UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (61) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: RxCPhT Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 308853  
Subject: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 5:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Jewish
Christian
Catholic
Muslim
Other (not enough option to post every religion)

Click here to see results so far.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eachna Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94365 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 6:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Catholic *married* to Jewish :).

non-practicing as either, as a household (except the holidays that affect kids the most). My husband and I do our own individual things, but, it's mostly the family gatherings that my son interacts in.

Gwen


Print the post Back To Top
Author: zskii Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94368 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 6:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Hmm...last I checked, Catholics were Christians.

-z (wondering which box to check....) 8->

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NickofTimeFool One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94372 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 6:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I don't think I have used any Yiddish in any of my posts....yet! But even though I am an atheist, I DO live in New York City. Feh.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wolfshead56 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94374 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 7:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Retired Catholic. Spent time as a Druid. Now just plain old heathen according to my ex. May give the old Norse gods a try tho.

Wolfshead

Print the post Back To Top
Author: UKJess Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94379 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 7:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3

I'm Catholic and deeply resent the implication that means I'm not a Christian.

Humph!

Jess - who realises it probably wasn't intended but still doesn't like it

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RxCPhT Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94381 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 7:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Sorry to Catholic posters. I never meant to offend anyone :).

The Catholists I have ever known donot consider themselves Christians.
That is why I posted as I did.

RxCPhT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wolfshead56 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94383 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 7:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
A matter of semantics here. When you ask a Catholic their religion you are most likely to hear Catholic. On the other hand when you ask one of the Protestant denominations their religion you are as likely to hear Christian as you are Baptist, Lutheran, etc. Don't think any offence meant. Catholics usually consider themselves a breed apart, at least the ones I used to asscoiate with did.

Wolfshead

Print the post Back To Top
Author: UKJess Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94384 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 7:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

But when asked their religion from a choice which includes Judaism and Islam, all Catholics I know would unhesitatingly say Christian.

Jess

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dianakalt Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94388 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 7:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The Catholists I have ever known donot consider themselves Christians.
That is why I posted as I did.


What kind of messed up Catholics are you hangin' around with?

Actually, I am not surprised that some people get a little confused by this, especially people who might not be familiar with Christian denominations.

d

Print the post Back To Top
Author: nparsn Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94390 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 8:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Although I believe very much in God, I don't follow an organized religion. DF on the other hand is an (albeit often non-praticing) Catholic. So is his family and many of my friends (growing up where I did, plus 6 years of Catholic school...)

Anyway, EVERY SINGLE Catholic I know considers themselves to be first and foremost a Christian.

nparsn

PS: does anyone know how strict the rules are nowadays as to a "non-believer" marrying in a Catholic church? I've heard conflicting opinions, some people say I have to convert, others say I just have to sign a paper saying offspring will be raised in the faith.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: estermae Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94392 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 8:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Hey RxCPhT,


I noticed the Catholic - Christian blooper but realized you probably meant Catholic - Protestant and made vote accordingly.

Ester
(always reading between the lines)



Print the post Back To Top
Author: UKJess Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94400 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 8:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
PS: does anyone know how strict the rules are nowadays as to a "non-believer" marrying in a Catholic church? I've heard conflicting opinions, some people say I have to convert, others say I just have to sign a paper saying offspring will be raised in the faith.

No, of course you don't have to convert - hasn't been that way for donkey's years. You won't get the full Nuptual Mass (at least not in the UK) but of course you can marry in the church.

Nowadays I think you only have to promise not to obstruct the catholicism of your new family but I could be wrong about that.

Jess

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Allisonh2 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94401 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 8:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm Catholic but also considered to be a Christian. However, when growing up I was confused with that issue. After all there are Christian churches along with Methodist, Luthern, Presbyterian, etc. so used to think Christian is a separate religion by itself. hope this makes sense!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eachna Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94405 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 9:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't know the technical answer. Hopefully another can provide that.

The practical answer is..."It depends, depending on your parish or lack thereof". In the end, priests have more leeway than they might give an idication of, depending on the situation at hand. There are certain basic standards they like to implement, for good reasons (Pre-Caana, for example, is used to get couples communicating on their feelings and future goals), but, they have been known to waive those standards based on their relationship with individual parish members. If you walk up to any priest that's not "your" priest (or DF's priest), and ask to bend the rule, and it's probably not going to happen.

When my husband and I were planning to marry (I'm Catholic, he's Jewish), we couldn't find a priest who would perform a ceremony to our satisfaction. We were told the best we could do was go through all those weeks of Pre-Caana and while DH wouldn't have to technically convert, it would be close enough. At this time, I didn't have a "regular" parish.

After we were married and had our son, we bought a house and settled in. Then, I joined my local parish. When filling out the paperwork for our son's baptism, my priest learned in passing that we were married by civil ceremony. He offered to perform a small private ceremony for us, no counselling or strict requirements on my husband's part needed, just scheduling a time to return to the rectory. The impression we were given was that it would be a Catholic version of a Vegas wedding. Just walk in, recite the vows, sign the papers, walk out. My husband wasn't comfortable with this, but, I think the offer was made because we were *already* "legally" married with a child, and it was an attempt to draw my husband into the parish to keep both of us active.

I have since lapsed again from the Church, no small part of it because I find the 'work' of being active in the parish more effort than it's worth when I don't have spousal support, so I worship at home as I choose which is more comfortable for everyone around.

Gwen





Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wolfshead56 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94413 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/13/2001 11:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Anyway, EVERY SINGLE Catholic I know considers themselves to be first and foremost a Christian.

I don't think he/she meant they don't think of themselves as Christian, it's that they don't usually use Christian in refering to themselves. Depends on how you would phrase the question. If you ask a Catholic if he is a Christian you will undoubtedly get a yes as a reply. If you ask a Catholic what religion he is will bet that 95% of the time or better you will get Catholic. Let's not get all hot and bothered over the seantics of it.

As for the marriage aspect, think you have to guarantee the children will be brought up as catholic, no conversion necessary. Don't even know if the children part is still in effect. I went Lutheran the only time I dipped my toes in the water.

Wolfshead

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2gifts Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94474 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/14/2001 8:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
does anyone know how strict the rules are nowadays as to a "non-believer" marrying in a Catholic church? I've heard conflicting opinions, some people say I have to convert, others say I just have to sign a paper saying offspring will be raised in the faith.

