Going commando to church

[Pappy]

Best yet is, do unto others, then split!!

 

[Freddie53]

Let's not fool ourselves here. There is a very small vocal extremely antiChristian group here who have been determined to paint me and all Christians with the same brush as the fundies. I will give Dr. Rock credit. He paints all religions with that same brush.

I am not for the war in Iraq, but still, one would have to be a fool not to notice the number of terroriests that are Muslim. Do they represent all of Islam? I hope not. Yet, no one ever condemns Isalm, Buddhism, atheism, agnostics, the nature religions. Oh no, it is always Christianity that catches hell. If the Muslims were in charge, you could kiss this forum goodbye as in right now and according to the Muslim fundies, all members here would rot in hell including the wayward Muslims who are "sinning" on this forum. Christianaity is no more perfect then its members, but as imperfect as we may be, we don't hold a candle to limiting the freedoms we cherish. We can bitch and moan and I have done my share of it, but at least for a little while we still have our freedoms, though I suspect they may be gone though it won't be because of Catholics and mainline Protestants. Wish I could say the same for the fundies. I don't care for fundies in any religion or political party are anything else. Apparently the fundies dont' need anyone's help. They destroy the reputation of the religions that prertend to follow. They try to take away others' right to make their own choices. I am a United Methodist and proud of it. But I could just as easily be Anglican or Catholic. The United Methodist Chruch as been a leader for years in ecumenicalism, that is the reunification of the church or at least part of it anyway.

I am over simplyfying. I know. I feel like bitching tonight. I used to could bitch with the best of them. Maybe I need to get back into training.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Jul 12 2005, 04:13 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; Jul 12 2005, 04:13 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-prepstudinsc@Jul 12 2005, 03:14 PM

[post=328612]Quoted post[/post]​

Ummm ... excuse me? The Catholic Church has the Latin Vulgate as its official translation of the Bible, completed twelve centuries before the King James Version was begun. The liturgy of the Catholic Curch is the Mass which dates back to the time of St. Gregory the Great, the Pope who reigned more than twelve and a half centuries before Martin Luther was born. The Latin Church can trace its Pontificate and Episcopate back to the apostles. In light of the traditions held by the Catholic Church, how does one&#39;s choice of clothing qualify as "holding to tradition a lot more"?

[post=328629]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Jacinto, my studies in church history are not as complete as yours and are more on the laity in the church level rather than seminary but nevertheless, I know what I have been taught and what is shown in at least the United Methodist books that teach about the history of the Eucharist or mass. All liturgical churches trace their Service of the Eucharist back to the very early church. Nearly all the liturgy is from the Bible. Each brank of liturgical churches has different things added or as some churches cal it graduals or transitions, but the basic order of the Sacrament or Mass is the same. I know that the low mass used at some Cathoic funerals that I have played for is almost word for word to the Ritual of Holy Communion in the United Methodist Church. The Euracharistic Prayers are refered to as the Great Thanksgiving in the United Methodist Church The congregational reponses are word for word: The Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation and Agnus Dei when it is used. There are two distinct versions though in our Book of Worship. The Service is in two parts Word and Table. The Word is the reading of Scripture, hymns, homily or sermon, and prayers for the day, the offertory, and the Creed. The Peace traditionally divides the service of word from the service of table, but most Methodist Churches bump both the Peace and the Creed to the beginning of the service. It is not that way in the Worship Book. The Service of Table includes the invitation, confession of sin, assurance of pardon, and the Great Thanksgiving or the Eucharistic Prayers with the Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation followed by the Lord&#39;s Prayer. As in the Catholic Church only ordained clergy called Elders can bless the sacraments.

If my understanding is true, despite that thing we call the Protestant Reformation, the liturgies of the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and Methodist services involving Holy Communion are extremely similar and as you state go back to ancient times. The main difference is the doctrine of transubstantiation. And Methodists don&#39;t really make a big deal out of that. It is FOR US the body and blood of Christ. No need for Methodists to be in too deep in theology here.

I had a friend once who tried to explain it this way. Episopalians are Catholic light and Methodist are Catholic light light. That pretty well sums it up. We Methodists try to not stay to long in the deep end of the pool in theology. For us, it is about our relationship to God. That is central to our doctrine as well as worship.

All the churches I named use the same basic lectionary. The readings for each week are the same. We print all of the ones for the next week in the bulletin this week. I know I have friends in all these churches and the same Gospel Lesson was read in all of them on the same day. Same for the Psalm and Epistle Lesson.

