Calling all non-Catholic Chirstians to help me out here

I'm not religion bashing but I think that you feel releif because our forefathers had religions hammered into their skulls for hundreds of years and so the fear fo god or gods is, for a lack of a better explination, imprinted onto our DNA, so to speak. And only untill recently, the 40's-50's, religion has kind of taken a back seat. So all that conditioning and brain washing is still strong with in our psyche. If you feel comfort by going to confession, by all mean keep doing it. I, for one, stay away from church as much as possible. But I still go once in a while as a show of respect to the people passed and religious ceremonies that my close family attends like baptisms, first communions....stuff like that.. Kreeps me out in there. Not so much the building, it's the zombie like behavior....you don't beleive me? The next time you go, step back from the sevice and look around.

Originally posted by drew1749
See as a Catholic we have this thing called Confession where we go and confess our sins to a Priest and then we are forgiven.

That just makes sense to me. Because I feel like saying your sin to someone else out loud is a good way to help you forgive yourself.

If you take nothing else away from this thread then I sincerely hope you at least take this away- a priest is a man, not an agent of God. When you confess your sins to a priest it's no different than confessing to a friend, neighbor or even a random person on the street. This may make you feel better about yourself, but it does not make things right with God. And getting right with God is all you should be concerned about. The Catholic attitude is sin all week, go confess it on Sunday and be absolved by a man, then repeat the next week. But what did Jesus say to the prostitute after forgiving her sins, did he say "see you next week for your next confession"? No, he said...

John 8:11
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Unfortunately we do continue in sin despite this admonition from the Lord, so to answer your question as to who we go to in repentence:

1st Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man CHRIST JESUS."

Romans 8:34
"Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, WHO ALSO MAKETH INTERCESSION FOR US.

A catholic priest did not save you, only Jesus Christ has that power. A man can lead you to salvation, but only Jesus grants salvation. He has directed us not to sin, but if/ when we do, JEsus is our ONLY advocate.

1st John 2:1
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an ADVOCATE with the Father, JESUS CHRIST the righteous:

I urge you to seek answers directly from the Bible, not from the Catholic Church or any of its agents. Don't accept what they tell you, God speaks to us through His Word, not through church dogma.

First if your catholic you believe in the bible right?

SO...

Leaders in the church should be family men with children of their own (not celibate priest)

1 Timothy 3

Titus 1:6-9

Call no man "father"
Matt. 23:9

Praying to the dead saints for intercession is wrong

Deuteronomy 18:11

God does not need man to intercede on his behalf.
Psalm 139:7-12
Psalm 147:4-5

the Doctrine of purgatory is no where in the bible, reading any verse they try to give you with a critical eye and you will see its very flimsy.

Matthew 12:32

as well as all the idolatry in the catholic faith, which is in the ten commandments (isn't that like the big ten rules for all christians)

All i am saying is if you have a holy book follow it, and if your religion has a holy book and it doesn't match what your practicing you may want to think twice about that religion before I trusted airing my sins to a priest who has no biblical authority according to the bible.

My wife came out of a strict catholic family, and I out of a strict Pentecostal one ( I had read the bible 3 times over by the time I was 9.) All I can say is that following these "Organized" religions did nothing for My own and my wife spiritual growth, if anything it was when we fled these organizations that I found my faith in God and the bible again.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
"sins" or "wrongs" are different from religion to religion.

This is true, but only because so many religions have turned away from God's Word.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
THat's because people can't prove God exists so they end up attributing DIFFERENT rules and regulations to such a being.

