What is heaven like?

[breeze]

Postscript to the medjugorje posting.
Conclusions of the international commissions conducting the first scientific investigations of apparitions in history { of the Virgin Mary in medjugorje }.
commission 1 { headed by then atheist professor henri joyeaux - he has since converted } - " In summary , the unique aspects of the results of the scientific investigations point to the conclusion that nothing in the physical realm is allowed to interfere with the apparition experience. Scientific experts have defined the phenomena as a state of active , intense pray partially disconnected from the external world , a state of contemplation with a separate person whom they alone can see , hear and touch ".
commission 3 - " The results of the last mentioned commission confirmed the conclusions of the { previous } international commissions , for their part , proved that the apparitions , to which the visionaries testify , are a phenomemon that surpasses modern science and that all points toward some other level of happening ". Because these are scientific studies i suppose they can't use words or labels like hell and heaven but thats what it would seem they are refering to.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+May 26 2005, 06:00 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; May 26 2005, 06:00 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DC_DEEP@May 26 2005, 06:57 PM
But please tell me where Sacraments fit into the life of a christian, and the roman catholic church&#39;s official stance on sacraments for non-catholics. 

Ah, now we&#39;re delving into the murky waters of Sacramentology. That&#39;s some very deep theology in the Church. Right now I will give the short answers because I&#39;m leaving to return to New Orleans in less than two hours and it would take longer than that to give the how and why of the sacraments ... plus it would result in an epic saga of a post that would bore most readers to tears.

. Dispensation is occasionally given to members of other denominations that accept Transubstantiation, such as Eastern Orthodox and Episcopalians/Anglicans. Receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation is not necessary for reception of the Eucharist except in the case of a mortal sin. Venial sins are forgiven through contrition, and that is sufficient to receive communion.

I hope this answered some of your questions.

[post=315011]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
It left me confused. As in what do the sacraments do for Catholics that non Catholics don&#39;t get. Example: You and I are together at the service where there is a sacramental worship. You get the sacrament and I don&#39;t. We are killed on the way home. What do you get in heaven that I would not get? Or, is it some measure of peace and grace here on earth that is given here rather then in the world beyond.

Also, I have good friends who are United Methodists. Very devout. Their son is Roman Catholic. They visit their son farily often. They are allowed to take the Sacrament of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church at Mass and do every time they attend.

The United Methodist Church has an interesting doctrine on Holy Communion. The lastest study on the subject has just come out and is a very lengthy document and was approved by the Council of Bishops. I haven&#39;t read it. I do know that in the liturgy in the Sacrament of Holy Communion the words are this, "Make this bread and wine be for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ." As the sacrament is offered, the lay leader offers the bread and says "The body of Christ broken for you." and the Pastor (official title though seldom used term is Elder) offers the wine and says "The blood of Christ shed for you."

The Methodist position is that chemically the bread and wine will test out in a science lab as still bread and wine. But for those who believe, it is "for us" the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Methodist Church used the fermented wine until Prohibition. Now the unfermented must be made available at all Holy Communion Services but the fermented may also be offered. The reason is for the recovering alcoholics. There is no doubt that Jesus used the fermeted wine as did the church until Welch&#39;s came along in relatively recent times.

So Methodists are not really like the Lutherans who believe that the body and blood are with the bread and wine and has a Latin name as well which I can&#39;t pull up out of my head. Neither do Methodist believe that the Table of the Lord is only a symbollic meal as the Baptist do. Some Methodist elders use the term, " Taste the grace of our Lord" in refering to the Sacrament. Methodist also believe that Holy Communion is truly a sacramental worship like Catholics do. Methodist doctrine comes straigtht from the Church of England and was only formed because the King of England called all the priests home during the American Revolution. The Methodist Elders were ordained by Anglican priests or bishops who stayed here in America and was called the Methodist Episcopal Church intill 1939. Like Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox Churches, only an ordained Elder may consecrate and bless the sacrament.

I was blessed to lead in a Service of Holy Communion at a retreat. No Elder was available so an ordained Elder took the bread and wine and consecrated them with me present the day before. Then in the service I repeated the lilturgy after explaining that the elements had already been blessed and consecrated and I was only repeating the words that had already been said that had made them the sacrament of the church.

So I am not sure in the United Methodist Chruch which Latin term is proper for our doctrine. Methodists just accept the elements as being "for us" the bread and body of Jesus Christ and as such sacramental. The Sacrament of Holy Communion is considered a "means of convincing grace." In the United Methdodist Church the Table is open for all Christians and non Christians. We believe that a person can become a Christian by just following and meaning the liturgy that is used for worhsip. There is a confession of sin, a creed that gives the basic tents of faith that is affirmed, there is pardon and there is grace and there is sacramental worship. To us, to do all of that and mean it makes a person a Christian, baptised or not, church member or not. There are two liturgies, one is almost identical to the Catholic low mass and the other is more like the Episcopal liturgy with all the thees and thous still there and the Prayer of Humble Access which is not in the newer liturgy. And is is now recommended that Holy Communion be celebrated at least once a week. This is brand new and many churches aren&#39;t doing that yet. It doesn&#39;t have to be Sunday morning, but it does need to be celebrated weekly.

