Do Fundies all practice what they preach?

[Grimalkin]

44 minutes ago, devoe364 said:

I disagree. Not all Protestants do. Anglicans or Episcopalians are classified as Protestants, we do not follow sola scripture, at least not in the way that Fundies and other Protestant groups do. Lutherans are typically very similar. 

http://www.virtueonline.org/sola-scriptura-and-anglican-way-gavin-dunbar

    Not all Lutherans are the same. The ECLA does not take the bible literally, but the Mossouri and Wisconsin Synods do. The Wisconsin synod is quite fundie and do not consider the other two main SYNODS to be true Lutherans. 

      Fun fact Cabinet Man is a Lutheran of the WELS type (Wisconsin SYNOD)

ETA- I know you said typically. I live in the Land of the Lutherans. I occasionally hear bickering amongst them.

[WendigoAgogo]

On 9/24/2016 at 8:46 PM, Cleopatra7 said:

I think it's worth mentioning that the concept of Biblical inerrancy, one of the guiding principles of American Protestant fundies, is less than 200 years old. Until the Reformation, scholars always read certain passages as allegorical; even Augustine of Hippo said that the Genesis account of creation shouldn't be taken literally, because the idea of the world being created in six days would make pagans laugh at Christianity. Once the Reformation occurred, the sola scriptura stance was developed as a way of jettisoning things like Purgatory, the various Marian cults, the monastic life, etc., but Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al still wouldn't have been believers in Biblical inerrancy as commonly understood today. Like the Quiverfull movement, Biblical inerrancy is a distinctively modern concept that is in response to modern concerns, and is not characteristic of Christian beliefs or practices in the pre-modern or early modern periods.

Absolutely worth mentioning and in the big picture 200 years is just a blip on the radar even if you believe earth is only 6000 years old. Who knows what it will look like in another 200 years.

I once had a chat with a bishop about Genesis. He believed that all you had to do was look at the wonders of the world around you in order for Genesis to be believed. I wanted to believe it but never felt fully convinced. I felt so conflicted and anxious over it that I lost  many a good nights sleep thinking about it. 

[ladyamylynn]

34 minutes ago, WendigoAgogo said:

Absolutely worth mentioning and in the big picture 200 years is just a blip on the radar even if you believe earth is only 6000 years old. Who knows what it will look like in another 200 years.

I once had a chat with a bishop about Genesis. He believed that all you had to do was look at the wonders of the world around you in order for Genesis to be believed. I wanted to believe it but never felt fully convinced. I felt so conflicted and anxious over it that I lost  many a good nights sleep thinking about it. 

It's funny, because everything that Christians have ever held up to me as an example of irrefutable proof of God's creation (the majesty of the Grand Canyon, the complexity of an eagle's eye, the beauty of childbirth) always seemed like equally good, if not better, proof of evolution to me. Which is why I was never a true believer. I got all of the mindfucking anxiety and terrible angst about hell and judgement with none of the peace and joy that faith supposedly brings. Ah well I'm pretty happy with my life since I've learned to let go of the damage Christianity did to my mind. I'm not here to bash anyone's faith but I'm so happy to be free.

[WendigoAgogo]

3 hours ago, ladyamylynn said:

It's funny, because everything that Christians have ever held up to me as an example of irrefutable proof of God's creation (the majesty of the Grand Canyon, the complexity of an eagle's eye, the beauty of childbirth) always seemed like equally good, if not better, proof of evolution to me. Which is why I was never a true believer. I got all of the mindfucking anxiety and terrible angst about hell and judgement with none of the peace and joy that faith supposedly brings. Ah well I'm pretty happy with my life since I've learned to let go of the damage Christianity did to my mind. I'm not here to bash anyone's faith but I'm so happy to be free.

Your comment about anxiety and angst really hits home. A good friend of mine always jokes about how similar our upbringings were because Catholicism is second only to Judaism when it comes to heaping on the guilt. Letting go of the damage was one hell of a rollercoaster ride for me too, but I would do it all again to end up where I am now. It's nice to live life without feeling like a born failure full of sin whose morals are based only upon fear of eternal hellfire.

[feministxtian]

58 minutes ago, WendigoAgogo said:

A good friend of mine always jokes about how similar our upbringings were because Catholicism is second only to Judaism when it comes to heaping on the guilt.

12 years of Catholic schools and a Cuban mother...I'm pretty much a pro at guilt.

I finally let go of all of it. I have faith, but it's not predicated on some eternal reward/punishment or biblical infallibility (which is bullshit but another topic for another time)...Its more of believing that IF I am going to see people as unique creations of a creator, then we ALL are created by that same creator...no one is lesser or greater and those who think they're greater (for whatever reason) will probably eventually be handed their asses when Karma gets to them. 

I'm still working out the details of what I believe now that I've jettisoned most of Christianity....

