Do You Attend Church Services?

David777 said:
The Roman Catholic church demand for celibacy of priests was the most stupid policy the church ever made. Satan is still probably rolling on the ground hysterically laughing. It has resulted in enormous moral rot, evil sins, and ghastly pain to myriad abused children and women. Church pro celibacy information dominates what one may find on the web while the below is uncommon information they would prefer remain buried.

When did the prohibition of marriage for priests in the Catholic church originate?

Every informed pastor (the Pope included) knows that celibacy was not universally imposed upon the clergy until the Middle Ages, but only very few are aware of the history whereby papal attacks on clerical marriage were resisted for many generations by pastors and their wives.

The origins of universal clerical celibacy emerged as an unexpected byproduct when eleventh century church reformers [known as the Gregorian Reform] tried to deal with problems surrounding the inheritance of Church properties and of Church offices by the sons of clergymen. Reforming popes initially tackled this problem by trying to reduce the number of “sons” fathered by priests. Priests and their wives were accordingly required to sleep in separate beds.

When this approach failed, their wives were required to live in separate houses. Fines were imposed. Priests stubbornly living with their wives were suspended. Bishops were required to make pastoral visitations and forcibly separate priests from their lawfully wedded wives. In many instances, these bishops were often bombarded by angry parishioners throwing rotten fruit. Meanwhile, in other areas, wives of priests who became pregnant were publicly shunned by parishioners and, in some instances, priests wanting to advance their careers within the Church were forced to abandon their wives and children in exchange for a better priestly post.

The First Lateran Council (1123) was so frustrated by the inability of the Vatican to impose compliance to earlier legislation that they took the radical step of declaring the sacramental marriages of priests “null and void.” The Council decreed “that marriages already contracted by such persons [priests, deacons and monks] must be dissolved, and that the persons [both husbands and wives] be condemned to do penance.” In a Church that was endeavoring to sustain the notion that no sacramental marriage could ever be dissolved by anything less than death of one of the spouses, the First Lateran Council’s open hostility toward the sacramental marriages of its priests was a shocking (and many would say “ungodly”) departure from its own theology of the indissolubility of the marriage bond.

There followed three centuries where discovering secret mistresses and illegitimate children became the ongoing concern of the Vatican and reform-minded bishops. Only when the laity were finally persuaded to boycott the altars of priests “living in sin” and bishops began demanding a solemn vow of celibacy prior to ordination did the campaign for clerical “chastity” finally take hold.

All in all, the whole ugly mess surrounding the imposition of celibacy did not approach anywhere near a universal adherence until the seminary system was instituted following the Council of Trent. In the new seminaries, the sexuality of young boys could be closely monitored and their youthful characters could be informed (some would say traumatized) with a morbid fear of having any contact whatsoever with women outside of the confessional.

This opened up the floodgates for developing new theologies calculated to foster clerical “virginity.” Gifted preachers moved from parish to parish promoting this message: “That a priest’s hands ought to be entirely virginal since only then could they worthily bring God into the world [at the words of consecration] just as did the Virgin Mary.” Out of such pietistic theologies that circulated during the 17th and 18th centuries, the charism of celibacy put forward in Paul VI’s Sacerdotalis Caelibatus was developed.
Click to expand...

Strange since this prohibition to marry was identified as false worship by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to Timothy:

1 Timothy 4:3…2 influenced by the hypocrisy of liars, whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. 3They will prohibit marriage
 

Don M. said:
I attended church nearly every Sunday during my younger years....mostly Presbyterian. My Mom's side of the family was Catholic, so i sometimes went to Mass with them. When I reached my late teens, and analyzed the sermons more closely, I concluded that the most important part of the service was the "passing of the collection plate". In the last few decades, the only time I've been to church was for weddings or funerals.

I firmly believe that the universe is guided by a far higher power that our feeble little minds can comprehend, but if we live a positive and responsible life, we will be rewarded.
Click to expand...
At a Catholic Church I attended once, a wire basket attached to a very long handle would be placed right in front of each seated parishioner. My friend and I reverently deposited a penny each inside.
 