The Nicene Creed states, "We believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church." And I typed that sentence right from the liturgy of a United Methodist Worship Book. I have attended an ordination where there was the laying on of hands on the new ministers or Elders (Priests in the Catholic Church). That laying on of hands on the next generation of clergy goes back all the way to the apostles in some form or fashion.

Here is the kicker for most Americans. World wide at least one half of all Christians are part of the Roman Catholic. The exacrt percentages are hard to pinpoint because different denominatoins figure memberships differently and in some countries the numbers are not easily gotten. The Orthodox Churches as a group are second. Lutherans are third and Anglicans fourth. Methodists are in there somewhere at fifth or sixth place world wide. Together these branches of Chrsitianity make up more than 2/3 of all practicing Christians. The Reformed/Baptist/Evangelical/Pentecostal and assorted other American churches while having great impact here in America are not that prominant world wide. Most churches in the Reformed/Pentecostal/Baptist.Evangelical traditions make no pretense of even suggessting that they are in any apostolic line that goes back to the early apostles.

One last comment for some of the Evangelicals here. Say what you wish about the Roman Catholic Church. But if it had not been for the Roman Cahotlic Church, Christianity would not have survived the Middle Ages in Europe. The episocpal form of the Methodist, Anglican and Catholic churches is far from perfect, But, it does insure continuity through all kinds of adverse cultural changes. Sure, there were autonomous congregations through the years. But they don&#39;t have the structure to survive centuries.


Long post. But then what is new for me.

As for clothes in church. I believe that Jesus wore sandals and some sort of robe when he went to the temple. It is a cultural thing. Has little to do with God. In our church it is different strokes for different folks. Everyone dresses according to his or her personal tastes. There is no dress code.

I don&#39;t think that the Bible says, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begottten Son that whosoever weareth business suits to church should not perish, but fan briskly with church bulletin for what will seem like an eternity."

 

[prepstudinsc]

Originally posted by Freddie53@Jul 25 2005, 03:00 AM
Here is the kicker for most Americans. World wide at least one half of all Christians are part of the Roman Catholic. The exacrt percentages are hard to pinpoint because different denominatoins figure memberships differently and in some countries the numbers are not easily gotten. The Orthodox Churches as a group are second. Lutherans are third and Anglicans fourth. Methodists are in there somewhere at fifth or sixth place world wide. Together these branches of Chrsitianity make up more than 2/3 of all practicing Christians. The Reformed/Baptist/Evangelical/Pentecostal and assorted other American churches while having great impact here in America are not that prominant world wide. Most churches in the Reformed/Pentecostal/Baptist.Evangelical traditions make no pretense of even suggessting that they are in any apostolic line that goes back to the early apostles.

[post=331693]Quoted post[/post]​

The churches of different Pentecostal persuasions are the fastest growing in South America right now. There are more people who claim to be Pentecostals in South America than who claim membership in Pentecostal churches in North America. It has a particular stronghold in Chile and Brazil, and in Chile, 80% of Protestants are Pentecostal. In Santiago, Chile, the main Pentecostal church seats about 18,000 people, and in Brazil, the Temple of Brasil para Christo is even larger&#33;
David Martin talks about the explosive growth of Pentecostal churches in South America in his book "Tongues of Fire". It is estimated that if worldwide growth of Pentecostal churches continues in places where the Catholic church has had a stronghold, but has not had an active ministry to the people--meeting the physical AND spiritual need of the people-- before the year 2030, it is very possible that as a whole the various Pentecostal demoninations could overtake the Catholic church and put it in the number two position.

Evangelical Churches don&#39;t have any need to claim apostolic sucession. That is something that the second reformation of Zwingli/Calvin/Knox and then the Anabaptist reformation sought to do away with. It is a foreign concept us. Some churches appoint that title as an honorific entitlement, some churches use it in lieu of the term district superintendent, but there is no succession in our churches.
There was so much abuse of the papacy in the middle ages who is to say that what lineage is actually genuine? It was bought, sold, traded for favors, there were anti-popes, married popes, and I think even a female pope, if I remember correctly. That is part of the reason why the Calvinists and Anabaptists did away with it, along with MANY other reasons.

 

[Phat_Matt_9inch]

Ugh.

 

[B_Hung Muscle]

Weird. I thought the topic here was going commando to church, not "I&#39;m a big fuckin&#39; know-it-all and want to use the big penis website to display my knowledge of liturgy and theology (but not actual photos of my cock) and have a lame-ass debate trying to convince everyone my belief system is superior."

