome them in as brothers and sisters without judging their decisions.

Before I did that, though, I sat down and talked about it with my pastor. I knew he would be on board, but I just wanted to run it by him to make sure it was the right thing anyway. Talking to him put me more at ease, but then I started to second guess myself. Should I have just invited them without talking to my pastor first? What would you have done if you felt so led?

I think it was wise to inform the pastor first, not to get "permission" from him to invite the family, but to give him a heads up so that he can be prepared to help educate the congregation about the relevant issues and head off any possible backlash.

[Baitac]

What was the Seder like? I've never had the honor of being invited to one.

Yikes! I missed this, Philip. Sorry! I very much enjoy the celebration of Passover with a Seder dinner. There's a written program that is followed with readings that remind us of the difficulties suffered by Hebrew slaves and their deliverance from their Egyptian rulers by God. Certain foods are eaten at certain points during the program. Only unleavened bread is eaten. Because these friends are Messianic, there are readings about Yeshua as well. All of the food is delicious. :)

[Elder Sister]

I think it was wise to inform the pastor first, not to get "permission" from him to invite the family, but to give him a heads up so that he can be prepared to help educate the congregation about the relevant issues and head off any possible backlash.

As usual, I totally agree with Ormond. :)

I get so comfortable at church sometimes that I have a tendency to forget that it's not comfortable for everyone else; that when new people come, my first job is to make them feel welcome and let them know we're glad they're visiting without freaking them out. I've been to churches before where not a single person spoke to me, including the greeters at the front door. I don't ever want to be that person.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

Yikes! I missed this, Philip. Sorry! I very much enjoy the celebration of Passover with a Seder dinner. There's a written program that is followed with readings that remind us of the difficulties suffered by Hebrew slaves and their deliverance from their Egyptian rulers by God. Certain foods are eaten at certain points during the program. Only unleavened bread is eaten. Because these friends are Messianic, there are readings about Yeshua as well. All of the food is delicious. :)

No worries. Since I posted this my parish did a Seder with a Reform Rabbi. I didn't get a chance to go but I think it was interesting.

[MisterOJ]

I get so comfortable at church sometimes that I have a tendency to forget that it's not comfortable for everyone else; that when new people come, my first job is to make them feel welcome and let them know we're glad they're visiting without freaking them out. I've been to churches before where not a single person spoke to me, including the greeters at the front door. I don't ever want to be that person.

I think there is a line that you sort of have to walk in that regard, though. Years back, before kids, my wife and I were looking for a church where we could both be comfortable, we went to one where we felt like we got overwhelmed with people coming up to welcome us. This made us feel much more uncomfortable than if we'd just been allowed to quietly sit in the back, take in the service and decide whether we liked it or not. Unsurprisingly, we never went back there.