David777 said:
Yeah just returned from a 9am mass. A solid 250 people in attendance at the ceremony. One of 5 masses to be held today. Unlike most of you that have turned your backs accepting death and eventual eternal non-existence, I still hope for eternal life so live my life to that end. I won't give up on Jesus's church and its myriad well meaning good people simply because I don't agree with church dogma's, behaviors of some, realize there are strong reasons it won't happen for logical and science reasons, or am lazy. Per below, the path to such has a clearly stated requirement.

Significantly versus dominant church dogmas, I do not believe in an Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent magic like actions without real forces entity as "god" but rather a powerful ancient entity with physical limitations.

John 6:44 (RSV)

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.

This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
Click to expand...
Why have you reached the conclusion that the entity able to resurrect and grant eternal life is not omnipotent?

Revelation 19:6
Then I heard something like the voice of a great multitude and like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying,“ Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns.

Source: 13 Bible verses about God's Omnipotence
 

Growing up in the '60s, I attended church with whoever I spent Saturday night with. Looking back, that was an awesome experience for a kid. I went to the Catholic Church, Baptist Church, and Presbyterian Church. They all said that Jesus Christ died for our sins. That's what I came away with. In my teens, I encountered adults who were belligerent about what I said about my beliefs which hurt my feelings deeply. In my mind, Christians were not supposed to behave like that. That fueled my desire to know the Bible so I could talk about it accurately.

I ended up studying with Jehovah's Witness for 13 years but there were things they believed which did not seem right to me. About 10 years after that I went online to different denominations to read belief statements and I ended up attending a Baptist church. 18 years later I'm still at that church. The pastor teaches the Bible like it's a college class which I like. I read my Bible and pray daily, as I see God as my teacher when all is said and done. After all this, I've concluded that the most important thing in the Bible is Jesus Christ died for our sins.
 
ThePokeyPuppy said:
Growing up in the '60s, I attended church with whoever I spent Saturday night with. Looking back, that was an awesome experience for a kid. I went to the Catholic Church, Baptist Church, and Presbyterian Church. They all said that Jesus Christ died for our sins. That's what I came away with. In my teens, I encountered adults who were belligerent about what I said about my beliefs which hurt my feelings deeply. In my mind, Christians were not supposed to behave like that. That fueled my desire to know the Bible so I could talk about it accurately.

I ended up studying with Jehovah's Witness for 13 years but there were things they believed which did not seem right to me. About 10 years after that I went online to different denominations to read belief statements and I ended up attending a Baptist church. 18 years later I'm still at that church. The pastor teaches the Bible like it's a college class which I like. I read my Bible and pray daily, as I see God as my teacher when all is said and done. After all this, I've concluded that the most important thing in the Bible is Jesus Christ died for our sins.
Click to expand...
You disagree with Jehovah's Witness about what?
Click to expand...
 
Have much more than the below, for example IMO it is related to the Bible inerrancy nonsense. This science person is grounded in logic that actions without forces is impossible magic. But as a start:

From Wikipedia:

In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe. Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one God or in the oneness of God. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. In atheism, God does not exist, while God is deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism...

The Septuagint (and other early translations) sometimes translate "Shaddai" as "(the) Almighty". It is often translated as "God", "my God", or "Lord". However, in the Greek of the Septuagint translation of Psalm 91:1, "Shaddai" is translated as "the God of heaven". "Almighty" is the translation of "Shaddai" followed by most modern English translations of the Hebrew scriptures, including the popular New International Version and Good News Bible.

The translation team behind the New Jerusalem Bible (N.J.B.) however, maintains that the meaning is uncertain, and that translating "El Shaddai" as "Almighty God" is inaccurate. The N.J.B. leaves it untranslated as "Shaddai", and makes footnote suggestions that it should perhaps be understood as "God of the Mountain" from the Akkadian "shadu", or "God of the open wastes" from the Hebrew "sadeh" and the secondary meaning of the Akkadian word. The translation in the Concordant Old Testament is 'El Who-Suffices' (Genesis 17:1).
---------------------

My own speculative sense of how OOO dogma developed is it may be thoughts and words of metaphysicians during the Middle Ages that feared if the description of god had limits, then he is somehow not worthy. And for religious philosophers to even speculate on such limits, they might fear such would be interpreted by God as a sinful act so they err on the extreme. It is also probable that doubters demanded those levels of power from other philosophers they argued with lest they not accept a god as being a god but merely some powerful entity.