The Methodist Church is very pluralistic and almsot any view can be found by some members in the pews. "This is where granny went to church. I am a member. Did you say something about doctrine? Ask the preacher he should know." That describes many United Methodist about doctrine. No clue. They just believe. But if a preacher or someone gets it wrong, suddenly they seem to remember&#33; For most Methodists, don&#39;t mess with the creed, Lord&#39;s Prayer, Doxology and the liturgies for various offices (ceremonies and sacraments) of the church and you are OK unless you pick hymns they don&#39;t know. That is a major crisis&#33; It can get the music director fired.

DMW, do let us know if you know where the Catholic Church places Methodists in relationship to the churches you named.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP@May 26 2005, 03:33 PM


Polytheist - believes in multiple gods
Monotheist - believes in one god
Atheist - denies existence of god
Agnostic - does not know whether or not god exists
I want to add one more to the list, the one I made up for myself:
Non-theist - it isn&#39;t that I don&#39;t know, I just don&#39;t believe. I neither confirm nor deny god.

[post=314876]Quoted post[/post]​

I have to take issue with your definitions, only because I don&#39;t think they are accurate enough.
First: Your definition of agnostic while being correct illustrates that most- if not all- of us are agnostic because as you put it, we CAN NOT know whether or not a god exists, it is a matter of faith. So if gnostic and agnostic deal with the sphere of knowledge, then theist and atheist must deal with belief, because thats what faith is: belief despite the absence of knowledge.
Second: If theist/atheist deal with belief and theist is the presence of belief, then atheist must be the absence of belief. This might inlcude the denial of the existence of some gods but it does not necessarily mean that being an atheist requires the denial of all gods or the possiblilty of gods since the atheist, being agnostic, can not know. The closest thing to describing the denial of all gods might actually be "Non-theist" since the prefix "non" implies the belief that there are non-gods or no-gods.

We have had this discussion about the definition of atheist many times and I don&#39;t think there is a point where we will reach a consensus. Atheist does not mean the denial of gods, it is the lack of beleif in gods. Some atheists deny some or all gods, but to be an atheist one must not do so. It is accepted by some atheists that in order to be more precise there should be two categories of atheist: Implicit atheist, and explicit atheist. Implicit atheism is atheism in general, it is simply the lack of belief in gods. For example a baby born on mars who never encountered the idea of god, would be an implicit atheist by default since he/she would not have any belief in gods; how can someone believe in something they&#39;ve never heard of?
Explicit atheism would be the active denial of a god or gods. Given that, it is ironic that most explicit atheists are actually theists. Let me explain: Those that are monotheistic believe that there is one god. In the three biggest religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam it is actually the first thing one must accpet to be considered a member of that religion. Jews, Christians, and Muslims DENY the existence of all gods but their own; it is an active belief that no other god exists, and aren&#39;t even open to the possibility (usually) that they could or might. This I think is a very illogical conclusion. Why is it possible that Jehovah, or Yahweh, or Allah exist, but it is not possible that Zeus does?
I myself am only explicitly atheistic when it comes to gods that- as described- are logically impossible; this includes the god characterized by most christians and christian apologetics, jews and muslims. I am implicitly atheistic when it comes to all other gods because I haven&#39;t looked into it; they might make logical sense and if they did, I could not deny the possibility of their existence. I first must get a description before I can assess the logical consistency of their natures.

Couple of more things.
Agnosticism:
Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism because gnosticism and theism deal with two totally different ideas: Knowledge and Belief. (Explicit)Agnostics believe that the true nature of god can never be known, but that does not preclude anyone from believing anyway. Like in your example: I DO NOT KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, that would be knowing the future, but I believe it will based on my experience. Many Jehovahs witnesses DO NOT KNOW that revelation is coming (although they use the word "know" all the time incorrectly) and yet they still believe that it will. I DO NOT KNOW that the earth will not blow up tomorrow morning when the sun doesn&#39;t rise, but I do not believe it will. I would argue that we are all agnostic since the nature of the basic definition of gods makes them unknowable, they are transcendant and usually immortal so how could a temporal and mortal being gain knowledge that is outside existence?? Our collective agnosticism however does not prevent us from believing or disblieving or non-believing.

Mono-theistic explicit atheism:
I know that the first commandment does not say "I am the lord thy God, the only God that exists." It actually (to me anyways) implies that their are other gods, only they aren&#39;t as great as the one who talked to moses. Although this is the case in the text, it seems to me that most jews or christians take this to mean there is only one god(except for the whole trinity thing, I guess. That shit is so convoluted.)
Islam speaks of the oneness of god, which seems to say that there is only one god, although it could be interpretted as god being one but having many different faces or parts.
The first Pillar of Islam- The Shahadah is a prayer that states: "There are none worthy of worship except God and Muhammed is the messanger of God." This to me seems to say that there is only one god and if there are any others they are not worthy of worship. Does is necessarily deny the existence of other gods? Maybe not, but I thnk most adherents to these religions believe so. I may be wrong.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP+May 26 2005, 01:57 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DC_DEEP &#064; May 26 2005, 01:57 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@May 26 2005, 02:49 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-DC_DEEP

@May 26 2005, 03:33 PM
Most tend to subliminally or explicitly teach "fine that you claim to be a christian; but if you don&#39;t believe exactly as we do, then you are hellbound." 