 

[Vex]

On 19/08/2016 at 9:13 PM, Childless said:

I'm not even sure stay at home parents are always the best solution.  My husband has been a stay at home parent while he's been getting his college degree for my children's entire lives.  Part of his degree requirement though is doing an internship.  He did it this summer which required us to put the kids (5 and 2) in daycare.  My 5 year old had been attending pre-school for 3 years, so I wasn't really worried about him.  The 2 year old though worried me.  He's a bit clingy (especially concerning me) and I was almost sick at the thought of having to send him.  I just kept repeating to myself that it was only for 10 weeks and then he'd be back home with his daddy.  Turns out, daycare was the best thing for that kid.  He's a lot more independent now, not clingy anymore, and he thrived in the daycare environment.  I found myself in tears when my husband's internship was over and we had to pull the boys out of daycare.  The daycare was great and worked out an arrangement with us that allowed us to still send the toddler there two days a week (unfortunately even though my older son loved it there, he's in kindergarten now, so has to go to school).  The first day we took the toddler back to the daycare facility, he got a big cheesy grin on his face, gave a big hug to the caregivers, and ran off to play with the other kids.  I know he missed them.  The daycare facility is wonderfully run by awesome people and I can't thank them enough for everything they have done and are doing for my kids.  Sometimes, spending time away from mommy and daddy is the best thing for a kid.

Wow, I remember when you were posting here about your first pregnancy. Has it really been five years?

I hope that doesn't come across as creepy/stalkerish, I just remember it because of your username. I didn't realise how much time had passed until you mentioned your eldest being five.

This is a really interesting thread. I would say that it's literally impossible for fundies to practice what they preach because even they understand that humans are by nature sinful creatures who screw up, therefore it's impossible for anyone to attain the ideal they preach. People like Steve acknowledge that on the surface but still pridefully act as if they are flawless and that their understanding of God is the correct one.

[devoe364]

16 hours ago, Grimalkin said:

    Not all Lutherans are the same. The ECLA does not take the bible literally, but the Mossouri and Wisconsin Synods do. The Wisconsin synod is quite fundie and do not consider the other two main SYNODS to be true Lutherans. 

      Fun fact Cabinet Man is a Lutheran of the WELS type (Wisconsin SYNOD)

ETA- I know you said typically. I live in the Land of the Lutherans. I occasionally hear bickering amongst them.

LOL - glad you caught the typically. I was like, but I didn't say all the time. I know not all Lutheran's are the same because not all Anglicans are. We have a silly group up here in Canada called Anglicans for Common Decency. 

Their idea of common decency? Getting rid of gay marriage as allowable by our Church as a whole. 

[Grimalkin]

11 hours ago, devoe364 said:

LOL - glad you caught the typically. I was like, but I didn't say all the time. I know not all Lutheran's are the same because not all Anglicans are. We have a silly group up here in Canada called Anglicans for Common Decency. 

Their idea of common decency? Getting rid of gay marriage as allowable by our Church as a whole. 

     Are there separate denominations of Anglicans? I don't know too much about it. I heard they were the most similar to Catholics but don't accept the pope and they ordain women, accept gay people, and priests can marry.

[hoipolloi]

27 minutes ago, Grimalkin said:

     Are there separate denominations of Anglicans? I don't know too much about it. I heard they were the most similar to Catholics but don't accept the pope and they ordain women, accept gay people, and priests can marry.

Not an Anglican or Episcopalian myself (raised UU), but there has been a major split between the conservative & more liberal factions in both denominations. In the US, the conservative Episcopalians split from the main denomination over the election of a gay bishop, Gene Robinson. The more recent fallout has to do with the very conservative Anglican congregations in Africa being angry over the more liberal North American congregations.

[Granwych]

A local Episcopal church lost its building last year or so when they broke away following Gene Robinson's election.  The building remains in the deed of the main denomination; I don't know if it has been sold, rented, or just sits empty.  I also don't know where the former congregation meets now.  It really was a brouhaha where clearly nobody "won."

[devoe364]

11 hours ago, Grimalkin said:

     Are there separate denominations of Anglicans? I don't know too much about it. I heard they were the most similar to Catholics but don't accept the pope and they ordain women, accept gay people, and priests can marry.

Typically, at least in Canada, the Conservative faction sticks around to fight. Anglicans for Common Decency is a group like that. They want to overturn the vote by the Anglican Church of Canada to allow gay marriage. To a certain extent though the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopalian Church of the United-States of America are a seperate denomination of Anglicans.

See what @hoipolloi said about the split between the Churches in North America and the Churches in Europe and Africa is the closest thing we have. The two Churches here in North America have actually been kicked out of the World Anglican Congress by the more Conservative Churches. So in that sense, the more Conservative Churches in Canada and the US, the ones that leave the official Churches, are more like the Churches that are part of the Anglican Congress.

Even in England, the Church of England is far more Conservative then the Anglican and Episcopalian Churches. They don't allow divorce(e)s to remarry if their first spouse is still alive. That's why Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall and the Prince of Wales had a civil ceremony instead of a Church wedding and then just had a blessing done by the Church. Canada and the US - our Churches aren't like that. 