Neither. You do have to get permission from the Bishop if you want to have a full Mass, and you have to take the pre-Cana instructions, but you have to take those classes because you're getting married and it wouldn't matter if you were both Catholic or not. And it is the Catholic that signs a paper saying the children will be brought up to be Christian.

If you're unsure, you should be asking the priest these questions as he's the only one with the answers. The conflicting opinions you are getting are most likely from folks who have not had to go through it and have no idea how it really works.

I'm Catholic and am married to a non-Catholic, and the rules have not changed much in the past 18 years we've been married.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: nparsn Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94482 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/14/2001 9:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thanks to UKJess, eachna, Wolfshead56, and 2gifts for your replies. From what I gather now, it depends and I should really ask the priest. The thing is, if we were to have the traditional church wedding, it would be in DF's country (which is very Catholic) because his whole family and notably his mother is there (it is important to her, and besides I seriously doubt they would all be willing to come here), which complicates things a little bit for the moment. Anyway, I still have a little time to think about all of this.

Thanks again,

nparsn
realizing she has gone off on a huge tangent for the Credit Card board...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lessob Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94491 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/15/2001 12:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
67 votes and I'm the only Muslim? I know there are others out there! Come on! Don't be ashamed!

-Lessob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kilbia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94501 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/15/2001 9:30 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Eclectic pagan, with more emphasis on "eclectic". My beliefs make sense to me, and I don't expect them to make sense to anyone else. They don't need to; that's what your beliefs are for. =)

But really, I don't think religion is going to have a lick to do with this. English has *always* been a language of borrowed words. No other word means quite the same thing as "chutzpah". So if that is the best word to use in the situation, by gum, I'm gonna use it! =)

- Kilbia

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mangard Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94552 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/15/2001 2:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I can second Gwen about the local parish making the decisions. Now I converted to Catholicism when I decided to marry the current DH. BUT, the parish minister was very considerate and I registered for all my paperwork with my DH's address (and we weren't living together-he was in France and I was in US) and he let us slide on a few things.

Another couple I knew couldn't get married to save their life by a priest here in the US becuase they were not members of a local parish at all.

Above all I think it is important for the Catholic half to go to a local parish, be active, get to know the priest, go to confession etc..., then after several months of being a participatory member you should ask the priest what he will and won't do. If he recognizes that the Catholic one was participating they are much more flexible. I have heard this is true for all most all Christian churches.

Mangard

Print the post Back To Top
Author: GraySkip Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94621 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/15/2001 5:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I am curious as to why you have seperated Catholic from the Christian
catagory. By definition a Catholic is a Christian just as a Lutherian
is a Christian.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: EditorialWe Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94629 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/15/2001 6:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Further to the whole Christian/Catholic semantics issue, there is also a neat little semantic game that is played by certain stripes of Christians, usually of the evangelical/fundamentalist bent. Easy to miss if you don't know how to spot it. By referring to themselves as "Christians" rather than as "[insert specific denomination here]", they covertly imply that all the other denominations *aren't* Christians.

For instance:

"As a Christian, I believe that Harry Potter and Pokemon are damaging to children because they teach Satanism."

"As a Christian, I don't drink alcohol or engage in mixed-sex dancing."

"As a Christian, I believe that every word in the Bible is literally true."

Now, someone not sophisticated about doctrinal differences between denominations of Christianity might well take these statements at face value, not realizing that "Christian" is being used in a very particular, manipulative sense to mean "My sect, which is the only true Christianity."

Now replace "As a Christian...", above, with "As a Muslim..." and you will see that these kinds of semantic games can be very dangerous indeed, especially when played on people who don't understand the diversity within a given religious tradition.

EditorialWe

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2gifts Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94646 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/15/2001 7:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Another couple I knew couldn't get married to save their life by a priest here in the US becuase they were not members of a local parish at all.


This is fairly common and always confuses me. Why, if the person or persons in the couple who is Catholic but doesn't practice, is it so important for them to get married in a Catholic church? And why, then, are they so surprised that a priest won't marry them since they're not practicing their religion anyhow? To me, this type of situation tends to just be someone who wants a 'real church wedding' but isn't the slightest bit interested in practicing their religion. So I can see why a priest would not marry them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: kehoy2k One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94651 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/15/2001 8:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So how can a holy man (ordained by God) refuse to consumate a relationship ???? MY way or No Way says the seggate.So live in sin ,"my children" ???? No! I will Not unite you in the eyes of God !!!!

Read the message-forgive the spelling>
Ps. God'll Do IT !!!
KNDT, ox (mazel tov) from a So.Baptist.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: joycets Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94669 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/15/2001 10:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I've always wondered why Catholic was distinguished from Christian......

reminds me of the case of a
friend who, when asked to fill out "Religion" for tne Navy he had a choice of Catholic, Protestant or Jewish
(this was the 60's..) And he said, but I'm Buddhist. they didn't have that category. He said, "I protest!"
OK.. Protestant...

next.......


joycets

Print the post Back To Top
Author: joycets Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94670 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/15/2001 10:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
but there are those who theorize my ancestors *could* have been Italian jewish.......

joycets

Print the post Back To Top
Author: joycets Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94671 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/15/2001 10:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Another thought on this.....
my sister said that "Baptist" considered themselves to be something different from "protestant". Or something.

But she left that bunch to become Lutheran. (I think its partially the Bach, as well as the preacher of her particular Baptist church was a loonie).
joycets

Print the post Back To Top
Author: joycets Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94672 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/15/2001 11:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
does anyone know how strict the rules are nowadays as to a "non-believer" marrying in a Catholic church? I've heard conflicting opinions, some people say I have to convert, others say I just have to sign a paper saying offspring will be raised in the faith.
Neither. You do have to get permission from the Bishop if you want to have a full Mass, and you have to take the pre-Cana instructions, but you have to take those classes because you're getting married and it wouldn't matter if you were both Catholic or not. And it is the Catholic that signs a paper saying the children will be brought up to be Christian.
If you're unsure, you should be asking the priest these questions as he's the only one with the answers. The conflicting opinions you are getting are most likely from folks who have not had to go through it and have no idea how it really works.
I'm Catholic and am married to a non-Catholic, and the rules have not changed much in the past 18 years we've been married.


hm, Didn't work quite like that with me in 1977. Was a full mass, though not at a parish (as I didn't really have one that knew me since college).But we were married by a Jesuit I knew and know well.
We used a bagel for the sacred host. (really). I think the wine was Blue Nun. (really). I was married in the same hospital I was born in--a nice chapel (mom used to work there). A nephew was nursing at breast at the wedding. It was all very interesting. We're still married. Priest got married shortly afterward but I didn't know till much later.

joycets

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: joycets Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94673 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/15/2001 11:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"As a Christian, I don't drink alcohol or engage in mixed-sex dancing."

