Christian tropers, join together!

A probably untrue story I heard in Catholic school: St. Ignatius of Loyola (who incidentally is my namesake) was travelling in Spain, shortly after giving up being a soldier in favor of the priestly life. As he was riding along, he saw another man in front of him. Loyola rode up to him, and they began having a theological discussion while riding along. The stranger, during the conversation, insinuated that the Virgin Mary didn't remain a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. Loyola—who, keep in mind, was a rather badass former military commander—was extremely angered by this, and decided that he was going to leave it as a decision up to God: there was a fork in the road coming up, and if Loyola's horse took the same path as the stranger's, Loyola would kill him. Luckily for all parties involved, the horse took the other path.

I was told this story in 9th grade religion class both because it's a neat illustration of the whole "theistic determinism mixed with free will" thing Jesuits believe, and becuase it's a rather unsubtle warning that a lot of Catholics get very pissed off when the subject of Mary's virginity is raised. Me personally? I don't care. Stories like this are one of the main reasons I'm no longer Catholic. After all, why would you ascribe God's will to a horse?

This had very little to do with the subject at hand.

I heard much the same story when I was in Catholic School.

I've heard the mustard seed sermons a couple of times too. It's about how the the miracles Jesus did are supposed to represent what He can do for you, right?

Nah, this time it was meant to represent the kingdom of God. One little bit of faith can grow to have enormous effects, thus building the kingdom and the like.

This sort of thing is pretty nifty elsewhere, too. If you band enough people together, you can accomplish a lot.

Ah. I'll keep that in mind.

... But still, there's a point to be made of the fact that they have to be so angry about it. Just sayin'.

Also, what's with the whole Pope thing again? In my world history class we talked about the starting of the church and stuff because it's a big part of Europe's history, but.... Am I the only one who finds it a bit arrogant that popes consider themselves a higher authority than God's word? Specifically, I'm referring to Wycliff and... that other guy who's name eludes me, who were saying that the bible and Jesus were above the papacy and got killed for it.

Present and correct as a Christian Troper. Specifically, I am a Methodist. For many reasons which would take a long time to describe, but one of those reasons is that John Wesley was freakin' awesome. I always enjoy this anectode:
Wesley was confronted in a narrow passageway by a pompous theologian who was in fierce opposition to Wesley's preaching.
"Step aside, fellow!", said the man, "I never make way for fools!"
"Oh!", replied Wesley, stepping aside - "I always do!"

Incidentally, speaking of St. Ignatius of Loyola, I sometimes find it useful to take his 'self examination' approach to prayer. No idea what anyone else thinks about it.

And on the subject of The Pope - I accept his authority no more than I would accept the authority of any leader of any denomination of the church, from the Archbishop of Canterbury through to the Methodist President of Conference. Nor indeed do I believe him to carry any more authority than any other learned theologian. I like to consider all theological perspectives in balance if at all possible, though of course personal experience and preference means I tend to ignore the fundementalist viewpoint, whether this is a good thing or not I leave for my fellow Christians (and God, of course) to judge.

Who is Wesley, if you don't mind my asking?

@Anonym: I see. I guess the whole "mustard seed" metaphor can be used for a lot of different Biblical allusions.

John Wesley was the founder of the Methodist Church, along with his brother Charles, the famous hymn writer. They tried to revive a stale and stagnant Anglican Church by preaching a 'social gospel', focussing on taking Christ's message to the people, rather than having the people sit in church on a Sunday and spend the rest of the week spending their wages on beer and gambling so that they could not feed their families. He was, in the strictest sense of the word, an Evangelist.

To sum up from Wikipedia: "Methodism insists that personal salvation always implies Christian mission and service to the world. Scriptural holiness entails more than personal piety; love of God is always linked with love of neighbors and a passion for justice and renewal in the life of the world."

edited 6th Feb '11 5:22:47 PM by Saeglopur

Cool! My church (if you could still call it that) is non-denominational, but that pretty much sums up their philosophy. I like the whole concept of making it one's business to go out and do good in the world in God's name rather than just going through the ceremonial motions.

Likewise. Don't get me wrong though, I'm a huge fan of certain elements of Anglican liturgy, such as Sung Eucharist and the general choral tradition. But I could not become an Anglican, firstly because the of the pointless division within the church, which just fills me with a deep sadness, and secondly because of the institutionalisation of the church, wherein 'tradition' becomes a permanent, immovable force that was, is and always will be. The Methodist Church has its flaws, sure, but it allows for any and all expressions of faith and worship, from high church sacramental theology accompanied by hymns and choirs, right down to evangelical hand-raising and worship songs. What can be more radically Christian than that sort of inclusivity?

Incidentally, speaking of St. Ignatius of Loyola, I sometimes find it useful to take his 'self examination' approach to prayer. No idea what anyone else thinks about it.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot in Catholicism (specifically Jesuit Catholicism, though that may just be because it's the specific strain I've been most exposed to) that I like. The spiritual exercises and the meditative aspects of prayer are one, liberation theology is another, and though I may have ragged a bit on the Catholic church's idea of free will in my earlier post it holds a lot of attraction for me. It's just that a lot of overarching and fundamental ideas (original sin, redemption through faith) in Catholicism—and Christianity as a whole, though granted I'm not super familiar with other strains of it—are things I can't bring myself to believe in, and so I can't very well call myself any sort of Christian.

