Sunday School classes

[Standing Wolf]

I admit that I have a rather serious problem with Catholicism--not so much because of the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church, as because of the requirement to accept those doctrines, blindly and unquestioningly. ...

There are Catholics who do that and many who do not. Polls suggest that as many as three out of four Catholic couples employ artificial means of contraception, more than half approve of same-sex marriage, and a third do not regard homosexuality as a sin - all positions that are in direct opposition to Church teachings. (Of course many evangelical churches and even a couple of the mainstream Protestant denominations are as one with the Catholic Church on issues 2 and 3; but there, too, Christians in the U.S. and in the Western World generally are questioning the doctrines and official positions of their leaders and authorities.)

In the view of some - both Catholics and otherwise - this questioning of the wisdom and authority of the church makes the individuals who do it "bad Christians". One Christian group accusing another of "false teaching" and of "falling away from the Faith" is nothing new; it's been going on for more than two thousand years.

I guess my point is really that you will find church leaders and members in every group or denomination who don't welcome any questioning of church doctrines and practices - who do expect those things to be accepted "blindly and unquestioningly".

When I went from being a Southern Baptist to being a Catholic, one of the most startling differences I saw was that the Catholic Church did not seem to be afraid, as the several Baptist churches I attended had been, of their members being exposed to the literature and teachings of other Faiths. Whereas the literature racks in some of the evangelical churches that I attended or visited were stocked with pamphlets warning about the "cults" of Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc., and their pastors warned about the dangers of "Satanic influences" in the teachings of other groups, the first Catholic bookstore that I checked out had entire sections on Buddhism, Vedanta, Islam, as well as lots of books written from the perspective of "the cults". Study and comparisons of other Faiths was encouraged, instead of being frowned upon.

... I strongly disagree with the implication that one should merely accept "church doctrine" as correct. I often disagree with church teaching on a particular subject; and I am not at all bashful about saying so, and specifying the "why." ...

And I would respectfully suggest that very few churches, of whatever denomination, want someone like you bringing up things like that before the other members. They would much prefer that you bring those questions and thoughts in private to a pastor, minister or priest, or to another member whose intelligence and maturity you respect. "Church" is the place for fellowship and unity. Doctrinal discussions, even arguments, are fine in their place, but "church" is usually not that place.

... There are, of course, some interesting questions that can arise--is Jesus's command as regarding foot washing to be taken literally, or is it just an instruction to be humble and hospitable? should women wear a covering over their heads during worship (as Paul appears to command in I Corinthians 11)? should Christians greet one another with a holy kiss (as Paul also instructs, several times, with the apparent force of a command)?
But I was always taught that it is quite possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

In any established group of Believers, there will be those who, like you, want not only to learn what the church is teaching, but why it's being taught and how the teaching developed, etc. And they would be willing and able to argue and discuss those issues with you without any negative impact on their faith, their lives, or anything else. There will also, however, be those who would not be able to be around those sorts of discussions without it affecting their religious lives in a bad way - who perhaps aren't as adept at "compartmentalizing" things as you are. Pull one string by placing a doubt in their minds about one doctrine or teaching of the church, and it all starts to unravel for them. I knew a young man who told me that if he ever became convinced that human evolution was true he'd stop believing in God.

[pjohns]

There are Catholics who do that and many who do not. Polls suggest that as many as three out of four Catholic couples employ artificial means of contraception, more than half approve of same-sex marriage, and a third do not regard homosexuality as a sin - all positions that are in direct opposition to Church teachings.

This is true.

Sometimes the Catholic Church can be more bark than bite.

For instance, it has strongly criticized Joe Biden for his stance as concerning abortion; yet it continues to administer communion to him.

In the view of some - both Catholics and otherwise - this questioning of the wisdom and authority of the church makes the individuals who do it "bad Christians".

This appears to assume that the church--any church--is divinely inspired to teach only that which is entirely true.

And I thoroughly reject that notion. (Note: I am a child of the Enlightenment; and yes, I know that Enlightenment philosophers did not march in lockstep with each other--Hume was certainly not indistinguishable from Hobbes, and Rousseau was not just the same as Locke--but I completely disavow magical thinking, which, in fact, is a logical fallacy).

One Christian group accusing another of "false teaching" and of "falling away from the Faith" is nothing new; it's been going on for more than two thousand years.

There are, certainly, cults; and one thing that defines them is their hold upon their members.

Another is their discouragement of members' thinking critically, and independently.

I guess my point is really that you will find church leaders and members in every group or denomination who don't welcome any questioning of church doctrines and practices - who do expect those things to be accepted "blindly and unquestioningly".

I would imagine that you are correct here.

I simply would not wish to be affiliated--even loosely--with any such group.