Gee. As a Catholic we had beer at our oktoberfest last weekend.

joycets

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wolfshead56 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94703 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/16/2001 9:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
One part of the situation seems to be, "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic," Catholics rarely change denominations and when they do it is usually looked upon as a major change. Evewn when they aren't practicing or attend other services they rarely change affiliation. Had a Lutheran pastor once tell me taht 25% of the attendees at his church on Sun were Catholic but none of them joined the church formally. Must be the guilt thing.

On the other hand I find that most mainstream Protestant sects see very little problem in changing denomination. Know a number of people who have "switched" churches at least once and many twice. In fact once read an author who said you could follow a Protestant's social rise by their progression through the denominations. Seems he felt there was a social heirarchy among the denominations tho I forget the rankings. I have a feeling this is probably because of the lack of major ritual among most groups. One can feel comfortable moving amongst the different sects while a Catholic, raised with all the heavy rituals, feels uncomfortable when they are missing. Also although there are mainstream labels for Protestant denominations most churches within the group are fairly autonomous and self administered in a loose confederation while the Catholic church is an autonomous structure with a central administration. Just a theory of mine.

Wolfshead

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wolfshead56 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94705 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/16/2001 9:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I was educated by the Christian Brothers. You know, the ones with their name on the wine and brandy bottles. One did tell me that I was causing my driver's ed instructor to put a strain on their allotment from headquarters at the time.

Wolfshead

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DollarIQ Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94746 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/16/2001 12:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I've been following this thread with extreme interest, though mostly out of ignorance. For reference, I voted "other" which really means I was technically raised agnostic/atheist, or maybe just raised in a secular household. In simple terms, this means that I'm mostly ignorant about the subtleties between the various Christian sects even though I've heard of them in general.

Can you folks explain to me what exactly does "non-denominational" mean in Christian sects? I'm also curious what "reform," "evangelical," and "fundamentalist," mean. I've always been extremely vague what people have meant by these terms; I gather over time that I've misunderstood the meanings. The dictionary doesn't really quite clear it up for me.

Thanks for your help, $IQ
Clueless and curious

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DollarIQ Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94748 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/16/2001 12:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Can you folks explain to me what exactly does "non-denominational" mean in Christian sects? I'm also curious what "reform," "evangelical," and "fundamentalist," mean. I've always been extremely vague what people have meant by these terms; I gather over time that I've misunderstood the meanings. The dictionary doesn't really quite clear it up for me.

I forgot to add: "born again." This one puzzles me.

Thanks again, $IQ
Also curious what the difference is between Baptists, Episcopaleans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc., but imagines that will open a much wider and longer debate and I still don't really know what the core difference is between a Catholic and a "Christian" (Protestant) is, other than the schism in England some 500 years ago.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ydonaldson Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94774 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/16/2001 3:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I can't answer all questions, only a few. I guess you can say I also grew up in a secular household (well, we didn't go to church) and that changed when I was 16, so I am somewhat new to it all myself. I really don't know the difference in all the denominations except that the differences are subtle and really deal more with procedure than beliefs (that's my understanding anyway, correct me if I'm wrong). I actually consider myself non-denominational/"only a Christian" because I don't want to be a part of the denomination thing. I saw a message board about the reformed faith at Christian Fools but haven't read it http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=15914811

Born again is when a person realizes that he/she is a sinner, repents, confesses Jesus as their Lord and Savior and turns his/her life over to God (and is baptized). It is as if you have confessed your sins to God and they are washed away. The old you has died and a new you has been "born" - Romans 6:4 (actually all of Romans 6 and many other scriptures).

I hope this helps. There is a lot of information on the internet as well, if you just do a search.

Take care!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ishtarastarte Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94778 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/16/2001 3:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I really don't know the difference in all the denominations except that the differences are subtle and really deal more with procedure than beliefs (that's my understanding anyway, correct me if I'm wrong).

Not entirely; many "procedures"/rituals are the same or similar enough over, there really are core belief differences between denominations. Some (fundamentalist sects) beleive in the Bible as TRUTH, others believe that it is allegory and open to interpretation. That's just one difference, there are others. Some believe that the priesthood is responsible for interpreting (with God's help) the Bible, others believe that every individual should be able to pick up the Bible and figure it out for themselves.

Just my experience,

Ishtar

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mangard Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94790 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/16/2001 4:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So I can see why a priest would not marry them.

I understood the concept too but at the time they were good friends and I couldn't tell them that to their face. Ironically, I was honest to them about how I felt later on and that is why we are no longer friends. I guess I was just pstponing the inevitable.

Mangard

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mangard Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94798 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/16/2001 4:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
So how can a holy man (ordained by God) refuse to consumate a relationship

It is simple really. It would be different if you were attending a local parish where the priest knows you. But, if it is a church you have never attended then the priest would like to see evidence that you really will participate in the said religion (thus giving your mariage in the eyes of God true meaning to that particular religion) .

Mariage in the eyes of God is easily done by you and your spouse praying in the woods together asking for God's blessing. don't need a cross, a bible, a ceremony, or a priest to do that. And God won't deny you.

the difference is that you are asking a priest, a representative of his church and the established practice of that religion, to ask God to bless your union. So you need to prove that you believe what that church believes and your proof of that is to be active in your parish or at least have a letter of recommendation from your local parish.

Priests are ordained by churches, establishments that represent God on this earth and act in accordance with God's laws. As far as I know God himself has not "ordained" anyone since he sent the holy spirit to visit the disciples.

Clear as mud and totally off topic.

Mangard

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mangard Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94805 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/16/2001 5:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Joycets,

Oh my god, I should have known you had had such a wedding.