Actually, humans in ancient civilizations including the Israelites did not see their gods with unlimited powers as philosophers in the Middle Ages came to conjure up but rather were simply vastly more powerful. Since God may not have communicated to those writing The Bible or interpreting vagaries of The Bible, the conclusion was reached for those unlimited qualities. A scribe believing in inspiration might have said, “Look 30 years ago I added this into Moses book that God had unlimited power and it is still there and God has not stricken it out or punished me, so it must be true.”

Referring to God as "Almighty" is derived from the Hebrew word El Shaddai that does not logically demand Omnipotence (part of the three OOO's). Such is merely a dogma translation. And churches with agendas had enormous reasons for creating OOO dogmas not in the Bible.

El Shaddai - Wikipedia
 
David777 said:
Have much more than the below, for example IMO it is related to the Bible inerrancy nonsense. This science person is grounded in logic that actions without forces is impossible magic. But as a start:

---------------------

My own speculative sense of how OOO dogma developed is it may be thoughts and words of metaphysicians during the Middle Ages that feared if the description of god had limits, then he is somehow not worthy. And for religious philosophers to even speculate on such limits, they might fear such would be interpreted by God as a sinful act so they err on the extreme. It is also probable that doubters demanded those levels of power from other philosophers they argued with lest they not accept a god as being a god but merely some powerful entity.

Actually, humans in ancient civilizations including the Israelites did not see their gods with unlimited powers as philosophers in the Middle Ages came to conjure up but rather were simply vastly more powerful. Since God may not have communicated to those writing The Bible or interpreting vagaries of The Bible, the conclusion was reached for those unlimited qualities. A scribe believing in inspiration might have said, “Look 30 years ago I added this into Moses book that God had unlimited power and it is still there and God has not stricken it out or punished me, so it must be true.”

Referring to God as "Almighty" is derived from the Hebrew word El Shaddai that does not logically demand Omnipotence (part of the three OOO's). Such is merely a dogma translation. And churches with agendas had enormous reasons for creating OOO dogmas not in the Bible.

El Shaddai - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Centuries before the Middle Ages you mention, Jesus had clearly described God as being almighty.

Matthew 19:26
And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Mark 14:36
And He was saying, “Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.”

Luke 1:37
For nothing will be impossible with God.”
Click to expand...

So descriptions of God as being almighty were justifiably based on Jesus's teachings alone, and had nothing to do with the El Shadai usage in the OT that is presently considered as being uncertain. In any case, since Jesus described him that in that specific way, then calling him Almighty in the Old Testament is a correct description.

Revelation 19:6
Then I heard something like the voice of a great multitude and like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying,“Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns.

Revelation 4:8
And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say,“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.”

Revelation 11:1
saying,“We give You thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who are and who were, because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign.

Revelation 16:7
And I heard the altar saying, “Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.”
Revelation 16:14for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty.

Revelation 19:15
From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.

Revelation 21:22
I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

Revelation 1:8
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/The-Almighty
Click to expand...

BTW There is absolutely no evidence that any scribe did what you describe to the OT. Such scribes were always under strict supervision in reference to their accuracy. They were not operating within social vacuum, as you seem to be imagining. So inaccuracies were kept to a minimum, and could never be as blatantly included as you are describing.
 
Last edited:
I strongly also don't believe in Bible inerrancy but do believe parts of the Bible may have been somewhat inspired so like John's gospel. So for this person, quoting the Bible as you often do, does not register with much meaningful credibility.

Interesting how your mind usually works in discussions if such conflicts with your own ideas. I wrote about the Hebrew translation for "Almighty". You predictably only chose to criticize that rigidly without offering why it has any possible value. That is why I don't personally find you a person worth pushing discussions further than brief statements.
 
The first disagreement I had with their teaching is that the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses is the faithful and discreet slave as described by Jesus. They also teach that the Archangel Michael is Jesus. And they teach that Jesus is a created being not a divine being.
 
ThePokeyPuppy said:
The first disagreement I had with their teaching is that the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses is the faithful and discreet slave as described by Jesus. They also teach that the Archangel Michael is Jesus. And they teach that Jesus is a created being not a divine being.
Click to expand...
I was once baptized as a member of the organization but it was not with the benefit of informed consent. So I no longer view that baptism as having been valid as I stupidly chose to do despite that very obvious serious flaw.