[post=314929]Quoted post[/post]​

[post=314930]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
You do know a lot about Christianity. Very few United Methodists believe in a literal hell that Dante speaks of to start with. Hell is the dumping ground for all the imperfections. There are many different words in the Bible translated in English as hell.

Many believe that hell is a condition of the spirit while we are here on earth. I know that very few clergy believe in exclusive theology of salvation. By that I mean most United Methodist clergy believe that there will be people of all religions in heaven. And there will be those who aren&#39;t of any religious affiliation. Of course with millions of Methodists around you can find most any set of beliefs somewhere, but that doesn&#39;t mean that those people speak for the church.

If you are athiest you don&#39;t believe in an afterlife so I don&#39;t know how much it matters to an atheist what Methodist would believe about an afterlife that the individual doesn&#39;t believe in accept that is does. I have no doubt that I am going to heaven. But it does piss me off when I know there are others who think I am going to hell in a handbasket. It just is offensive even if I don&#39;t believe them.

I have never said one unkind remark about any one&#39;s religion while a member here. But I have read many posts that referred to my religion as those fucking Christians. It does get old after a while to keep being run down. So I know you get tired of overzealous people who profess to be Christian meddling in your life.

But do think of this and it helps me. If you thought I was getting ready to make a turn on the road that would lead me right into a gas explosion that would burn me alive and you said, "Oh, I know they are headed right toward the big gas leak and it is going to explode within fifteen minutes but I didnt&#39; tell them because I didn&#39;t want to offend." I would think some friend you are. I have to remind myself that they really believe that I am going to hell and they don&#39;t want me to go there. So I have to give some respect that they care about me. But that care gets just as old as the athiests on this site referring to me as a fucking Christian or making comments that won&#39;t be many Christians in heaven.

People should be a little more tolerent of each other&#39;s beliefs. I am responsble for my own. Sure I will be glad to tell you what I believe if you are interested. But if you are not then we will talk about something else.

As far as what you have found in the churches you have encountered. Churches generally have open membership so we get all kinds as members. The Bible tells you that there will be false prophets, teachers and such in the church. That is no big surprise. People aren&#39;t perfect. So no organization will be perfect here on earth and that includes all organizations that have any religious connections.

But I have found some very saintly and wonderful people in the church. And the funerals I have played for are interesting. At Christian funerals there is hope. At non Christian funerals there is not that feeling of hope showing in the family or those present. I can sense it. That doesn&#39;t prove anything except the Christians there really do believe in a future after death. Whether it is true or not, we will wait and see. But at least here on earth it seems to help a lot of people have hope. And as a person now fast 50 I find that health will do nothing but go down hill. It may be 40 years away, but after seeing three generations of one of my grandparents all die, I know and realize that death is something I must face and sooner than I had planned to. As a young person I thought I would live forever.


I posted about the Methodist Church in respose to DMW&#39;s comments about the Catholic Church. I have questions about some of their doctrine as well.

BTW some modern Church of Christ don&#39;t believe that all except them will burn in hell. Some believe that some others that call themselves Christians will get to heaven as well. Though there are plenty who still hold to that old belief.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+May 26 2005, 06:00 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; May 26 2005, 06:00 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DC_DEEP@May 26 2005, 06:57 PM
But please tell me where Sacraments fit into the life of a christian, and the roman catholic church&#39;s official stance on sacraments for non-catholics. 

Ah, now we&#39;re delving into the murky waters of Sacramentology. That&#39;s some very deep theology in the Church. Right now I will give the short answers because I&#39;m leaving to return to New Orleans in less than two hours and it would take longer than that to give the how and why of the sacraments ... plus it would result in an epic saga of a post that would bore most readers to tears.

. Dispensation is occasionally given to members of other denominations that accept Transubstantiation, such as Eastern Orthodox and Episcopalians/Anglicans. Receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation is not necessary for reception of the Eucharist except in the case of a mortal sin. Venial sins are forgiven through contrition, and that is sufficient to receive communion.

I hope this answered some of your questions.

[post=315011]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
It left me confused. As in what do the sacraments do for Catholics that non Catholics don&#39;t get. Example: You and I are together at the service where there is a sacramental worship. You get the sacrament and I don&#39;t. We are killed on the way home. What do you get in heaven that I would not get? Or, is it some measure of peace and grace here on earth that is given here rather then in the world beyond.

Also, I have good friends who are United Methodists. Very devout. Their son is Roman Catholic. They visit their son farily often. They are allowed to take the Sacrament of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church at Mass and do every time they attend.

The United Methodist Church has an interesting doctrine on Holy Communion. The lastest study on the subject has just come out and is a very lengthy document and was approved by the Council of Bishops. I haven&#39;t read it. I do know that in the liturgy in the Sacrament of Holy Communion the words are this, "Make this bread and wine be for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ." As the sacrament is offered, the lay leader offers the bread and says "The body of Christ broken for you." and the Pastor (official title though seldom used term is Elder) offers the wine and says "The blood of Christ shed for you."