The first part of this statement is false, there is ample evidence that God exists for those who bother to seek it, even in the simplest of things. I can show you a pencil and you'll readily acknowledge that it has intelligent design, but I can show you a tree that is infinitely more complex- it has solar collectors, a food distribution network, can convert toxic gases to oxygen, is structurally stable yet flexible, can replicate, etc. and yet you'd have me believe it is a completely random occurrence. The evidence is that plain and obvious, yet many refuse to accept it. The historic record is loaded with evidence as well. The second part of your statement is true (that men attribute their own rules and regulations to God), but it is not because they can't prove God exists, it's because they want to mold Him into their own image. This is why it's important for believers to keep entrenched in scripture regardless of what church they may attend, because all church doctrine is polluted by the thoughts of men. Some churches stick close to God's Word while others stray far and wide. Discernment is extremely important, now more than ever.

Originally posted by drew1749
So I've been wondering for awhile about this.

See as a Catholic we have this thing called Confession where we go and confess our sins to a Priest and then we are forgiven.

That just makes sense to me. Because I feel like saying your sin to someone else out loud is a good way to help you forgive yourself.

The way I see it is if someone say steals a bike and they feel horrible about it. They put the bike back and don't tell anyone about it. Although they know they sinned and feel bad.

That just doesn't seem the same to me. Getting something off your Chest and being told you are forgiven just feels...nice.

So how do other churches handle this?

From my understanding the priest is trying to take the place of Christ, who is the only mediator between God and man, unless you have wronged the priest, there is nothing that he can forgive you for, although we are to confess our faults one to another, that does not cause us to be forgiven. There is a difference between having a clear conscious and being forgiven by God.

A priest is called a vicar of Christ, meaning that they consider themselves to be representatives of Christ, before Christ died, there were priest, who went into the holy of holy's behind the veil ,on behalf of ordinary men to make atonemet for and confession of sins. but when Christ died the veil was torn into, the veil represented the barrier bewteen God and man, that also prevented man from having a personal relationship with God, which is what he desires.Christ is now the mediator.


When Jesus died The veil is was literally and symbolically torn into and there is no longer a barrier, but when one chooses to put that barrier back up by going through a priest and using him as your mediator to get to God it's like rendering what Jesus did to be of no value to you, and is like a slap in the face of God, after all he did send his son to get rid of the barrier.

Originally posted by SavedOne

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
THat's because people can't prove God exists so they end up attributing DIFFERENT rules and regulations to such a being.

The first part of this statement is false, there is ample evidence that God exists for those who bother to seek it, even in the simplest of things

Name one astronomer, historian, theologian, physicist or any other academic that has provided evidence of a God (either empircally or logically) or who has verified claims in any religious doctrine.

If you can't do that, don't imply that people just arn't "bothering" to seek. It's not just ignorance or laziness to doubt a proposed "theory"

Originally posted by SavedOne

Originally posted by drew1749
See as a Catholic we have this thing called Confession where we go and confess our sins to a Priest and then we are forgiven.

That just makes sense to me. Because I feel like saying your sin to someone else out loud is a good way to help you forgive yourself.

If you take nothing else away from this thread then I sincerely hope you at least take this away- a priest is a man, not an agent of God. When you confess your sins to a priest it's no different than confessing to a friend, neighbor or even a random person on the street. This may make you feel better about yourself, but it does not make things right with God. And getting right with God is all you should be concerned about. The Catholic attitude is sin all week, go confess it on Sunday and be absolved by a man, then repeat the next week. But what did Jesus say to the prostitute after forgiving her sins, did he say "see you next week for your next confession"? No, he said...

John 8:11
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Unfortunately we do continue in sin despite this admonition from the Lord, so to answer your question as to who we go to in repentence:

1st Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man CHRIST JESUS."

Romans 8:34
"Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, WHO ALSO MAKETH INTERCESSION FOR US.

A catholic priest did not save you, only Jesus Christ has that power. A man can lead you to salvation, but only Jesus grants salvation. He has directed us not to sin, but if/ when we do, JEsus is our ONLY advocate.

1st John 2:1
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an ADVOCATE with the Father, JESUS CHRIST the righteous:

I urge you to seek answers directly from the Bible, not from the Catholic Church or any of its agents. Don't accept what they tell you, God speaks to us through His Word, not through church dogma.