Mangard

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mlk58 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94807 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/16/2001 5:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Mariage in the eyes of God is easily done by you and your spouse praying in the woods together asking for God's blessing. don't need a cross, a bible, a ceremony, or a priest to do that. And God won't deny you.

the difference is that you are asking a priest, a representative of his church and the established practice of that religion, to ask God to bless your union. So you need to prove that you believe what that church believes and your proof of that is to be active in your parish or at least have a letter of recommendation from your local parish.


I agree. I can't understand why people get so bent out of shape when they ask a church to perform a marriage for them (which is religious ritual that is subject to certain rules and regs), and the church "has the nerve" to expect them to comply with said rules and regs. What part of "my house, my rules" don't they understand?

mlk58
on-topic tip: when hiring wedding vendors, ask if they will give you a discount if you pay by cash instead of by credit card. worked great for me!



Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mangard Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94822 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/16/2001 6:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Me experience with "non-denominational" was in the Military as achild. It was a sanctuary, recognized as a house of God, but without ties to a specific denomination. In my case we went to a non-denominational Protestant service. This meant that the pastor was not going to distinguish between Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, etc.. he just tried to represent Protestant God without getting too controversial and meeting everyone's needs.

It should be noted that the catholics, muslims, buddhists, protestants all used the same house of worship on the military base. Especially in far off lands you don't get a choice between having your services performed by a Catholic priest or a Jewish rabbi. You get the guy who is assigned to the base to perform all religious services-no matter his personal affiliation. Big bases will have more choice.

They also have "non-denominational" services in the hospital where I work. They had this at my college as well. It means that they are trying to serve the broadest base of religious needs-funerals, mariages, prayer services, holidays, etc without trying to represent one religion.

Mangard

Print the post Back To Top
Author: nparsn Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94840 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/16/2001 7:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
This is fairly common and always confuses me. Why, if the person or persons in the couple who is Catholic but doesn't practice, is it so important for them to get married in a Catholic church? And why, then, are they so surprised that a priest won't marry them since they're not practicing their religion anyhow? To me, this type of situation tends to just be someone who wants a 'real church wedding' but isn't the slightest bit interested in practicing their religion. So I can see why a priest would not marry them.

2gifts,

I think there are times in peoples lives when they think they have more or less a need for God. I'm not saying that in reality we don't need God every second of our lives, but that's how human nature works.

My DF, who although (like me) believes in God very much, is one of those "Christmas/Easter" Catholics, tells me sometimes that its OK if we don't have the church wedding because considering my backround and the fact that he himself is not actively practicing, it wouldn't be significant.

However, I don't believe him for a second. I know he would be incredibly sad if he doesn't follow in his family's tradition, I know his family would be incredibly sad, and I think, and truly believe, that when the day comes that he will embrace God, he will regret not having received this sacrament even though he maybe didn't realize its full meaning at the time.

I imagine I may convert in the future, because I believe that with children, parents should stand a united front if and when possible. I feel close to this religion because I happened to attend Catholic school as a child and also CCD classes as a young adult. However, as a child, I also rejected my mother's newfound "religion" or sect or whatever you want to call it, and I want my future children to have some sort of spiritual stability as they grow up (compared to my own childhood). I still have issues to work out and that's why I don't want to convert right away for the wrong reasons.

So even though DF doesn't "practice his religion" in the strict sense, his religion is still a part of him and he knows it is there when he is ready for it. That's why "a real church wedding" is so important because both of us beleive in the sanctity of marriage and the spiritual responsability it entails to each other and to our future family...

I hope that answers your question a little bit...

nparsn

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mangard Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94846 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/16/2001 7:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Disclaimer: OT

This is where people get a riled up about Catholics. It is a strict religion with strict rules (compared to other mainstream religions in America). They believe the rules bring you closer to God.

I am NOT going to get into a debate but I can say wihtout a doubt that the Catholic church, including the Pope may seem outmoded or outdated to some people. Sure, some people may think that certain policies should change and/or modernize-like rules about marriage to non Catholics, practicing Catholics getting married in certain parishes, birth control, you name it.... but Catholic priests and the Pope believe they are sacrificing the integrity of the church by changing the rules without long and lengthy debate. See centuries not years. So they outline to us what the ideal should be...particpating in the Chrurch, not using birth control etc...That doesn't mean that we are not fallible and that we won't do the things the Church asks us not to do. The Church outlines its "policies" and you can NOT pick and choose them as we like sometimes. It is for the integrity of the church and helps explain why it is an enduring faith (2,000 yrs plus if you count their way). It doesn't mean that all their rules are fair or that certain ones do not seem "hypocritical" or "wrong" by today's standards.

This is direct propaganda from my conversion classes and whether you agree or not with them (I happen to agree) you cannot dispute that this is the way the Church feels and you can't ARGUE with their policy if you want to be a member of their group or want to celebrate their Mass.

Mangard

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mangard Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94848 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/16/2001 7:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
OT OT OT OT -just following this thread

I don't know about any other churches but I know WITHOUT A DOUBT that a Unitarian Universalist church will marry anybody. I mean anybody to another person regardless of religion and/or sexual orientation.

Do not want a religious debate!!!!

Just giving out information.

It is a church that believes in the right to believe in your own religion and supports your freedom to do so while providing spiritual guidance and a safe place of worship.

So, to all those out there trying to reconcile how to get married, while celebrating two or more religious beliefs, looking for a "church" wedding, inexpensive, check out the unitarian Universalist church in your area. Good advice from the pastor there is free and is an ordained minister, good for civil and religious mariages.

PS. nparsn there is one in France too!

Mangard
not an advertisement for membership to this church! I feel like a born again baptist all the sudden, weird.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: nparsn Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94903 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/17/2001 11:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
OT OT OT OT -just following this thread

So am I! but since the original post was OT, I don't feel bad.

So, to all those out there trying to reconcile how to get married, while celebrating two or more religious beliefs, looking for a "church" wedding, inexpensive, check out the unitarian Universalist church in your area. Good advice from the pastor there is free and is an ordained minister, good for civil and religious mariages.

PS. nparsn there is one in France too!


Interesting idea...

I for one, wouldn't mind, but I certainly know how my other half would feel about this. But to give him the benefit of the doubt (hmmmmm... maybe I DON'T know him as well as I think...let's just see...) I actually broached this subject last night.