The Methodist position is that chemically the bread and wine will test out in a science lab as still bread and wine. But for those who believe, it is "for us" the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Methodist Church used the fermented wine until Prohibition. Now the unfermented must be made available at all Holy Communion Services but the fermented may also be offered. The reason is for the recovering alcoholics. There is no doubt that Jesus used the fermeted wine as did the church until Welch&#39;s came along in relatively recent times.

So Methodists are not really like the Lutherans who believe that the body and blood are with the bread and wine and has a Latin name as well which I can&#39;t pull up out of my head. Neither do Methodist believe that the Table of the Lord is only a symbollic meal as the Baptist do. Some Methodist elders use the term, " Taste the grace of our Lord" in refering to the Sacrament. Methodist also believe that Holy Communion is truly a sacramental worship like Catholics do. Methodist doctrine comes straigtht from the Church of England and was only formed because the King of England called all the priests home during the American Revolution. The Methodist Elders were ordained by Anglican priests or bishops who stayed here in America and was called the Methodist Episcopal Church intill 1939. Like Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox Churches, only an ordained Elder may consecrate and bless the sacrament.

I was blessed to lead in a Service of Holy Communion at a retreat. No Elder was available so an ordained Elder took the bread and wine and consecrated them with me present the day before. Then in the service I repeated the lilturgy after explaining that the elements had already been blessed and consecrated and I was only repeating the words that had already been said that had made them the sacrament of the church.

So I am not sure in the United Methodist Chruch which Latin term is proper for our doctrine. Methodists just accept the elements as being "for us" the bread and body of Jesus Christ and as such sacramental. The Sacrament of Holy Communion is considered a "means of convincing grace." In the United Methdodist Church the Table is open for all Christians and non Christians. We believe that a person can become a Christian by just following and meaning the liturgy that is used for worhsip. There is a confession of sin, a creed that gives the basic tents of faith that is affirmed, there is pardon and there is grace and there is sacramental worship. To us, to do all of that and mean it makes a person a Christian, baptised or not, church member or not. There are two liturgies, one is almost identical to the Catholic low mass and the other is more like the Episcopal liturgy with all the thees and thous still there and the Prayer of Humble Access which is not in the newer liturgy. And is is now recommended that Holy Communion be celebrated at least once a week. This is brand new and many churches aren&#39;t doing that yet. It doesn&#39;t have to be Sunday morning, but it does need to be celebrated weekly.

The Methodist Church is very pluralistic and almsot any view can be found by some members in the pews. "This is where granny went to church. I am a member. Did you say something about doctrine? Ask the preacher he should know." That describes many United Methodist about doctrine. No clue. They just believe. But if a preacher or someone gets it wrong, suddenly they seem to remember&#33; For most Methodists, don&#39;t mess with the creed, Lord&#39;s Prayer, Doxology and the liturgies for various offices (ceremonies and sacraments) of the church and you are OK unless you pick hymns they don&#39;t know. That is a major crisis&#33; It can get the music director fired.

DMW, do let us know if you know where the Catholic Church places Methodists in relationship to the churches you named.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP@May 26 2005, 03:33 PM


Polytheist - believes in multiple gods
Monotheist - believes in one god
Atheist - denies existence of god
Agnostic - does not know whether or not god exists
I want to add one more to the list, the one I made up for myself:
Non-theist - it isn&#39;t that I don&#39;t know, I just don&#39;t believe. I neither confirm nor deny god.

[post=314876]Quoted post[/post]​

I have to take issue with your definitions, only because I don&#39;t think they are accurate enough.
First: Your definition of agnostic while being correct illustrates that most- if not all- of us are agnostic because as you put it, we CAN NOT know whether or not a god exists, it is a matter of faith. So if gnostic and agnostic deal with the sphere of knowledge, then theist and atheist must deal with belief, because thats what faith is: belief despite the absence of knowledge.
Second: If theist/atheist deal with belief and theist is the presence of belief, then atheist must be the absence of belief. This might inlcude the denial of the existence of some gods but it does not necessarily mean that being an atheist requires the denial of all gods or the possiblilty of gods since the atheist, being agnostic, can not know. The closest thing to describing the denial of all gods might actually be "Non-theist" since the prefix "non" implies the belief that there are non-gods or no-gods.

We have had this discussion about the definition of atheist many times and I don&#39;t think there is a point where we will reach a consensus. Atheist does not mean the denial of gods, it is the lack of beleif in gods. Some atheists deny some or all gods, but to be an atheist one must not do so. It is accepted by some atheists that in order to be more precise there should be two categories of atheist: Implicit atheist, and explicit atheist. Implicit atheism is atheism in general, it is simply the lack of belief in gods. For example a baby born on mars who never encountered the idea of god, would be an implicit atheist by default since he/she would not have any belief in gods; how can someone believe in something they&#39;ve never heard of?
Explicit atheism would be the active denial of a god or gods. Given that, it is ironic that most explicit atheists are actually theists. Let me explain: Those that are monotheistic believe that there is one god. In the three biggest religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam it is actually the first thing one must accpet to be considered a member of that religion. Jews, Christians, and Muslims DENY the existence of all gods but their own; it is an active belief that no other god exists, and aren&#39;t even open to the possibility (usually) that they could or might. This I think is a very illogical conclusion. Why is it possible that Jehovah, or Yahweh, or Allah exist, but it is not possible that Zeus does?
I myself am only explicitly atheistic when it comes to gods that- as described- are logically impossible; this includes the god characterized by most christians and christian apologetics, jews and muslims. I am implicitly atheistic when it comes to all other gods because I haven&#39;t looked into it; they might make logical sense and if they did, I could not deny the possibility of their existence. I first must get a description before I can assess the logical consistency of their natures.

