Going to church?

[poppy]

I agree churches should have the option of refusing to perform gay marriages. I was talking about inclusiveness ... not excluding anyone from attending and encouraging people to be accepting of differences. 

[Madeleine]

1 hour ago, poppy said:

I agree churches should have the option of refusing to perform gay marriages. I was talking about inclusiveness ... not excluding anyone from attending and encouraging people to be accepting of differences. 

But if a church said it was inclusive, but refused to perform gay marriages, then that would make gay people feel that they weren't being included?  Especially if they did want to marry.  

[lunababymoonchild]

5 hours ago, Madeleine said:

But if a church said it was inclusive, but refused to perform gay marriages, then that would make gay people feel that they weren't being included?  Especially if they did want to marry.  

I agree

[poppy]

7 hours ago, Madeleine said:

But if a church said it was inclusive, but refused to perform gay marriages, then that would make gay people feel that they weren't being included?  Especially if they did want to marry.  

 

If something is contrary to a particular religion or denomination's beliefs, I don't think they should be forced into it.  People don't need a church to be married.

But many churches ARE performing gay marriages now, so it isn't really a problem.

I wasn't commenting on the rightness or wrongness of a churches stance rather that no-one should be ostracised for whatever reason.  

 

[Raven]

4 hours ago, poppy said:

 

If something is contrary to a particular religion or denomination's beliefs, I don't think they should be forced into it.  People don't need a church to be married.

But many churches ARE performing gay marriages now, so it isn't really a problem.

I wasn't commenting on the rightness or wrongness of a churches stance rather that no-one should be ostracised for whatever reason.  

 

 

You say people don't need to go to Church to be married, but what about those who do go to church who are gay and want to be married in the sight of God?

 

Yes, there are sections of the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong, but there are also sections that say owning a slave is fine (and with guidance on how to treat them!).  More personally I know people who have gone against Paul's teachings on divorce and remarriage because they have chosen to believe that God wouldn't punish two people who are in love from marrying, even if one of them was before.

 

All of the Bible's teachings are subjective and reinterpreted from generation to generation; the block on gay marriage is just another outdated stance the CofE will eventually be forced to roll back on, just like they were with divorcees remarrying... 

 

[poppy]

43 minutes ago, Raven said:

 

You say people don't need to go to Church to be married, but what about those who do go to church who are gay and want to be married in the sight of God?

 

Yes, there are sections of the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong, but there are also sections that say owning a slave is fine (and with guidance on how to treat them!).  More personally I know people who have gone against Paul's teachings on divorce and remarriage because they have chosen to believe that God wouldn't punish two people who are in love from marrying, even if one of them was before.

 

All of the Bible's teachings are subjective and reinterpreted from generation to generation; the block on gay marriage is just another outdated stance the CofE will eventually be forced to roll back on, just like they were with divorcees remarrying... 

 

 

Agree with you entirely, Raven. I've never seen eye to eye with many of Paul's teachings. 

As it stands, the law states any church will not be compelled to conduct gay marriages. I'm sure many will change their stance as time goes by, but I'd be surprised if the more conservative ones will. And churches cover many sects and religions. I can't imagine Muslims changing their minds on this.

You would think if a gay couple wanted to get married in church, they would gravitate towards the more liberal ones.  But my point really was that Christian churches should welcome anyone into their congregation whatever their beliefs. 

[Madeleine]

I agree with Raven, obviously some are more inclusive than others.

[KEV67]

On 8/12/2022 at 2:41 PM, Raven said:

 

A lot of churches are set up as charities, so you can find their accounts online if you take a look.

 

I took a look at one my brother used to work for a few years back and their main source of income - by far - comes from donations (which I believe includes legacies).

 

 

I'm sure there are those who do [try to make money out of their congregations], but I don't believe we tend to get a lot of this in the UK.