[Grimalkin]

@devoe364 thank you. I thought Anglican and Episcopalian were interchangeable (not sure why). My Ethics professor was Canadian and Anglican. A very interesting man. I enjoyed his class very much.

[devoe364]

Just now, Grimalkin said:

@devoe364 thank you. I thought Anglican and Episcopalian were interchangeable (not sure why). My Ethics professor was Canadian and Anglican. A very interesting man. I enjoyed his class very much.

They are pretty much interchangeable, but the Church in the US is officially Episcopalian and the Church in Canada is Anglican. Then in England, its just the Church of England. Silly to have so many names for the same thing, 

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

I'm disappointed she didn't come back; I was curious. I would be totally overwhelmed if I tried to answer all those questions though.  Of course, that's why *I've* never offered. 

[feministxtian]

Either that or she didn't like the opposition. I needed a new fundie to play with. The jerks on another forum are getting tiresome. 

[Palimpsest]

As @hoipolloi said - there have been schisms and splits in the "Anglican" Church recently.  Just to clarify though - Anglicanism is defined as the Church of England and any church that is "in communion" with the Archbishopric of Canterbury and holds similar beliefs, worship practices and church structures.  

On 9/28/2016 at 0:59 PM, Grimalkin said:

@devoe364 thank you. I thought Anglican and Episcopalian were interchangeable (not sure why). My Ethics professor was Canadian and Anglican. A very interesting man. I enjoyed his class very much.

Actually, they were until very recently.  They got suspended from the Anglican Communion this year.   http://religionnews.com/2016/01/14/episcopal-church-suspended-anglican-communion/   I am on the side of the Episcopal church.  This is also known as the Anglican realignment movement - Anglicans independent of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion.

A bit of historical background, just because I can: Anglicanism = ecclesia anglicana - the English Church.  Protestant.  English Reformation.   Founded in the reign of Henry VIII in a split from Catholicism.  Politically driven - "I can too dump the wife you gave me a dispensation to marry for a newer model who can make boy babies, Pope Clement VII.  And those monasteries have lots of money so I can dissolve them and grab the cash, neener neener."  

There was a Protestant movement forming in England, however, and the new Church of England represents a slightly less radical break from Catholicism than Calvinism and Lutheranism, which were developing concurrently.  Then ensues much religious persecution during the next centuries.  Henry VIII got himself declared Supreme Head of the Church of England and that continues with the monarchy today.  It is only very recently that heirs to the British throne are allowed to marry Catholics.

Anyway, Anglicanism became the official Church in England and spread with immigration to the New World and colonization.  Over time Anglican churches in other countries picked new names (like Episcopalian) and became autonomous - but most remained "in communion" until now.  It is a time of flux.  Even within the Church of England there are parishes and priests who would consider themselves High (closer to Catholic beliefs) or Low (more liberal) Church and who are in revolt against recent decisions.

On 9/28/2016 at 8:47 AM, devoe364 said:

Even in England, the Church of England is far more Conservative then the Anglican and Episcopalian Churches. They don't allow divorce(e)s to remarry if their first spouse is still alive. That's why Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall and the Prince of Wales had a civil ceremony instead of a Church wedding and then just had a blessing done by the Church. Canada and the US - our Churches aren't like that. 

That is not true.  Since 2002 divorced people have been allowed to marry in the Church of England "at the discretion of the parish priest."  https://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/divorce.aspx

I don't know why Charles and Camilla had a civil wedding and just had a penance and blessing ceremony.  Either they didn't want a church wedding, they couldn't find a parish priest who was willing, or perhaps because Charles is in line to be the next Supreme Governor of the Church of England the Archbishop of Canterbury turned them down.  BTW, there is a conspiracy theory that Charles and Camilla aren't legally married.  Apparently there is some antiquated law that members of the royal family can't get married in civil ceremonies.  I'm not into the monarchy at all but some people get all het up about it.

 

 

 

 

[devoe364]

10 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

/snip

That is not true.  Since 2002 divorced people have been allowed to marry in the Church of England "at the discretion of the parish priest."  https://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/divorce.aspx

I don't know why Charles and Camilla had a civil wedding and just had a penance and blessing ceremony.  Either they didn't want a church wedding, they couldn't find a parish priest who was willing, or perhaps because Charles is in line to be the next Supreme Governor of the Church of England the Archbishop of Canterbury turned them down.  BTW, there is a conspiracy theory that Charles and Camilla aren't legally married.  Apparently there is some antiquated law that members of the royal family can't get married in civil ceremonies.  I'm not into the monarchy at all but some people get all het up about it.

I snipped to the relevant - but I think you're right. It probably has more to do with the Royal Marriage Act of 1774 then it does with Church rules. That said, I do believe that is why they were not initially allowed to marry and why he married Diana instead. 

[Grimalkin]

Thank you @Palimpsest! You filled in some holes and connected some dots for me. I'm such a dork. I love learning this stuff.