Couple of more things.
Agnosticism:
Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism because gnosticism and theism deal with two totally different ideas: Knowledge and Belief. (Explicit)Agnostics believe that the true nature of god can never be known, but that does not preclude anyone from believing anyway. Like in your example: I DO NOT KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, that would be knowing the future, but I believe it will based on my experience. Many Jehovahs witnesses DO NOT KNOW that revelation is coming (although they use the word "know" all the time incorrectly) and yet they still believe that it will. I DO NOT KNOW that the earth will not blow up tomorrow morning when the sun doesn&#39;t rise, but I do not believe it will. I would argue that we are all agnostic since the nature of the basic definition of gods makes them unknowable, they are transcendant and usually immortal so how could a temporal and mortal being gain knowledge that is outside existence?? Our collective agnosticism however does not prevent us from believing or disblieving or non-believing.

Mono-theistic explicit atheism:
I know that the first commandment does not say "I am the lord thy God, the only God that exists." It actually (to me anyways) implies that their are other gods, only they aren&#39;t as great as the one who talked to moses. Although this is the case in the text, it seems to me that most jews or christians take this to mean there is only one god(except for the whole trinity thing, I guess. That shit is so convoluted.)
Islam speaks of the oneness of god, which seems to say that there is only one god, although it could be interpretted as god being one but having many different faces or parts.
The first Pillar of Islam- The Shahadah is a prayer that states: "There are none worthy of worship except God and Muhammed is the messanger of God." This to me seems to say that there is only one god and if there are any others they are not worthy of worship. Does is necessarily deny the existence of other gods? Maybe not, but I thnk most adherents to these religions believe so. I may be wrong.

 

[prepstudinsc]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@May 26 2005, 07:00 PM

Ah, now we&#39;re delving into the murky waters of Sacramentology. That&#39;s some very deep theology in the Church. Right now I will give the short answers because I&#39;m leaving to return to New Orleans in less than two hours and it would take longer than that to give the how and why of the sacraments ... plus it would result in an epic saga of a post that would bore most readers to tears.

Baptism is necessary for initiation into the sacramental life of the Catholic Church. Though under certain conditions a non-Catholic can participate in Holy Communion, he does not receive the sacramental grace associated with the Eucharist, though he does receive some measure of actual grace. The conditions are dispensation from the celebrant and acceptance of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. If those two conditions are not met, the reception of grace is anulled. Dispensation is rarely given except in the case of a nuptial Mass where a Catholic is married to a non-Catholic. Dispensation is occasionally given to members of other denominations that accept Transubstantiation, such as Eastern Orthodox and Episcopalians/Anglicans. Receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation is not necessary for reception of the Eucharist except in the case of a mortal sin. Venial sins are forgiven through contrition, and that is sufficient to receive communion.

[post=315011]Quoted post[/post]​

I have to differ with you on this. The official position of the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States are that they DO NOT accept transubstantiation. While some members of "high" churches may believe in it, that is not an official doctrine.

Here is Article 28 from an English prayer book: (Church of England)
28. Of the Lord&#39;s Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the mutual love that Christians ought to have among themselves. Rather, it is a sacrament of our redemption through Christ&#39;s death. To those who rightly, worthily, and with faith receive it, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and similarly the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (the change of the substance of the bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved from holy Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain teaching of Scripture. It overthrows the nature of a sacrament and has given rise to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only in a heavenly and spiritual manner. The means by which the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is by faith.


In the 39 Articles of Faith it states in article XXVIII: Episcopal Church-United States
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord&#39;s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

The Episcopalian introcutory website, PTTW.org says this:
Transubstantiation vs. mystery
The Episcopal Church does not believe in Transubstantiation, which is documented in the Book of Common Prayer, page 873 in the Articles of Religion. Transubstantiation is the belief that Jesus&#39; physical body and blood are present in the Holy Communion elements. The bread and wine physically are transformed. (For more information on how else the Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church differ, go to the Beliefs page.) The Episcopal Church believes Jesus is spiritually present in the the Holy Communion elements. If a person persists and asks just "how" Jesus is present spiritually, the usual answer is to accept it as mystery. This answer is not intended to dismiss the question. This answer is given because its acceptable to have mystery in life, and things which are way beyond human comprehension. We don&#39;t have to understand everything there is to know about Holy Communion. What&#39;s more important is that we believe and trust Jesus that he said he would be present to us.


Regarding what non-Roman churches can receive communion, canon law states that members of churches that the Roman Catholic church is not yet fully united are not ordinarily admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of the canon law (canon 844-4)

Members of Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polich National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own churches. According to RC discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these churches. (canon 844-3). Presumably these churches are the ones who hold to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

The RC church practices closed communion, which is quite the opposite of MOST Protestant churches. Some extreme Protestant churches, such as some Plymouth Brethren, the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Churches, and some independent Baptist churches, as well as some conservative Mennonite churches won&#39;t let non-members participate in communion, or those whose churches are not in fellowship with that local congregation. I can understand not letting non-Christians not participate in communion, but how many non-Christians would really want to observe communion? Communion is not something that should be closed to any believer. The Communion Table or Altar belongs to all believers, not just a select few.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Ah, this time I really punched the buttons and raised the hackles of just about every poster here, huh?

GBO: let&#39;s get back to etymology, please. I did, for the sake of simplicity and clarity, summarize my definitions. Let me rephrase that.
a (not) the (god) ist (believer, adherant, or practitioner)
a (not) gnostic (knowing)
Without getting into a whole other topic of philosophy, the gnostic, or "knowing" part of that description is a little touchy. Some branches of philosophy will argue that we cannot ever KNOW anything (how do we know for certain that what we accept as real is not actually just a dream or hallucination), but we can believe or understand or assume. Webster defines: atheist - one who denies the existence of god and rejects all religious faith and practice; agnostic - one who withholds belief because he is unwilling to accept the evidence of revelation and spiritual experience; deist - one who rejects the conception of god as an active ruler and guide known through revelation, while believing in a supreme being as creator of the universe. I do agree with your assessment of the First Commandment, in that it implies that there are other gods, but they are inferior and not to be worshipped. (The same confusion, for me, exists in Genesis, where MOST christians will tell you that god created the first humans, Adam and Eve. The text I have read would indicate that there were other humans already in existence in the land of Nod. God created Adam, then as an afterthought, Eve. Their son Cain was a bad boy and had to go live with the others outside Eden/paradise.)

DMW, while you may be quoting or paraphrasing OFFICIAL church doctrine, it still dances around the issues. Sacraments are reserved for communicants, and officially withheld from non-communicants. And practice is a long-shot from official doctrine.

Freddie, once again, you seem to take offense at my posts. Once again, I will state - if the generalization does not apply to you, then you should not take offense. If it does apply to you, then perhaps you should re-examine. You will observe that I make frequent use of the word "most", and seldom use the word "all" in referring to adherants of any religion. I&#39;m not saying you won&#39;t go to heaven. I&#39;m saying that MOST christians I know are not going to be there, if it does indeed exist. If I post and say "most christians think homosexuality is evil" that is QUITE different than if I said "all christians think homosexuality is evil." I choose my wording carefully, please read it carefully so that you do not misunderstand. At the risk of being redundant again, I will reiterate once more my view of any religion - embrace completely or not at all (don&#39;t pick and choose the rules that are convenient, and disregard the laws that are not convenient); and fully embrace and practice the commandments that form the basis of ones relationship to the religion and to other people (for jews and christians, that would be the 10 commandments, for muslims, it would be the 5 pillars.)

 

[GottaBigOne]

DC DEEP: I know that many dictionaries define atheism that way, but that is not usually the ONLY definition, usually there is a second or third definition which states that atheism is simply the lack of belief. a(no)theist(belief in god)= no belief in god. It is not a positive assertion but a negative one. Belief that there is no god is a positive assertion, having no belief in god is not. I know its confusing, but it clears a lot of misconceptions of atheism.

 

[DC_DEEP]

GBO, we are actually on the same side here. All I am really asking is that no one expect me to adopt or share their religious beliefs. Trust me, I really do want to slap the next person who has the nerve to tell me "oh, sure, you believe in god, you just don&#39;t realize it."

Sorry if the definitions with which I am familiar do not match yours, and if the main proponent of self-proclaimed atheism with whom I am familiar is Madeline Murray O&#39;hare. I just comment on what I have studied, read, and observed. I realize that mine is a narrow experience.

One more question for you before I let it rest... what does "vocal atheist" mean?

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by prepstudinsc@May 27 2005, 04:10 AM
The Episcopalian introcutory website, PTTW.org says this:
Transubstantiation vs. mystery
The Episcopal Church does not believe in Transubstantiation, which is documented in the Book of Common Prayer, page 873 in the Articles of Religion.

I stand corrected. I had assumed that since the words of the canon and consecration of the host are identical in the Catholic and High Epicopal liturgies, the doctrine concerning Transubstantiation would be shared by both. Before the establishment of the Church of England, those who eventually converted to Anglicanism definitely believed in Transubstantiation. I know Episcopalians today who believe in it as well, but apparently it is not in accordance with their official doctrine. Thanks for educating me on that point: I had no idea.

Members of Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polich National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own churches. According to RC discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these churches. (canon 844-3). Presumably these churches are the ones who hold to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Without question. The bans of excommunication against the Eastern Orthodox and Assyrians were lifted by Pope Paul the VI, and the bans of separation against the Polish National Church were lifted by Pope John-Paul II. The mutual bans of excommunication between the Catholics and Orthodox do not completely work both ways, unfortunately. His All Holiness Athenagoras I pronounced the excommunication of the Catholic Church dissolved, but the patriarchs of the other Orthodox sub-rites refute his declaration and still regard the Church of Rome as heretical. Only those Orthodox under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (which includes the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America) accept the validity of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP@May 27 2005, 12:06 PM
DMW, while you may be quoting or paraphrasing OFFICIAL church doctrine, it still dances around the issues. Sacraments are reserved for communicants, and officially withheld from non-communicants. And practice is a long-shot from official doctrine.