 

I tried looking up St Mary's Castle Street Church of England Continuing on the Charity Commission website. I could not find them. I did find a charity entry for St Silas (Continuing Church) Trust, which is one of the other three congregations. Their total income was £4,662  and outgoings were £2,076. I looked up their trustees, and several of them were also trustees of The Association of the Continuing Church Trust, whose total income was £3,720 and outgoings £3,826. It does not look like there is a lot of tithing going on. These figures are less than for the maintenance company for my block of flats. I gave them £20 last week, if I do that every week it would make a significant difference. I doubt the vicar is being paid. I doubt they are paying building insurance. If they are then that is taking up most of their income. When I was at the Unitarians meeting, they said that they had gone to see a talk by Karen Armstrong at this church the evening before. Karen Armstrong is an ex-nun who writes very learned books on religion. So learned in fact, that I had a great deal of difficulty understand a previous book, History of God. She was promoting her new book. Maybe the church gets a bit of money from events like that, but it cannot be much.

[KEV67]

The problem I have with gay marriage in church, and even women priests, is that the Bible, in particular the New Testament prohibits it. How can something be wrong for hundreds of years and then be right? Which parts of the New Testament do you feel free to override and have you informed God? Religion is supposed to be about eternal verities. It is not supposed to follow social mores. Some social mores have only developed since medical or technological innovation, so how can they be eternal?

 

I first turned religious about twelve years old when I started reading the Gideon Bibles they distributed at schools. My schoolboy conclusions about Christianity:

• Being good is about not doing what you want;
• God is always right (even if it does not seem that way to you);
• Life is only a test for the afterlife.

My understanding from reading the bible was that the worse time you had this life, the better time you had the next, or at least the more likely you were to get there. God has stiffed a lot of people, not just homosexuals. If you do not actually believe in any sort of afterlife then sure, do what you like, but why bother going to church? What is the point in following a discipline that only prohibits what you do not want to do anyway?

 

Then again, my understanding was also that you were supposed to give away all your money, live a life of poverty, and spend your time proselytising unbelievers. I never fancied that. I think there has always been a certain amount of hypocrisy in the church right from the beginning, because a lot of Jesus's teaching were too hard for most people to follow and were incompatible with maintaining a stable society long term.

[KEV67]

Went to St William of York Roman Catholic Church this morning, which still do Latin mass. As it was Sunday it was High Mass. I went once before on a Friday when it was Low Mass. It was way better than the other Catholic services I went to. Most the women wore lacy headscarves, and I was glad to see most the men wore suits. High Mass is mostly sung. This was a problem for me as I did not know what they were singing. I only just got there in time. If I had been a bit earlier, I might have been able to borrow one of their Missals (I think they're called). The young woman on the same pew as me could sing quite well. The priest faced the altar for the most part. There were several lads of various ages fetching and carrying. At one point a priest addressed the congregation in English. He said to pray because the Channel Islanders are considering legalising euthanasia. He mentioned someone, who if I understood correctly, was about to become a Franciscan monk. The sermon was about ten Samaritan lepers. Jesus cured them all and one of them returned later to thank him. According to the priest, this was the only person in the Gospel to thank Jesus for having been cured of something. He also explained the difference between gratitude and feeling grateful, which I did not bother trying to understand. The service lasted an hour and a half, but I managed to resist looking at my watch.

 

In the evening I went back to St Mary's Castle Street, Church of England (Continuing) church. Gave them another £20. I do not know whether this is enough, too much or too little. The hymns were absolutely unsingable. The sermon this week was about the feeding of the five thousand, but not so much about that miracle as about the crowd being lost sheep. There was a discussion of sheep. Up in Cumbria you can leave sheep on the hillsides all summer long, because there are no lions or wolves, but not so in Judea of classical times. The vicar indulged in a bit of Pharisee and Sadducee bashing, comparing them to wolves.

 

I have done the local Roman Catholic churches. St William of York was quite good. I think Pope Paul VI was wrong to do away with Latin mass. Next week I plan to make a start on the Baptist churches. There is one about five minutes walk away.

[Raven]

On 8/31/2022 at 11:50 PM, KEV67 said:

 

The problem I have with gay marriage in church, and even women priests, is that the Bible, in particular the New Testament prohibits it. How can something be wrong for hundreds of years and then be right? Which parts of the New Testament do you feel free to override and have you informed God? Religion is supposed to be about eternal verities. It is not supposed to follow social mores. Some social mores have only developed since medical or technological innovation, so how can they be eternal?

 

 

The problem with the Bible - as I see it - is that it was written by men who had their own idea of what the church/faith should be at the time (I could say they had their own agenda, but that would just make it sound like a Dan Brown conspiracy novel...). 

 

On 8/31/2022 at 11:50 PM, KEV67 said:

 

I first turned religious about twelve years old when I started reading the Gideon Bibles they distributed at schools. My schoolboy conclusions about Christianity:

• Being good is about not doing what you want;

 

I've read that a few times now and I honestly don't know what you mean by it.  You aren't good by denying yourself things you want to do; you are good by having morals and respecting others (amongst other things).

 

On 8/31/2022 at 11:50 PM, KEV67 said:

• God is always right (even if it does not seem that way to you);

 

I would debate that one as being a cop out reply when people are asked why children die of cancer and there is suffering in the world, etc. 

 

On 8/31/2022 at 11:50 PM, KEV67 said:

• Life is only a test for the afterlife.

My understanding from reading the bible was that the worse time you had this life, the better time you had the next, or at least the more likely you were to get there.

 

 

Maybe the church I went to, when I did go - many years ago now - was a little more liberal than what you have come into contact with, but I have never heard nor held the belief that the worse this life is the better the next will be, and that suffering helps you get there.

 

My understanding of Christianity is that you are asking God into your life and asking for his forgiveness for your sins; only then can you get into Heaven. 

 

On 8/31/2022 at 11:50 PM, KEV67 said:

 

God has stiffed a lot of people, not just homosexuals. If you do not actually believe in any sort of afterlife then sure, do what you like, but why bother going to church? What is the point in following a discipline that only prohibits what you do not want to do anyway?

 

Then again, my understanding was also that you were supposed to give away all your money, live a life of poverty, and spend your time proselytising unbelievers. I never fancied that. I think there has always been a certain amount of hypocrisy in the church right from the beginning, because a lot of Jesus's teaching were too hard for most people to follow and were incompatible with maintaining a stable society long term.

 

 

You don't have to be a Christian to be a good person; you can still understand morality and empathy without having read the Bible or having gone to church.  

 

I personally think that the worst thing that has happened to God (should he actually be real, which I don't believe myself) is so called "organised" religion - there are certainly those in the world who have done immeasurable harm in the name of God, and should he exist I doubt he would approve of their conduct (if he does approve, I personally want no part of any religion he's leading...).

 

My personal take is that if you are going to base your life on a doctrine of any kind, you owe it to yourself to look into the detail of that religion or belief system and to find out how it came about, and why, before committing to it.  It's something I didn't do when I got drawn into going to church and it is something I regret that I didn't do to this day.

 

[Raven]

Nuts, forgot to post this:

 

 

Just something that makes me smile!

 

[Virginia]

On 9/5/2022 at 6:12 PM, Raven said:

Nuts, forgot to post this:

 

I'm sure you only meant this as something funny but please remember that there are actual Christians that are in this forum. I make it a point to not disparage, or disrespect anyone's belief, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy. Thank you.

On 9/5/2022 at 6:12 PM, Raven said:

 

Just something that makes me smile!

 

 

[Raven]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying anyone who believes in God is a dummy (it's just the name of a range of books that explain things in simple terms - I have several).

 

[KEV67]

I was going to make a start on the Baptist churches on Sunday, but I think I will return to St Mary's Castle Street. They always pray for the Queen. Actually, I think most Church of England churches do, but St Mary's always does. Other Church of England churches pray that her ministers make wise decisions. It is officially the state church. The Book of Common Prayer will be outdated again. We already skip the bit referring to the Duke of Edinburgh.

[timebug]

Whilst not a Christian myself, I have no problem supporting my friends who do believe, and like anything in life, so long as what you believe in causes no harm or distress to others, that is fine with me!

[lunababymoonchild]

37 minutes ago, timebug said:

Whilst not a Christian myself, I have no problem supporting my friends who do believe, and like anything in life, so long as what you believe in causes no harm or distress to others, that is fine with me!

I'm the same. I also won't put up being recruited either.

[Madeleine]

2 hours ago, lunababymoonchild said:

I'm the same. I also won't put up being recruited either.

Me neither, which is why I always give Jehovah Witnesses short shrift when they come round.

 

Going back to an earlier point about the Queen, I would imagine that most religions would say a prayer, or at least mention her and the Royal Family, at some point in one of their services.

[KEV67]

5 hours ago, Madeleine said:

Me neither, which is why I always give Jehovah Witnesses short shrift when they come round.

 

Going back to an earlier point about the Queen, I would imagine that most religions would say a prayer, or at least mention her and the Royal Family, at some point in one of their services.

I think I read somewhere that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe only about 144000 people will be saved. So I doubt they are bothered if you turn them down. At least they tried, which is what matters for them.

[KEV67]

I returned to St Mary's Castle Street this morning. The road was blocked by a refuse lorry because there was some sort of procession going on, but since I was on foot I could get by. Only about ten people in the congregation, which was lower than I expected. I cannot remember what the sermon was about because I was not paying attention. The vicar droned on and on for half an hour. There was a bit from Deuteronomy, which surprised me, because from memory that was a very tedious book about Jewish law. There was a bit from Revelation, which also surprised me because that book is better left alone. There was a bit from an epistle, which I think was one of Peter's. I nearly gave up on the hymns, there was so little tune to them. I could not work out which key to start in. Often I only hear one or two of the women and the vicar. If I start in a similar key to the women I soon run out of range, but the vicar sings in a low monotone I cannot match either. I did recognise the last hymn, 'We plough the field and scatter the good seed of the lord...' We were supposed to bring in bags of rice or tins of food, because it was harvest festival, but I forgot, and so it seemed did most others.

 

I went to the monthly Unitarian meeting at the RISC centre. Last time I came away with the impression they were agnostics, but this time I came away with the impression they were spiritualists or pantheists. One of the women had read a book written by an expert in trees, who argued they were sentient, which presents an ethical dilemma when you want to make a table out of one of them. Another woman was an Green Spirit Unitarian. She led us through a body prayer, in which you make gestures to go with the words. When she mentioned the sun she stretched her hands upwards and when she mentioned the rain, she wiggled her fingers as she brought her hands down. If I was a child I would have loved it.

Edited September 11, 2022 by KEV67
Green Spirit, not Earth Spirit

[lunababymoonchild]

As I understand it the Unitarian Church is where people of all different faiths go because all are welcome. So there will be spiritualists and pantheists and anyone else that feels like attending. Maybe that os where you got different impressions from, they are all of those things and more.

 

 

[KEV67]

Actually, I think I meant spiritual people, whatever they are called, rather than spiritualists. Spiritualists are the table tappers.

[Madeleine]

 I think you can be spiritual but not be religious, which is how I kind of see myself.  Spiritualists, as Kev says, are more about trying to communicate with the departed.

[KEV67]

Maybe Deist is the word I am looking for. If I understood right, Deists believe in a God as a Prime Mover who started off the universe, but they do not believe in revealed religion. I am not sure it is the right word

[poppy]

21 hours ago, KEV67 said:

I think I read somewhere that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe only about 144000 people will be saved. So I doubt they are bothered if you turn them down. At least they tried, which is what matters for them.

 

I think they believe only 144,000 will go to heaven, the rest will reside on a new earth. 

I always talk to JW 's who visit and became friendly with several of the women. I don't agree with their doctrine on many points but try to find areas of common ground. It's probably a complete waste of time, because they're not going to change my mind and I doubt I'll change theirs. But mostly they're genuine people and I don't like being rude to them.