Actually maybe since I'm not a Christian I shouldn't be posting in the Christian thread. It's just that I really enjoy talking about this stuff.

Actually maybe since I'm not a Christian I shouldn't be posting in the Christian thread. It's just that I really enjoy talking about this stuff.

I may not be the OP but I'm perfectly happy for you to stick around - sometimes it's more interesting to discuss Christianity with non-Christians who know what they're talking about than Christians who... err, well, don't. There's nothing more frustrating than trying to talk to a fellow Christian with whom you disagree, when they're not able to elaborate on the reasoning and theology behind their arguments.

And obviously, I agree that Catholicism still has a lot to offer to the non-Catholic (attitudes to Prayer and the 'Communion of Saints', a more disciplined approach to living faithfully), but on the flipside there are many points (mainly concerning Women in Ministry, the position of the Virgin Mary and the Pope) with which I just cannot agree.

edited 6th Feb '11 6:16:48 PM by Saeglopur

Have you heard of Roman Catholic Womenpriests? It's a group of ordained female priests who, despite being excommunicated by the church, still identify as Roman Catholic and do all the duties of priests. It's a really fascinating organization.

It probably says something about my views om the church that all of my favorite Catholic groups are those that were repudiated and/or excommunicated by the Vatican.

Christian theist reporting for duty!

Oh, now it's a party!

~High fives new arrivals~

WOOHOO! We turn no one away!

For want of a better term, Non-denominational Christian bordering heavily on Deist here. *High fives*

Growing up, I was part of an Evangelical denomination called the Worldwide Church of God. Attending services on Saturday when most people go to church on Sunday, as well as not having an actual church, usually attending services at a school or small theater, has cultivated a few of my near-deist views on religion.

~highfives back~

Yo. Non-denominational here. Been attending the Calvary church for awhile. My college has a Bible Club which meets this Wednesday.

~highfives everyone~

Oh hey, I didn't know this was here. Roman catholic, identifying with the Oblates of Mary Immaculate.

What are Oblates?

Googles

"Originally established to revive the Church after the French Revolution, the religious order now serves in various countries around the world."

Yup, that's us. A nice quote from our founder that I like:

"I have no use for smouldering wicks! Give light and give warmth, or get out!"

edited 7th Feb '11 5:35:03 PM by LoniJay

I have a question.

Yes, it's a serious question. It's not an attack. I wish to understand my mate's faith better so we'll fight less about it (she's very vague and doesn't like to talk about it because having them questioned frustrates her).

Why is it the belief in Jesus that's important, rather than doing good things? Don't you find this very arbitrary?

For instance, I'm basially the definition of Chaotic Good. I do what's right whenever possible. I'd never hurt someone unless they attacked me first, and even then I'd try my hardest to incapacitate rather than severely damage. I devote a large amount of time and effort to improving my community, the lives of everyone I know, and the world in general. Why is it that a Christian who slouches around all day, pollutes, and doesn't do anything worthwhile is permitted to Heaven and I'm not?

@Diamoness: There are some who might actually debate that you would be allowed into heaven. Anyway, from what I've learned it seems that the belief is that the only thing capable of purifying sin if the sacrifice that Jesus made, and that nothing else we do will have an effect on the state of our soul. It's also been said that a Christian who claims to follow Jesus but doesn't even attempt to follow His teachings will still go to hell, though that's debatable.

Also, keep in mind that this is coming from an agnostic who admittedly doesn't know that much on the subject.

Its not a matter of doing enough good deeds in contrast to bad ones. Everyone sins, everyone commits evil acts to a degree. Nobody is perfect and no amount of do gooding(?) will make us perfect. Jesus allows us to go around that. Accepting forgiveness for our sins makes them null and void to God, saving us and bringing us back to Him.

My best metaphor would be that by sinning you fell off a cliff. Its a hard climb back up and all the good deeds you do could be climbing in the right direction, but there is that one spot you can't get up. Its too far to reach, all your good deeds amount to nothing if you can't get up the cliff and just end up falling back down. Then Jesus comes from above and offers you His hand. All yo have to do is grasp His hand to get lifted to safety.

Catholic here.

Edit: Also, question for Catholics, if any are here: Why do you worship the virgin Mary if she had kids after she gave birth to Jesus.

We don't worship her, we ask her to be a bit more eloquent to the big guy on our behalf than we can be ourselves. And IIRC the Catholic Church interprets the "brothers and sisters" passage as other miscellaneous familial relations. Not that I see why it particularly matters.

Why is it the belief in Jesus that's important, rather than doing good things? Don't you find this very arbitrary?

They both are important, just that while doing good things is kind of a symptom of the kind of people Heaven is looking for, the actual loyalty is...well, the actual loyalty. The way I see it though, especially with the kind of alienating dickishness various Churches have been putting out over the last 2000 years, I'd be surprised if He didn't make a personal appearance to good people who have been turned away by idiots, and I'd also be surprised if such a meeting didn't feel like those people knew Him a lot better than they thought they did.

edited 7th Feb '11 9:07:16 PM by Pykrete