That quite frankly is the greatest load of rubbish. By default in what you say, any entity can/has to advocate, except God who cannot advocate, but only judge of a sin. But then, if God is omnipotent, he already knows if the sinner is repentant and therefore needs no advocate. Alternatively, God is not all power and needs an advocate for the sinner, you choose Jesus, but if Jesus grants salvation, there is no need for God to say anything at all, at all.

Edit for mod's,

I had to include large quote for the purpose.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by chr0naut

 

"Moderate" Christians break the rules of God all the time. They are inconsistent with their beliefs.

They leave the fundamental ideology out, they cherry pick. It shows they are willing to drop the rules and regulations of God because they disagree with God, probably for fear of social scrutiny.

If, in defense, they state "the bible was "written by man at the time", then ask why they believe in such nonsense if they are willing to drop PART of the nonsense.

Interesting point. A friend of mine had a good point about this at one time that I had a conversation with him.

He told me that the words of the bible while very important change with time. As Society Changes so does the notion of right and wrong.

I forget how he related it to the bible. But it is true that over time Society changes.

Originally posted by Lynda101
reply to post by drew1749

 

I think you misunderstood my point. The sinning doesn't stop because of confession. My friend happily carried on because she had effectively been taught to say what she had done each week, ask forgiveness then merrily go on her way to repeat exactly the same things each and every week for the rest of her life, because the Priest cleared the slate each week.That slate clearing doesn't provide the Eurika Moment which stops one sinning, it merely provides a comfy habit she has had for all the years we have been friends and we giggle about it.

Hyperthetically this comfort zone leaves people open to experiences such as this:

Man goes into confessional box "Forgive me Father for I have sinned. I beat up my wife". " You know its wrong X Hail Mary's son, go in peace".

Next week and each week following on for years he's back with his usual, ........"Forgive me Father for I have sinned, I beat up my wife. Except this particular week he adds, "Oh! and she has died." "You know it's wrong, X hail Mary's my son, go in peace. my lips are sealed".

The point is, as he was forgiven by God each week he didn't need to stop till the inevitable happened. His continual violence was allowed because confession had taken away and forgiven his serious wrong doing, so he thought he had either got away with beating his wife or God was OK with it, till she died.

I hope now I have explained why I view the catholic ritual of confession with scepticism as to the real good it does for the people.

Little things can be forgiven if you slip off week after week BUT you shouldn't. If you aren't trying your best to not commit the sin again then the confession was for nothing because it didnt do any good.

That man who was beating his wife didn't mean it when he told the priest is was sorry. Otherwise he would have quit. Right?

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by Lynda101


Man goes into confessional box "Forgive me Father for I have sinned. I beat up my wife". " You know its wrong X Hail Mary's son, go in peace".

Next week and each week following on for years he's back with his usual, ........"Forgive me Father for I have sinned, I beat up my wife. Except this particular week he adds, "Oh! and she has died." "You know it's wrong, X hail Mary's my son, go in peace. my lips are sealed".

The point is, as he was forgiven by God each week he didn't need to stop till the inevitable happened. His continual violence was allowed because confession had taken away and forgiven his serious wrong doing, so he thought he had either got away with beating his wife or God was OK with it, till she died.

I hope now I have explained why I view the catholic ritual of confession with scepticism as to the real good it does for the people.

Now as I am not Catholic, I could be wrong, and if I am I hope someone who is will correct me, but AFAIK it doesn't work that way!
If a man came every week and confessed to beating his wife, the priest wouldn't just let him off with X Hail Marys, buit would require a 'purpose of amendment' (am I right?) and would ask him to at the very least, get counselling!
I am Protestant, I have never confessed to a priest, like ADJensen, I am very attracted to the idea of converting. Mariolatry is my sticking point - I feel quite attracted to the idea of auricular confession! I think it must be very helpful to confess to a particular besetting issue, and get advice and a bit of discipline!
Vicky
PS Lynda, how would your story be any different if the man had simply got down on his benders and prayed privately? He'd have an even better chance of feeling justified, with no human being holding him accountable.

edit on 25/4/11 by Vicky32 because: (no reason given)

I believe that the priest would tell the man to go to therapy before he can be forgiven. So yes you are pretty much correct.