When I went from being a Southern Baptist to being a Catholic, one of the most startling differences I saw was that the Catholic Church did not seem to be afraid, as the several Baptist churches I attended had been, of their members being exposed to the literature and teachings of other Faiths. Whereas the literature racks in some of the evangelical churches that I attended or visited were stocked with pamphlets warning about the "cults" of Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc., and their pastors warned about the dangers of "Satanic influences" in the teachings of other groups, the first Catholic bookstore that I checked out had entire sections on Buddhism, Vedanta, Islam, as well as lots of books written from the perspective of "the cults". Study and comparisons of other Faiths was encouraged, instead of being frowned upon.

I very much believe in the serious "[s]tudy and comparison of other Faiths."

But study should not be confused with indifference toward them.

Doctrinal discussions, even arguments, are fine in their place, but "church" is usually not that place.

The points that I have listed as examples, in an earlier post, are really not matters of high "doctrine." In our church, members often disagree among themselves. (For instance, some female members wear a covering of sorts--a veil or a hat--whereas others do not.)

I knew a young man who told me that if he ever became convinced that human evolution was true he'd stop believing in God.

That is sad.

A much more reasonable position, I think, would be to abandon the fundamentalist view of Christianity--and accept the fact that the documents that now comprise the Christian Bible were written by ancient people, whose worldview was...well, ancient. (Very few people--which is to say, very few Christians--still adhere to the so-called Dictation Theory of the Bible. In fact, it was in the nineteenth century that this view had its last real gasp.)

[MisterVeritis]

I usually attend Sunday School (a.k.a. "Bible Study"). But I am rather disappointed at the typical offering.

Usually, it seems, all the classes are aimed roughly at the third-grade level.

I am wondering why nothing seems to be taught at the seminary level--genuine theology, not just warmed-over Bible stories that most of us learned when we were seven or eight years old.

Of course, anyone uninterested in this (more advanced) learning could always attend one of the other classes.

Some thoughts on the matter?

I am considering this option: https://courses.dts.edu/

[JesusIsLord]

I admit that I have a rather serious problem with Catholicism--not so much because of the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church, as because of the requirement to accept those doctrines, blindly and unquestioningly.

And I also have a problem with the idea that the "clergy" is more devout, and closer to God, than the "laity" typically is. (In fact, I do not even accede to any clergy/laity distinction.)



I strongly disagree with the implication that one should merely accept "church doctrine" as correct. I often disagree with church teaching on a particular subject; and I am not at all bashful about saying so, and specifying the "why."


There are, of course, some interesting questions that can arise--is Jesus's command as regarding foot washing to be taken literally, or is it just an instruction to be humble and hospitable? should women wear a covering over their heads during worship (as Paul appears to command in I Corinthians 11)? should Christians greet one another with a holy kiss (as Paul also instructs, several times, with the apparent force of a command)?

But I was always taught that it is quite possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

look into orthodoxy. much heavier on self-control, disclipline, fasting, etc. it's like catholicism without a lot of the bullying nonsense. i grew up catholic btw.

also learn to formulate questions. start with the bible and work your way out from there. it's the only way. every building needs a foundation, and that foundation is torah. all that contradicts torah, theology-wise, is against Yehovah and his Word. ask the question, "how is it that paul can just make up new doctrine, yet say all the old doctrine was disposed of?".

i also suggest using different copies of the bible. i used to have a great intralinear bible, which had KJV, NIV, YLT and i think ASB all at once in 4 columns, so you could compare translations and see differences. if you can deal with reading on a screen, download e-sword, its a free app, and one of the bibles included is a greek intralinear translation of the OT which is very useful. you can even go to biblehub and turn on strong's, so you can see multiple different translations of each word, so you can see how other meanings might be extracted from the source text. for instance, in the septuagint the word for "good" in "and God saw it was good" could also be translated as "beautiful".

here is a playlist from a super down to earth guy, who like me wondered why we gave up torah:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...qTIheWXYhsECHp

here's an aramiac targum bible, which is super hard to find. this was the oral tradition in the synagogues in the time of Jesus. this is what is being cited in the preamble of John, and what was know to the illiterate everyman. one of the biggest clues i've found yet.

http://targum.info/targumic-texts/pe...chal-targumim/


you might look into dr michael heiser as well. he's done a lot of seminars which are posted online. these are high octane nerd-fuel, so beware. he's organized some of these through youtuber gonz shiumura's church, who were tired of the rockefeller curriculum which is taught at most seminaries (they control funding much like with medicine, as well as the mainstream masonic protestant movement through a dumbing down of seminaries, and promotion of the "romans to hebrews" style of teaching which omits the rest of the bible).

here's a short clip on exodus:



a meaty 3 hour talk on trinity in the OT:



you must walk the razor's edge; having humility to accept instruction yet being a "follower" of only Jesus, the most high WORD. peer to peer instruction is what's in order, not being spoonfed by the assumed authority of others.


you might like this guy too: