Help Kiddy Choose a Church

[Darius871]

I know I'm not here much anymore, but when did Kid become a christian?

I'm curious about that too. I'd just assumed that some spontaneous missionaries pulled a whole svengali routine on the guy, but if he's still looking for a specific church to join as this thread suggests, that theory must be lacking.

[EPW]

Latter-day Saints

or Christian Scientist

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, giving my two cents for my own church, the Orthodox Church can lay the best claim (aside from very minor religions such as the Copts and various minor Oriental sects) to worshiping in the manner closest to that of the early church, and we retain most of the structure.

Respectfully disagree. I was unaware that you folks had turned away from tradition wrt to contraception. That's a major error, and contrary to what all the fathers of the church teach.

We have no cases of pederasty that I know of, and no Pope, which I personally see as a plus--decisions are made by a synod, a council of bishops voting. The autocratic power of the Pope is a departure from holy tradition, and incorrect.

Again, respectfully disagree. I think you'll be in for a shock with the recent events. There is going to be a reconciliation, and the pope will be affirmed of the same position he's always had at the head of the Church. I can agree with the catholicity of the Orthodox in retaining the traditions of the church, but I think you take too much pleasure in advocating the things that the Orthodox are 'unlike' Catholicism.

Also no immaculate conception, purgatory, or anything like that; we subscribe to a less rigid and legalistic interpretation of things, and we're content to let mysteries remain mysteries rather than fill the gaps with speculation and call it truth.

Fair enough. General and quite appropriate commentary. Agree wholeheartedly here, about the Western/Eastern split.

In general attitude we're almost like Catholicism crossed with Buddhism. One of the most important distinctions to my mind, and one rarely mentioned, is that we reject the satisfaction doctrine of the atonement. It's amazing to me how many people believe Christ died for something totally contrary to His own teachings.

Clarify please? I'm curious as to what you refer.

[Nikolai]

Where you feel at home. Pray, I'm sure God will help you in your decision. Not like he points directly, but by you opening yourself to the Holy Spirit and him sending you other Christians in your way. I don't know enough of your Christian beliefs to point you anywhere really. Just know this: Where ever you choose to go, it won't be perfect, as no denomination is, but listen to the Holy Spirit, and I'm sure you'll find a place where you can feel at home. As long as Christ is preached and the followers of the church is living their lives in Christ, all is well.

[SlowwHand]

I'm a Methodist. I hope you give the denomination a try.

[Warui]

I think you should have converted to capitalism instead of Christianity. Being Christian doesn't change the fact that you're living in a RCA TV box.

[Berzerker]

damnit, yer a Christian and you need a church? Jesus said

we dont need no stinking churches

oh wait, that was my God, Mel Brooks

[Elok]

Respectfully disagree. I was unaware that you folks had turned away from tradition wrt to contraception. That's a major error, and contrary to what all the fathers of the church teach.

Citation, please, from non-Roman sources, or at least Roman sources predating the 1054 split.

Again, respectfully disagree. I think you'll be in for a shock with the recent events. There is going to be a reconciliation, and the pope will be affirmed of the same position he's always had at the head of the Church. I can agree with the catholicity of the Orthodox in retaining the traditions of the church, but I think you take too much pleasure in advocating the things that the Orthodox are 'unlike' Catholicism.

NOT A BLOODY CHANCE. Our attitude is completely opposed to Catholic power structure. The most we will allow the Pope, assuming he ditches the sundry heresies accumulated over the past millennium, is "first among equals," the title currently held by the Patriarch of Constantinople. IE, if we ever have another Ecumenical Council, the Pope can preside over it like the Vice President over the Senate, and wear the biggest hat. Which is why I imagine the reunion will not occur in our lifetimes, unless the RCC is suddenly and drastically humbled by events I can't imagine.

Clarify please? I'm curious as to what you refer.

What, WRT the satisfaction doctrine of the atonement? Aside from undermining the sovereignty of God by asserting that He "has" to do anything, to pay some sense of justice external to Himself (and the solution to this conundrum has nothing to do with justice, robbing the innocent, however willing, to pay the guilty), there's nothing in the teachings of Christ to back it up. The Prodigal Son wastes his father's inheritance, comes back; the father doesn't take away the other son's inheritance to make good on the debt. The steward is forgiven of a great debt (until he refuses to pay another's), and nobody else pays it. Forgiveness means, quite simply, FORGIVENESS. The debt is absolved, forgotten. God can do that because He's God. IIRC the Satisfaction doctrine was largely the invention of a fellow named Anselm of Canterbury sometime around the turn of the last millennium.

[Ben Kenobi]

Elok:

Clement:

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature"

St. John Crystostem

"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live" (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

"[T]he man who has mutilated himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, ‘I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God’s creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds" (ibid., 62:3)."


Augustine:

"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]. . . . [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman" (The Good of Marriage 11–12 [A.D. 401]).

[Ben Kenobi]

Our attitude is completely opposed to Catholic power structure. The most we will allow the Pope, assuming he ditches the sundry heresies accumulated over the past millennium, is "first among equals," the title currently held by the Patriarch of Constantinople. IE, if we ever have another Ecumenical Council, the Pope can preside over it like the Vice President over the Senate, and wear the biggest hat. Which is why I imagine the reunion will not occur in our lifetimes, unless the RCC is suddenly and drastically humbled by events I can't imagine.

You are aware that Constantinople is 4th, behind Antioch, Alexandria and Rome? There's no mention of Constantinople prior to the 3rd century. Rome is the senior see to Constantinople.

[Ben Kenobi]

there's nothing in the teachings of Christ to back it up. The Prodigal Son wastes his father's inheritance, comes back; the father doesn't take away the other son's inheritance to make good on the debt. The steward is forgiven of a great debt (until he refuses to pay another's), and nobody else pays it. Forgiveness means, quite simply, FORGIVENESS. The debt is absolved, forgotten. God can do that because He's God. IIRC the Satisfaction doctrine was largely the invention of a fellow named Anselm of Canterbury sometime around the turn of the last millennium.

This is a good question. Several things here.

1. "The Father doesn't take away the other son's inheritance"

This is a profoundly incorrect understanding of atonement. The point of the prodigal son, is that both sons sinned, the first, in leaving, and the second, in bitterness. WRT to the atonement, all have fallen short of the Law. What inheritance do any of us receive? Merely that of sin, and the grave. It is only through God's mercy that we receive him and his Grace and eternal life, instead of divine judgment as we deserve. Now, if by the second son, you mean Christ, Christ volunteered to give his life. Such would be if the second son in the Prodigal son gave up his portion that the debt would be repaid.

2. "God can do that because he is God".

This is the better argument.

Couple things here. Catholicism holds what is called the substitutionary theory, that Christ's death satisfies the debt of honour owed to God, from our fallenness. You are right, that this doctrine originates with Anselm. Anselm argued that the debt was not between man and Satan but between man and God. As we cannot offer a perfect sacrifice, God offers himself as he is sinless and the bridge between man and God. Therefore, he serves as the substitution for mankind, by which he atones for the sins of all, much as the OT offered animals, Christ is the 'passover lamb without blemish'.

However, your particular take on it, has nothing to do with Orthodoxy.

The Orthodox take on it says that Christ's death was a ransom which was to be paid to Satan for the fallenness of mankind. The concept is that Adam and Eve sold humanity to the devil, in order to redeem mankind, Christ sold himself. This is Origen's view.

Your view, that God is supreme, neglects justice. The debt must be repaid. Yes, God could simply forgive, but that would deny that an offense has been committed. Justice demands that the debt be repaid.

[Theben]

Find out exactly what Ben is and join anything else.

[MrFun]

Metropolitan Community Church - go, see, pray

[Berzerker]

why would you pray to God standing in a structure built by man?

heresy!!!

[Theben]

You pray in a cave?