I had no intention of dancing around the issue; I was giving particulars on the individual sacraments. The shorter short answer is this: only baptised Catholics have entered into the sacramental life of the Church, and only they are allowed to receive the sacraments. The visible signs of the sacraments (the communion bread, annointing, etc.) may be shared by non-Catholics under certain conditions, but they will not confer sacramental grace on those receiving them.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+May 27 2005, 06:31 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; May 27 2005, 06:31 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DC_DEEP@May 27 2005, 12:06 PM

I had no intention of dancing around the issue; I was giving particulars on the individual sacraments. The shorter short answer is this: only baptised Catholics have entered into the sacramental life of the Church, and only they are allowed to receive the sacraments. The visible signs of the sacraments (the communion bread, annointing, etc.) may be shared by non-Catholics under certain conditions, but they will not confer sacramental grace on those receiving them.

[post=315370]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
That is still a lot of words, but what do they MEAN? Plain English? Without "certain conditions?" Doesn&#39;t that actually mean that they will go through the motions, but those motions are meaningless? How does that differ from the 14th Amendment GUARANTEEING every US citizen equal protection under the law, and then manipulating the law so that the judiciary and the congress really don&#39;t have to give equal protection? How ludicrous to say "we will give you the host, because under these certain conditions, it looks good; but since you aren&#39;t catholic, you aren&#39;t really receiving communion."

 

[prepstudinsc]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@May 27 2005, 06:25 PM

I stand corrected. I had assumed that since the words of the canon and consecration of the host are identical in the Catholic and High Epicopal liturgies, the doctrine concerning Transubstantiation would be shared by both. Before the establishment of the Church of England, those who eventually converted to Anglicanism definitely believed in Transubstantiation. I know Episcopalians today who believe in it as well, but apparently it is not in accordance with their official doctrine. Thanks for educating me on that point: I had no idea.

The problem with this doctrine in the Episcopal and Anglican church is that it&#39;s a grey area. While the church doesn&#39;t believe in it, the "high churchers" often do hold to it because they are often very Roman in belief, even if it goes against the Articles of Religion. I know of several "Anglo-Catholic" churches that have Marian devotion services and say the rosary, eventhough most broad churches and the low churches would frown on that practice. I think it is one of those things that has hung on because of the number of people who have gone from the Catholic church to the Episcopal church wanting more formality and also because some priests have wanted to marry.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP@May 27 2005, 08:06 PM
GBO, we are actually on the same side here. All I am really asking is that no one expect me to adopt or share their religious beliefs. Trust me, I really do want to slap the next person who has the nerve to tell me "oh, sure, you believe in god, you just don&#39;t realize it."

Sorry if the definitions with which I am familiar do not match yours, and if the main proponent of self-proclaimed atheism with whom I am familiar is Madeline Murray O&#39;hare. I just comment on what I have studied, read, and observed. I realize that mine is a narrow experience.

One more question for you before I let it rest... what does "vocal atheist" mean?

[post=315313]Quoted post[/post]​

I know we are on the same side, and I only bicker about definitions because I feel that athiesm is widely misunderstood.

I called my self the resident vocal athiest because I bring up religious subject here all the time. And I love debating theological issues.

 

[breeze]

Postscript to the Medjugorje posts.
" Medjugorje is the fulfillment and continuation of fatima" - Pope Paul
" On May 13 , 1917 , a vision appeared to three shepherd child near the village of fatima. On a cloud that hovered above an oak tree they saw the shining figure of a woman &#39; a beautiful lady from heaven&#39;. The lady told the children-Lucia 10 , Francisco 9 and Jacinta 7 to meet her in the same place on the 13th of each month until October. "
" On October 13 , 1930 the church solemnly declared that the manifestations of Cova da Iris { fatima } were worthly of belief " therefore granding permission for public veneration of Our Lady of Fatima. "