"WHAT???? get married in a CHURCH that is NOT Catholic??? that's impossible...strange... the catholic church is like my HOME...you are asking me to leave my HOME?...where I know my way around...where I know how things work!... my family is in there!...where I feel safe, where I feel loved!! No WAY"


So it's all or nothing... what can I say. He'd rather stay a "bad Catholic" than not at all.

nparsn

There's a lot to be said for people who convert having more faith than those who've always been in the system...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wolfshead56 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94905 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/17/2001 11:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Nparsm

As I said earlier, Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

Definitely must be the guilt thing.

Wolfshead

Print the post Back To Top
Author: nparsn Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94911 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/17/2001 11:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Hehe :)

I guess there must be some ounce of truth to that :)

nparsn



Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mangard Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94928 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/17/2001 12:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

i am sorry my suggestion was not very helpful...

Some French people get a riled up about anything that is not Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim. Everything is a "cult" and it doesn't have the evil connotation that it has in the US. They use the word "sect" for very bad groups. But the idea is that a "cult" is anything that isn't mainstream Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim. Protestant are even a "cult" in France. seriously. sigh.

Good Luck and let me know how it turns out.

Mangard

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DollarIQ Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 94967 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/17/2001 5:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I can't answer all questions, only a few. I guess you can say I also grew up in a secular household (well, we didn't go to church) and that changed when I was 16, so I am somewhat new to it all myself. ...

ydonaldson, thanks much for the info. I appreciate it! Glad I'm not the only naivete on the topic. :)

Take care, $IQ

Print the post Back To Top
Author: maureenkaplan Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 95255 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/19/2001 3:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"So it's all or nothing... what can I say. He'd rather stay a "bad Catholic" than not at all."

LOL... I know *exactly* what he means. I spent 12 YEARS trying to not be Catholic (and trying to find another religion) - then got proposed to... and discovered I *needed* a Catholic wedding.

So, I guess I'm Catholic after all.

Most of the policies you don't have to believe in or follow to consider yourself Catholic, but you do still have to follow the rules, to show a willingness to make yourself part of the community. (BTW, got this straight from my priest/Uncle/DD of Divinity). So, all you have to believe to be Catholic is stated in the Apostle's Creed & Nicene Creed; the rest is on your concience. But, if you want to get married in the Catholic Church, you have to work around the rules. (Open pre-maritial sex without a legal marriage is a no-no, for instance; my DH and I lived together for a year before we talked to a priest - we had to jump through some hoops! However, if you don't have to go to reconciliation over it, and it's not obvious, you're okay...) If you find a good priest, one who's more interested in your spiritual well-being than in the letter of the law, you'll do alright.

Maureen

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eachna Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 95337 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/19/2001 10:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Some French people get a riled up about anything that is not Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim. Everything is a "cult" and it doesn't have the evil connotation that it has in the US. They use the word "sect" for very bad groups. But the idea is that a "cult" is anything that isn't mainstream Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim. Protestant are even a "cult"
in France. seriously. sigh.


Well, to point out, the French tried to SLAUGHTER their original Prodestants -- the Huegenots (looking at that, I'm probably spelling it wrong). And, as I understand it, the French have always had a strong dislike for any diversity outside their established culture. They'll accept any *people*, but, only if they're willing to be "French". The French attitude that Americans so often mock is that French culture is inviolate (which is pretty strange when you consider it, because France isn't made up of one culture, itself).

But, I've never heard "sect" used as a negative word. "Sect" is interchangable with "group" or "denomination". So, the statement, "there are different sects of Prodestants" *doesn't* mean "there's evil bloodthirsty baby-eating packs of Prodestants".

Also, to all those posters asking "Who are all these different churches and what do they MEAN???"

Here's what I know about the different groups that fall under the banner of "Christianity". Please read this understanding that I was born and raised Roman Catholic, so, that will color my perspective no matter *how* neutral I try to be. These are also just quick "thumbnail" descriptions.

There are actually several sects or denominations of High-Church followers. High church refers to groups who retain all the "trappings" and rituals that most people associate with Catholicism, and it's not really meant to put down other sorts of belief (but, it probably does anyway).

There are Roman Catholics. This is the group that every other group seem to have had its origins in "splitting off" from (when you trace far enough back). When you consider 2000 years of spiritual "history" and schism, it's not really surprising that the R.C. Church doesn't really "move forward" with the times. Anyone who was part of the establishment who might have "moved" already got up and *went*. All hail the Pope :).

There are the Orthodox churches (aka: the "Byzantine" church), who make Roman Catholics look like "lightweights" as far as mysticism and ritual. I think they split from the R.C church around 8 or 900 AD. They're dogmatically pretty close, but, they don't look to the Pope and I think some of their preists can marry (but not all of them). All hail incense.

There are non-Roman Catholics (those are groups that split off from the RC Church after the Byzantine split, but, aren't counted as Prodestants because they split before the Reformation or split afterwar the Reformation but kept most of the dogma, or, split before the Byzantine split and managed to hang on this long). All hail pure determination :).

Then, there's the Prodestants, who are *roughly* grouped into "Reformation" Prodestants (like Lutherans, Anglicans...and whowever John Calvin was responsible for -- Methodists?) and "Post Reformation" Prodestants...who are basically everyone who came afterwards who said the Reformation didn't go far enough. All hail diversity :).

THEN...there's evangelical groups, who, are the most 'cultist' (in the way we define these things) in origin. They're groups that sprung up around a charismatic leader or group of leaders who sent the followers out to proselytize ("spread the Word") Some "rejected" the established Christian groups of the time (such as the Fundamentalists) and some had someone come along who had a new angle on things (I think this is where the Jehovah's Witnesses came from). All hail *knock-knock* "Have you been saved?" :).


Gwen
(whose firmly aware that Christianity was an evangelical cult to begin with)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mangard Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 95519 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/22/2001 11:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Gwen,

That was a great post about the different groups!

Not to confuse the issue but...what I meant was that, literally, in French, the word "culte" -or cult in English are not the same thing. They use the term "culte" to mean everything, literally, not Roman Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim. So, Protestant, evangelicals, and Hindus are cults (in French). "Secte" in French is a term used to denominate a group that is extremely radical and possible dangerous.

When I first moved there and tried to explain which church I belonged to I would get all upset when they called my church a "culte". Until I figured out what that meant. Still slightly offensive if you ask me.