I must have stumbled into the wrong thread... Let me go back and find me some cock-talk.

 

[pie]

Wow, im really suprised at the ammount of people on this forum that are religious, christian even, especially ones so dedicated as catholics. i thought that after the big bang theory and ideas about evolution that religion would become somewhat more thinned. i am glad to see that there are still some that beleive in religious dieties, god or otherwise. or even to go as fart as to personify&#39; him&#39;.

As for freeballing in service, not so long ago it would be unthinkable to dress in jeans, now its common, times change, and if god is all seeing then i doubt he care if your wearing no undergarments. I mean there much bigger problems in the world than a guy freebaling mass.

god bless you, (or allah, or buddha, or vishnu, or whatever else there is)

 

[B_Hickboy]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Jul 12 2005, 01:14 AM
The Church I attend is not permissive; few Catholic Churches are&#33; On any given Sunday or holy day of obligation, you will see slacks, jeans and even shorts at Saint Louis Cathedral. In fact, I&#39;d guess that there are more people wearing jeans than wearing suits. We are there to celebrate the liturgy, not to show off our finery. Some people feel that dress clothes seem more reverent, and that&#39;s fine, but they don&#39;t scorn those who prefer more casual wear. I have been known to attend Mass in sweats when running late at the gym. It&#39;s not my usual practice, but it has happened. And I have gone commando to Mass often. I feel that God knows what I&#39;m packing ... after all, He&#39;s the One Who put it there ... and He&#39;s not at all embarassed by it. Humans don&#39;t cease to be sexual beings just by walking into a place of worship.

[post=328451]Quoted post[/post]​

You are a beautiful human being and God was having a good day when he made you. Bless you.

I like your attitude.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by pie@Aug 30 2005, 06:50 PM
there are still some that beleive in religious dieties, god or otherwise. or even to go as fart as to personify&#39; him&#39;.

[post=339256]Quoted post[/post]​

quite.

 

[B_Hung Muscle]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+Aug 30 2005, 03:47 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; Aug 30 2005, 03:47 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-pie@Aug 30 2005, 06:50 PM
there are still some that beleive in religious dieties, god or otherwise. or even to go as fart as to personify&#39; him&#39;.

[post=339256]Quoted post[/post]​

quite.

[post=339270]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


Now we&#39;re getting somewhere closer to the original topic.

 

[KinkGuy]

So, does God really care if I show up in church wearing restrictive underwear...or not? So long as I show up. Which I don&#39;t often enough. Ever. Sigh.

 

[B_Hung Muscle]

It&#39;s actually not God who cares -- he abstained in this. The Holy Spirit and Mary (Mother of God) laid down this law. They outvoted Jesus who wanted commando guys in the pews.

 

[B_Hickboy]

I&#39;ll just wear the same underwear God does.

 

[Alley Blue]

Originally posted by Hung Muscle@Aug 30 2005, 05:10 PM
I must have stumbled into the wrong thread... Let me go back and find me some cock-talk.

[post=339239]Quoted post[/post]​

:rofl: @ Hung Muscle

 

[prepstudinsc]

There is the passage in II Samuel 6 about David dancing in a priestly undergarment and his wife Michal being disgusted and embarassed by his display, although the undergarment was an ephod, and embroidered linen robe, hardly like our underwear today.

 

[B_Hung Muscle]

That kind of dirty talk is nasty.

 

[Dr Rock]

and michal is a man&#39;s name.

 

[B_Hickboy]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Aug 31 2005, 12:13 PM
and michal is a man&#39;s name.

[post=339540]Quoted post[/post]​

and I fucked him.

 

[prepstudinsc]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Aug 31 2005, 12:13 PM
and michal is a man&#39;s name.

[post=339540]Quoted post[/post]​

Michal was the daughter of King Saul, the sister of David&#39;s best friend Jonathan.
If she was a boy, it would have been spelled Michael.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by prepstudinsc+Sep 1 2005, 03:54 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prepstudinsc &#064; Sep 1 2005, 03:54 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dr Rock@Aug 31 2005, 12:13 PM
and michal is a man&#39;s name.

[post=339540]Quoted post[/post]​

Michal was the daughter of King Saul, the sister of David&#39;s best friend Jonathan.
If she was a boy, it would have been spelled Michael.

[post=339742]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
ever been to eastern europe?

wait ... silly question.