Theologically, I agree with you on the Faithful and Discreet Slave assumption. However, my primary objections are in reference to their false prophecies, their cruel disfellowshipping and shunning policies, their emphasis on earning salvation, and their division of Jesus' flock into spirit anointed, and non spirit anointed categories. All of which I now consider non-Christian.
 
Last edited:
Mrs. Smart was fumbling in her purse for her offering as the collection plate was being passed around, when a large television remote fell out and clattered into the aisle. The curious usher bent over to retrieve it for her and whispered, “Do you always carry your TV remote to church?” “No,” she replied, “but my husband refused to come with me this morning, and I figured this was the most provocative thing that I could do to him, legally.”

A devout old shepherd lost his favorite Bible while he was out looking for a wayward lamb. Three weeks later, a sheep walked up to him carrying the Bible in its mouth. The shepherd couldn’t believe his eyes. He took the precious book out of the sheep’s mouth, raised his eyes heavenward and exclaimed, “It’s a miracle!” “Not really,” said the sheep. “Your name is written inside the cover.”
 
Talking about addresses, in clearing up some bits and pieces I found a New Testament that had my late father's name and address on the inside cover. His first name was John, and the name was written as J.F.W. xxxxxx

I found out from my mother that he had always signed his letters J.F.W.xxxxx. however.... mother told me that his original birth certificate had been lost and when they applied for a replacement, they couldn't find his name. A bit of research showed that he was born on a different date to the one he always believed, and he appeared to be Thomas, now known as John. I don't think this mystery was ever solved, but from then on his birthday was celebrated on the one he believed and he signed his name simply J.xxxxx
 
I am repeatedly being invited to a charismatic type church but will not go. Yes, having people to associate with and listening to the Biblical message is nice. However, having people suddenly dropping to to floor and rolling around while producing garbled sounds as if they were demon-possessed is not. It scares me. Especially since my Aunt Felicita did the same and then approached me in a threatening way. So I am definitely not going to make my self available for a repeat since next time I might not escape/

I imagine a spirit maybe saying to another:

"Hey guys! There he is! The dude who got away from us when he wuz twelve. Make sure he doesn't escape us now!" Imagine the possessed parishioners maybe hanging me upside down from the church belfry bells and then setting them in motion.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Bea said:
No.

I don’t have a problem with organized religion I just feel more comfortable with my own beliefs and moral compass.

I grew up in a small community and I guess I got to know too much about how the church going folks behaved the other six days a week to feel comfortable worshipping with them on Sunday. 😉
Click to expand...
Ironically, church goers themselves might prove far more effective in turning people away from Christianity than those they identify as dangerous. They can also ruin a person's character via providing a bad example.
Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits.” (1 Cor. 15:33)

I learned a great deal about the human potential for hypocrisy from them.​
 
If you believe in whatever, why do you constantly feel the need to demonstrate it? If you believe in a god and believe that this god knows everything, why bother? IMO, a god that demands constant devotion is not worthy of respect.
 
Capt Lightning said:
If you believe in whatever, why do you constantly feel the need to demonstrate it? If you believe in a god and believe that this god knows everything, why bother? IMO, a god that demands constant devotion is not worthy of respect.
Click to expand...
My apologies if I am annoying you by posting this thread. It was not my intention.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Bea said:
No.

I don’t have a problem with organized religion I just feel more comfortable with my own beliefs and moral compass.

I grew up in a small community and I guess I got to know too much about how the church going folks behaved the other six days a week to feel comfortable worshipping with them on Sunday. 😉
Click to expand...
We're ALL sinners. A God of the Bible teaching service can give a wake up to one's sins. I once chose to listen to this church's teaching, then that church's teaching, till I got so sick of hearing the claim from each of these various denominations, 'What WE believe and teach is correctly God's Word,' So I gave up on them all and have learned more of God's truth listening to certain Christian teachers on T V. (And have also found some really sick money grubbing Bible "cough!", teachers on T V).

My heart cried in shame for I’d stepped

Away from the pure sown path of God.

Aching with repentance and quiet

Desperation, I lifted my hand in search

Of the impress of His Grace

Fearing my unworthiness would keep

Me from the touch of His even His fingertips.

But oh the glory that overcame me and

Taught me His enduring love when I felt

The whole of His forgiving hand

Enclose the whole of mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top