The man has to take motions to prove he really is sorry and wants to be forgiven.

Originally posted by XLR8R
I'm not religion bashing but I think that you feel releif because our forefathers had religions hammered into their skulls for hundreds of years and so the fear fo god or gods is, for a lack of a better explination, imprinted onto our DNA, so to speak. And only untill recently, the 40's-50's, religion has kind of taken a back seat. So all that conditioning and brain washing is still strong with in our psyche. If you feel comfort by going to confession, by all mean keep doing it. I, for one, stay away from church as much as possible. But I still go once in a while as a show of respect to the people passed and religious ceremonies that my close family attends like baptisms, first communions....stuff like that.. Kreeps me out in there. Not so much the building, it's the zombie like behavior....you don't beleive me? The next time you go, step back from the sevice and look around.

How does our forefathers have anything to do with having a conscience? I don't really follow you.

Originally posted by SavedOne

Originally posted by drew1749
See as a Catholic we have this thing called Confession where we go and confess our sins to a Priest and then we are forgiven.

That just makes sense to me. Because I feel like saying your sin to someone else out loud is a good way to help you forgive yourself.

If you take nothing else away from this thread then I sincerely hope you at least take this away- a priest is a man, not an agent of God.

Based on Catholic teaching how is that the case?

Every Sunday he turns bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.
(Actually he calls on the Holy Spirit I believe and the Holy Spirit makes it holy [that was what I was taught at confirmation 4 years ago. I could be wrong O.o])

We learn about most of that stuff in Confirmation. Why we believe what we believe and ect.

If you went and talked with a Catholic Priest (at least here in Kentucky [maybe people are more rude in other places ]) they could tell you exactly why we believe what we believe and where in the bible we get it from.

The Logic is sound as far as I'm concerned.

as well as all the idolatry in the catholic faith, which is in the ten commandments (isn't that like the big ten rules for all christians) All i am saying is if you have a holy book follow it, and if your religion has a holy book and it doesn't match what your practicing you may want to think twice about that religion before I trusted airing my sins to a priest who has no biblical authority according to the bible. My wife came out of a strict catholic family, and I out of a strict Pentecostal one ( I had read the bible 3 times over by the time I was 9.) All I can say is that following these "Organized" religions did nothing for My own and my wife spiritual growth, if anything it was when we fled these organizations that I found my faith in God and the bible again.

On your idolatry comment: Please tell me you aren't talking about all those "paedophilez"

In John 20:19–23. Let me read it: "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

OBJECTOR: That’s an interesting passage, but it doesn’t say anything about Jesus giving his priesthood to men. I didn’t hear him say, "I make you priests." And even if he did make them priests, he didn’t give them the power to forgive sins.

CATHOLIC: Then what do you think Jesus meant when he said in verse 23, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained"? To me, that sounds like he is giving the apostles authority to forgive sins.

OBJECTOR: He is giving them the authority to proclaim the gospel, which has the forgiveness of sins in it. The power to forgive is something he kept for himself. If sinners believe the gospel, they will receive forgiveness.

CATHOLIC: You must have read John Calvin’s interpretation of John 20:19–23, because that is exactly what he says about Jesus’ words. As you know, John Calvin was the Protestant Reformer of Geneva, Switzerland, who broke away from the Catholic Church in the early 1530s. In 1536 he published his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion in which he identified himself clearly as a Protestant. He was convinced that the Catholic Church was corrupt. And one of its worst corruptions, according to Calvin, was the presumption of a priest forgiving sins. That power was something that Christ reserved exclusively for himself, Calvin said.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I think the same argument could be levelled at all faiths (even those of science).