I figure that the word "occult" and "cult" are probably realted to a latin term-would be interesting to see what it means in Latin. Also, it would beinteresting to know how the French and English terms developed to have different meanings.

Mangard

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bibliotecaria Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 96114 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/26/2001 9:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
DollarIQ,

In going through this thread, I noted that no one really answered your question about definitions, so let me give it a try. Though I should add that my experience is not at all broad, but I do like to study things, and have tried to understand several of these items simply to answer questions about the history of my group. (I didn't realize for years that I was raised in a fundamentalist congregation because I never heard us apply the word to ourselves.)

Non-denominational - not linked to any particular church government. This is the one I am vaguest about; it may have other definitions in different contexts. Sometimes interdenominational is used, although that usually indicates a cooperative effort between several different church governmental groups. Non-den. can be used, however, by some groups to indicate that they are right because they refuse to assign themselves a name. E.g./ Calling oneself Lutheran rather than Christian encourages sectarianism, also known as denominationalism. (Since Jesus wanted unity for his church, this is considered a Bad Thing.) It is a part of the reason why some groups only refer to themselves as Christians, although that can also lead to unintended consequences (see the post by EditorialWe that comments on that.)

Reform - is a very general one and can be applied to a lot of groups. Simply put, any group that sees something wrong in its "parent" group, and wants to change things, but ends up separating from the "parent" group, ends up being called reformed. Some of them end up with that word in their official name.

Evangelical - goes back to the roots of Christianity. Ultimately, any Christian group is evangelical, because that means that they want people to convert to their religion in order to be saved. Some groups are called evangelical because they are far more active about going out and trying to convince people to come to them in order to learn more about them with the goal of being converted. Some are extremely fanatical and confrontational about it, to the detriment of Christianity as a whole.

Fundamentalist - means that you try to go back to the roots of Christianity. This takes several forms; the one with which I am most familiar is 1) no other text than the Bible (minus the Apocrypha of the Catholic Bible) is necessary; and 2) every word in the Bible is true (although not every word is literal). The most obvious conflict that comes out of this is the evolution/creation debate, wherein fundamentalists believe that the universe was created in six days, according to Genesis 1, and the evolutionists obviously disagree.

Here's hoping I've answered some questions. If anyone has anything to add, please do so, since I am also eager to add to my understanding of these words, and I am obviously speaking from the inside on some of them, which may limit my understanding.

bibliotecaria

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DollarIQ Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 96120 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/26/2001 10:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Here's hoping I've answered some questions. If anyone has anything to add, please do so, since I am also eager to add to my understanding of these words, and I am obviously speaking from the inside on some of them, which may limit my understanding.

bibliotecaria, thanks very much for your response! :) I appreciate all the responses to my questions and I understand that each reply is based on each individual's understanding. Your response is admittedly the most thorough though so I am particularly appreciative with the effort you made to provide some understanding of each term.

I actually am hoping to discuss some of these things with a couple of friends in the next couple of weeks and I'll keep your posted printed out and handy.

Best wishes, $IQ

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eachna Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 96258 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/28/2001 5:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Non-denominational - not linked to any particular church government. This is the one I am vaguest about; it may have other definitions in different contexts. Sometimes interdenominational is used, although that usually indicates a cooperative effort between several different church governmental groups. Non-den. can be used, however, by some groups to indicate that they are right because they refuse to assign themselves a name. E.g./ Calling oneself Lutheran rather than Christian encourages sectarianism, also known as denominationalism. (Since Jesus wanted unity for his church, this is considered a Bad Thing.) It is a part of the reason why some groups only refer to themselves as Christians, although that can also lead to unintended consequences (see the post by EditorialWe that comments on that.)

I can't explain non-denominational any better, except to point a group that is commonly known as a non-denominational. (Heh. A non-denominational denomination). The Unitarians. *VERY BASICALLY* Unitarians are people who says "There's a God. There's only one. Christ was God (if they're Christians) and God was Christ, and let's not get all caught up in this trinity nonsense. People are people and there's no 'us' and 'our soul'. We're all one package. God's all one package. Existence is all one package. Everyone is 'saved' as long as they follow their concience." The really cool thing (*I* think) about Unitarians is that they allow *anyone* to come worship in their church. You can walk in as a Pope-loving, Trinity-praying, Saint-following, Devil-concerned Roman Catholic, and as long as you don't pick fights with anyone, they accept you as a member of their community. They like it if you're Unitarian in outlook also, but, it's not a requirement. So, Unitarian churches are often used for multi-faith gatherings, military worship, etc. Jews, Buddhists, Moslems, anyone who is *basically* monotheistic in outlook, is welcome. Unitarians are sort of the opposite of (F)fundamentalists, because they avoid having one specific doctrine they follow.

Fundamentalist - means that you try to go back to the roots of Christianity. This takes several forms; the one with which I am most familiar is 1) no other text than the Bible (minus the Apocrypha of the Catholic Bible) is necessary; and 2) every word in the Bible is true (although not every word is literal). The most obvious conflict that comes out of this is the evolution/creation debate, wherein fundamentalists believe that the universe was created in six days, according to Genesis 1, and the evolutionists obviously disagree.

My contribution to this particular bit is that Fundamentalists are members of a specific proper Christian group. ie: the Fundamentalist church is a separate, named entity, just like Baptist or Methodist. The Fundamentalists take the Christian bible as 'gospel truth'. I have always heard that meant as literal truth...however, I haven't met any *other* Fundamentalists to ask.

"fundamentalist" (lower case f), is someone who seeks to return to the origins ('fundamentals') of the progenitors of their religious path. There are fundamentalist Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, etc. They are very concerned with 'creed' or 'doctrine' (a fixed set of religious "rules").

The 'negative' associations with either type is that they have reputations for intolerance against either other religions (in general), or, at least, other sects within their own faith. While the technical definition of fundamentalism may not include "intolerance to others"...either the common practice, or, at least the common *conception* of practice, is that's also part of the package.

Evangelical - goes back to the roots of Christianity. Ultimately, any Christian group is evangelical, because that means that they want people to convert to their religion in order to be saved. Some groups are called evangelical because they are far more active about going out and trying to convince people to come to them in order to learn more about them with the goal of being converted. Some are extremely fanatical and confrontational about it, to the detriment of Christianity as a whole.