As i understand , aside from medical miracles needed to ascend to sainthood , until the 20th century the church had recognized only one " general miracle " that of the appearance of the Virgin Mary at Lourdes. The church has unbelieveable standards and will investigation a claim of the miraculous from anywhere from 100 to 500 years or more. Any inconsistency or discrepancy will cause the claim to be rejected. Then in the 20th century the church recognized the appearances of the Virgin Mary in Guadalupe after a 450 year investigation and fatima in an extraordinary short period because of extraordinary circumstances.
I first read about fatima in a major newspaper a few years back. It was more a journalist or scientific article rather than a religous article. It barely mentioned the Virgin Mary if at all. Before 50,000 - 100,000 people over a 25 mile radius the sun left its rotation and spun or danced in the sky. What the article kept saying is that it happened and its still a mystery. Of all the articles i have read over the years this is the one that sticks in my mind. They were 2 photographs one supposely showing the sun at ten o&#39;clock when it should have been at 2 o&#39;clock. { photos taken within the valley failed to develop } The " poet afonso lopes vieira reportly eyewitnessed the event from his house 25 miles away ". The idea it was a mass hallucination can be ruled out if for no other reason that a mass hallucination is a fallacy. That is you can have large numbers of people hallucinating but they are not going to have the same hallucination.
The background is that the Virgin Mary appeared to three children. The children claimed on her first 5 visits that upon finishing her visits as she ascended the skies parted to reveal heaven. The Virgin Mary promised a miracle on her final visit to reveal the existence of God. When the word got around visitors and reporters poured in from around the world. The portuguese newspaper reported " { the sun } broke through the clouds. And the silvery sun , still shrouded in the same grayish lightness of gauze , was seen to rotate and wander within the circle of receded clouds. " It also changed colors reportly one that has never been seen before.
The purpose of the Virgin Mary&#39;s visit was to ask that the rosary be prayed , to reveal the existence of hell and to proclaim God&#39;s anger at world war I. She left 3 prophecies known as the 3 fatima secrets. { which might or might not be fulfilled depending on the response to her visit } Two were soon released & the third one was released in the year 2000. The released 2 secrets prophecized the rise and fall of russia and world war II which would be preceded by flaming skies { one week before the war the northern lights burned over europe - ny times }
The pope deeply believed in fatima and his papacy to a large extent was based on fatima. In fact he though he was part of the fatima prophecy { vanity fair article }. He consulted with the surviving fatima child now Sister Lucia Santos and supposely was warned by the Virgin Mary that if russia wasn&#39;t checked it would mean the end of the world.
Finally i&#39;m paraphasing Sister Lucia Santos { who will be someday granted sainthood } final moments at Fatima " when our Lady has left i saw her standing next to the sun blessing the earth , to the other side of the sun appeared St. Joseph holding the baby Jesus who both blessed the earth to be replaced by God who also blessed the earth. "
I have searched for and read skeptics on fatima. None so far i have encountered dispute the existence of the 3 secrets of fatima and have no answers for the rest.

 

[Dr Rock]

you gotta go somewhere when you die
so why not see the world through jellyfish eyes

jellyfish heaven, where jellyfish go
to get away from mormons, and drunk eskimos
jellyfish heaven is a lot like LA

if you&#39;re bad then you&#39;ll go to hell
where jellyfish will sting you and your body will swell

jellyfish heaven, in the big blue sea
where it&#39;s too warm to surf and it&#39;s too cold to ski
jellyfish heaven is full of dead jellyfish

people always saying "I won&#39;t eat jellyfish
cos they ain&#39;t got no bones and you can&#39;t make a wish"
people always shouting "don&#39;t go swimming near those things"
but when they&#39;re close to dying you can hear them sing

jellyfish heaven is not like japan
jellyfish heaven is not like thailand
jellyfish heaven is a lot like LA

sweet jellyfish, sweet jellyfish
I&#39;ve been dazed and confused for so long it&#39;s not true
I wanted a jellyfish, never bargained for you
lots of people talking, few of them know
the soul of a jellyfish was created below

 

[ashlar]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Jun 8 2005, 11:19 PM
you gotta go somewhere when you die
so why not see the world through jellyfish eyes

jellyfish heaven, where jellyfish go
to get away from mormons, and drunk eskimos
jellyfish heaven is a lot like LA

if you&#39;re bad then you&#39;ll go to hell
where jellyfish will sting you and your body will swell

jellyfish heaven, in the big blue sea
where it&#39;s too warm to surf and it&#39;s too cold to ski
jellyfish heaven is full of dead jellyfish

people always saying "I won&#39;t eat jellyfish
cos they ain&#39;t got no bones and you can&#39;t make a wish"
people always shouting "don&#39;t go swimming near those things"
but when they&#39;re close to dying you can hear them sing

jellyfish heaven is not like japan
jellyfish heaven is not like thailand
jellyfish heaven is a lot like LA

sweet jellyfish, sweet jellyfish
I&#39;ve been dazed and confused for so long it&#39;s not true
I wanted a jellyfish, never bargained for you
lots of people talking, few of them know
the soul of a jellyfish was created below

[post=319031]Quoted post[/post]​

I think I love you.

*checks*

Yupp, I do.

 

[madame_zora]

GBO From post above:
"Those that are monotheistic believe that there is one god. In the three biggest religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam it is actually the first thing one must accpet to be considered a member of that religion. Jews, Christians, and Muslims DENY the existence of all gods but their own; it is an active belief that no other god exists, and aren&#39;t even open to the possibility (usually) that they could or might. This I think is a very illogical conclusion. Why is it possible that Jehovah, or Yahweh, or Allah exist, but it is not possible that Zeus does?"




GBO, interestingly enough, the three major religions all pray to the same God. Judaism is the faith of the people before the arrival of Christ, then Christianity split off from there, same God still. Muslims were founded on the tribe of Abraham, the same Abraham of the OT, many of the same people are referenced. Same God there. If more people knew they were talking about the same God, they&#39;d be less likely to be so angry at each other. Contempt prior to investigation is so stupid. Jehovah, Yahweh and Allah are the same guy. Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroatrianism (to name a few) have other Gods but the three majors are talking about the same God in different languages.

Sorry, I know the conversation has progressed to agnosticism, but I just wanted to clear that up too while we&#39;re here.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Madam, I didn&#39;t mean to impy that Jews, CHristians, and Muslims claim that the other two are wrong or that their gods don&#39;t exist only that other gods than the one they share don&#39;t.