If any of us were perfect, we would not have required saving from our state of sin.

I think that to be a true Christian is, in a societal sense, being a radical. Jesus was nomadic, anti-establishment, acquiesced to the foreign (invading) rulers and hung around with what the society people called the low-life.

reply to post by chr0naut


Science never relies on faith. No scientist has ever created a theory without evidence, and suggested that we take the conclusion as truth. Faith is in direct conflict with science.

Of course there are "unprovable" theories in science, metaphysics for example, but there is a mathematical logic to unprovable theories such as "the 4th dimension" or the "multiverse" - They are rational unfalsifiable hypotheses.

Whether "GOD" does or doesn't exist, i think it is unwise to have faith.

"The Atheist's Wager"

If any of us were perfect, we would not have required saving from our state of sin.

Sins are subjective from religion to religion. Vicarious redemption is wicked, wicked preaching. Ancient tribes practiced this kind of ritual. They'd pile the "sins" of the tribe onto an animal and let it die in the wild, absolving the responsibility of the tribe.

This kind of scapegoating based on a human sacrifice is rediculous. And i find it disturbing that otherwise normal people eat this nonsense up and teach it to our children.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Perhaps an example would help explain:

If I am walking down the corridor between seats on some crowded public transport. All is moving and unsteady. If someone accidently trips me up and I injure myself, I am most likely to reassure the person that I am actually OK and no offense has been taken. It's a standard accident.

If however, in the same situation someone deliberately trips me, with the intention of causing me discomfort, even if I am not injured in any way, I feel I have been "wronged" and my guess is that you would too, despite your avowed atheistic beliefs.

You see understanding of "sin" is innate and arises from self-awareness and intellect. It is not (entirely) depenent upon religious dogma.

reply to post by chr0naut


Sin implies objective morality. As i don't believe in a universal dictatorship, and thus no objective rules and regulation that are commanded "from on high"

I understand what you say though. "The golden rule" - "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"

But then how do we reason that with sado-masochist such as Charles Manson - It's all relative, it's all subjective though.

I think that is the epiphany of morality. It's subjective. Everyone has their own ideas which are relative depending on many factors; country, tribe, age, point in history, tradition, religion, even genetic disorders. Everyone builds their own prejudices.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


There is a test for psychological maturity and also, to some extent, for sociopathic tendencies, which goes like this:

You tell the subject that "There was an old man whose wife was very sick and going to die if she doesn't get some medicine soon. So the old man goes to the Chemist to get the medicine. They have the medicine but it is very expensive and the old man is poor and cannot afford it, so he leaves the store empty handed. Later that night, the old man breaks the window of the Chemist shop and steals the medicine. Is the old man a bad man for doing that?"

Very few children under the age of 12 years intuit the moral imperative of life over property, they are emphatic that the old man is bad and should go to jail. This is in children who are only just verbal, right up to nearly pubescent. It occurs in children whose upbringing is abusive and where they are undisciplined, just as much as it does in families with some sort of moral training and expectations.

Even if you repeatedly attempt to explain the importance of life, they still cannot see it.

The idea of objective right and wrong is definitely innate and unreasoned (instinctual?) in human beings. We just tweak the idea/s as we become more sophisticated socially.

You will also note that the idea of the "golden" rule is explicitly absent from the above example.

reply to post by drew1749


Well, over the generations, religion has been tought to us from birth. Our great great great great grandparents were tought that Jesus was our savior and he died for our sins and if you don't go to church to say thank you to Jesus you will go to hell. Right? Hog wash of course. But this has been tought to soooo many of us through such a long period of time that it became almost... innate. Almost like a reflex to some. Even though they don't go to church or read the bible or prey..sorry pray, they will feel the need to look beyond themselves for salvation instead of looking at the one place where the solutions to all their problems are....the mirror.