Again, there's two meanings to the term. One is a techical definition, and one is a commonly-held association. (Or, maybe these associations aren't common except to me *grin*). Technically, evangelical churches are groups that proselytize to gain converts. Not every Christian group does (I've never heard of Quakers proselytizing), but, many or most do. But, the common definition is groups led by/look to a charismatic leader or promote themselves through charismatic practices. So, the big tent revival assemblies would be an example of an 'evangelical' group...with faith healings, alot of 'flash' and 'excitement', speaking in tongues, standing up and waving hands, things like that. This is difficult for me to express without sounding like I'm sneering, because it's the complete opposite of the Church I grew up in...which is an hour and a half of 'stand-sit-kneel'.

Gwen


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: eachna Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 96259 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/28/2001 5:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Not to confuse the issue but...what I meant was that, literally, in French, the word "culte" -or cult in English are not the same thing. They use the term "culte" to mean everything, literally, not Roman Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim. So, Protestant, evangelicals, and Hindus are cults (in French). "Secte" in French is a term used to denominate a group that is extremely radical and possible dangerous.


AHHH...Culte is like the proper meaning of "pagan", then, which is just someone who is not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim (and Christian *used* to be "Catholic", before all the splits and schisms and whatnot).

Pagan didn't start out as a word meaning "People we ought to kill for disagreeing with what we say Religious Truth is"...or "nature-worshiping Goddess-followers". It was just "Those rural hicks who don't follow a Really Big Monotheistic Religion."

Gwen


Print the post Back To Top
Author: eachna Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 96260 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/28/2001 6:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Also curious what the difference is between Baptists, Episcopaleans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc., but imagines that will open a much wider and longer debate and I still don't really know what the core difference is between a Catholic and a "Christian" (Protestant) is, other than the schism in England some 500 years ago.

OOOOH-kay.

The Reformation, lite: A bunch of people in different parts of Great Britain and Europe all sat down and decided that all the icky medieval corruption of the Roman Catholic church ought to be done away with. Bribes, indulgences, priests openly taking mistresses, vast accumulations of wealth/resources, etc. Different people (whose names you might recognize), such as John Calvin, Martin Luther, Henry the Eighth, etc, were individually responsible for inspiring different splits/schisms/whatnot in different areas. Then, members of these different movements all travelled around, chatted each other up, and mixed and matched the views of their originators, making for even *more* branches and splits. They all "Reformed" the Catholic Church their own way, forming what ammounted to "new" churches. Something each group tried to do was read over the bible of the time (editing it as needed) and go back to the 'fundamentals' as outlined by Scripture. What seperated the original Reformation groups is they all interpreted things just a *little* bit differently. The Reformation was during the 16th century.

THEN, members of all these different groups packed themselves onto boats (or, were packed on) and sailed to America. Once they got here, they squabbled among each other, argued doctrine and theology, formed communities near each other, and had a great deal of 'exchange'. So, being seperated from their "parent" churches in Europe...many of them started to drift and be influenced by the new values of their new country. Now, you have European Methodists, for example, and American Methodists...and while they had the same 'name', 'founder', and 'book'...their daily worship didn't necessarily "match" anymore.

During the 18th-19th centuries, America sort of had a mini-Reformation among a bunch of the Prodestant churches. Some people looked around and said "Hey, look, we don't worship like our parent church does, anymore. We ought to give ourselves a new name". Some looked around and said "Look, those people over there are having alot of fun and we think fun is bad -- let's go give them trouble". Others said "Look, those people over there are having alot of fun and we don't have enough, let's have some fun too, but, let's have different fun". Some said "Our parent church had alot going for it but, they didn't QUITE intepret what Christ wanted us to do in quite the right way". Some didn't like the way the technology and science of the times was progressing. Some thought mysticism and ritual was missing. Some thought it was a Good Idea (TM) to dance around with rattlesnakes to show their unwavering faith in God protecting them from Satan.

So, with all this reformation and "change"...to say "These are the different Prodestant Groups and What They Believe"...would take an encyclopedia on religion. Which, you can buy in any major bookstore...and has the added bonus of going over non-Christian faiths as well.

*whew*.

The core differences between Roman Catholics and Prodestants (as a very very very rough set of rules).

What Catholics are Keen on that Prodestants aren't:

1) Peter was appointed as the first Pope, and God's Representitive on Earth. Peter was the one who denied Christ 3 times before the cock crowed (which sort of helps weaken his position as chosen successor, but, he did have some other things going for him). The Bishop of Rome is the traditional "Pope". (which is what annoyed all the Byzantines I mentioned in another post. They wanted the Pope to be the Bishop of Alexandria. Eventually, they dumped the idea of a Pope, entirely).

2) Number of sacraments. A sacrament is...hmmm...a ritual that fills a person with God's "Grace". I don't know if Prodestants have quite the same definition of Grace as Catholics, but, I learned it as being filled with Divine love, and a person in a state of Grace is 'blemishless' (without sin at that moment). Catholics have seven sacraments (communion, baptism, confirmation, communion, marriage, ordination, pennance, extreme unction ("Last Rites")). Prodestants have less, varies by group, I think. I don't believe there's any that have more than five though, and I think most only have two.

3) Scripture. Roman Catholics have "extra" books/chapters in their bibles, commonly called the Apocrypha. These are books from the "Old Testament" that were rejected by the Prodestants but that the Catholics keep around :). To be honest, I have *no* clue why. This isn't something I ever studied.

4) Priests. I don't *think* any other Prodestant Church has priests. Basically, the Prodestants did what the Jews did and looked around and said "We don't have anyone around that's really fit to be a 'real' Priest -> a conduit from God to the community. We think we can talk to God on our own. But, we would like to recognize holy men who are teachers and leaders". They also looked around and said "Jesus's apostles were married. Priests used to be able to marry till someone came along and made it a rule that they couldn't. Priests fornicate left and right and are big hypocrites about it. We're going to let our guys get married if they want". Thus were born ministers. Some groups eventually said "We're going to let our WOMEN be ministers, too" (which caused all sorts of excitement).

5) Saints and the Crucifix. Catholics don't worship saints. Nor, do they worship the Cruxifix (which is a cross with a little representation of the Corpus -- Jesus), or bibles, or the Eucharist, or icons, or rosaries...or or or. What we Catholics say we do is "venerate" these images. It's love/awe/respect/humility all rolled into one, and they act as symbols to help us focus on the enormity of the concept that *is* God. Prodestants aren't buying that story *grin*, and just to be sure that *their* members don't start worshiping 'symbols', instead of God, directly, they prefer 'plainer/less ornamented' items. Some Prodestants say Saints weren't anything to get excited about, some say they were Really Nice People, some say they were conduits of Grace but, that doens't mean you need to be cluttering up your church with statues of them. You can kind of get an idea if a Prodestant denomination is keen on Saints if they name their churches after them.

6) Latin vs. Vulgate services. Before the Vatican II council, Catholic masses were in Latin. A big drive of the Reformation was holding religious services in the "vulgate"...or...common language of the area. Catholic churches said "We're all *Roman* Catholic. Latin was the language of Rome once this all got rolling. We're going to stick with it because it adds to the mystery and beauty and sacredness of the ceremony". Prodestant groups said "That's just silly. We want our flock to understand what our ministers are saying."

Those are the ones I can think of this late at night/early in the morning. Anyone else who knows of other differences, feel free to add them.

I have to say, this is one of the most amiable and pleasant religious discussions I've been in, online, in a *long* time.

Gwen
(who functions in a happy medium between scientific and spiritual concepts).

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: joycets Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 96296 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/28/2001 7:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Gwen this is
a really cool posting of yours.

so glad I figured out how to check "unthreaded" or I'd never have foound it.

by the way..
unitarian churches seem to have a real affinity for folk music / singer songwriter events. At least in Austin.

joycets

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eachna Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 96304 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/29/2001 12:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thanks, I'm really enjoying reading (and writing) about all the different views. :)

Gwen




Print the post Back To Top
Author: maureenkaplan Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 96440 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 10/30/2001 3:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The Reformation, lite: A bunch of people in different parts of Great Britain and Europe all sat down and decided that all the icky medieval corruption of the Roman Catholic church ought to be done away with. Bribes, indulgences, priests openly taking mistresses, vast accumulations of wealth/resources, etc. Different people (whose names you might recognize), such as John Calvin, Martin Luther, Henry the Eighth, etc,

Caveats:

Henry VIII founded a new church mostly because he was angry that the Pope wouldn't give him an annulment so he could marry Anne Bolyn. (SP?) The reason was not greed on the Pope's part, but was because he had *already* made a special exception for Henry so that he could *marry* Catherine in the first place. (For those who don't understand - an annulment means that God always knew your marriage wasn't going to work out, and therefore it never existed in his eyes. All the civil parts are supposed to stand as per "divorce". However, because Catherine was married to Henry's brother, Henry asked for (and got) a special decree from the Pope stating that God meant for them to be together, and therefore, they could marry... he (or his successors) couldn't really reverse themselves at that point.)

Not surprisingly, Anglican Churches (the one founded by Henry) and High Episcopalian churches (descended from Anglican, I'm not sure about "low" Episcopal) both have priests & sacraments. The primary difference is, again, that they do not accept the Pope as the head of their church. The King or Queen of England is the head of the Anglican Church, I'm not sure *who*, if anyone, runs the Episcopalians.

Maureen

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: eachna Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 96711 of 308853
Subject: Re: Poll: I am curious Date: 11/2/2001 12:29 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Oh yes, all true. :) (about Henry breaking with the Church to be able to annull his marriage to Catherine).

However, after Henry broke with the Catholic church, he seized the assets and distributed most of them to his nobles (and himself) NOT his "new" church. And, the Anglican bishops 'reformed' their church along similar lines to alot of the other Prodestant groups (including fiddling with the sacraments and putting their scripture and ceremony into English and several of the other bits I mentioned in my previous post).

Each group had their own individual "reason" for breaking with the Catholic church. The end results were very similar and thus grouped into the Reformation as a title/time period.

Not surprisingly, Anglican Churches (the one founded by Henry) and High Episcopalian churches (descended from Anglican, I'm not sure about "low" Episcopal) both have priests & sacraments. The primary difference is, again, that they do not accept the Pope as the head of their church. The King or Queen of England is the head of the Anglican Church, I'm not sure *who*, if anyone, runs the Episcopalians.

I've never heard of Anglican "priests", only Anglican "ministers". I *do* know they have "bishops", though. Anglican ministers can marry. Also, Anglican ministers do not interceed between God and their flock, in the manner of a High Church priest. At least, not according to the one Anglican minister I had the pleasure of speaking with. So, they're not priests in any sense that I know of, unless you say that anyone who undergoes a ritual of Ordination is a priest, and that's a whole other sticky mess (because then you have to agree on just *what* Oridination is).

And, I never said any Prodestant church didn't have sacraments. I said they have fewer sacraments than the R.C. Church. I did some online checking, and, apparently, there were some 'reforms' somewhere along the line that 'restored' sacraments within the Anglican church (reform and restore being the Anglican's choice of words, not mine). This seemed to have occured sometime around the 1800's, from my reading (which admittedly was rather vague, but, it really sounded to me like the Anglicans weren't sure how many sacraments they *wanted* to count and were waffling a bit to be on both sides of the fence, but, that could have been prejudice on my part). Last count I was able to determine, they allow up to 7, but, only 2 *really* matter.

Last of all, there is more that seperates the Anglican church than the King or Queen of England as head instead of the Pope. The Anglicans are *very* similar to the various High Church groups (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, non-Roman Catholic), but, they are also very different. There's a common axiom that says "Anglicans are more Catholic than Catholics". Anglicans take themselves very seriously, as far as religions go. And, they're certainly one of the Prodestant groups that is closer rather than farther from the Catholic Church. But, you can't just discount 400+ years of seperation and say "They're basically the same".

In no way should my attitudes be taken to say I think one is "better" or "worse". I think differences in dogma and theology are a good thing (as long as people can avoid killing each other over them) and that exploring those differences, even the most subtle ones, between sects is a positive activity. Exposure to new thoughts and new ideas is a learning experience.

Gwen
(whose about as dogmatically seperate from the Catholic Church as anyone can be and still accept the Eucharist, but, no one else prays the Rosary...)


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (61) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement