now before i start this off i want to make a few things clear

1) i do not know much about this subject, only what i have heard

2) i want everyones opinions on this, freindly debating

ok now let me begin, as of late i have heard rumors that the catholic/christian church is thinking about changing there guidlines of becomming a preist, currently in order to be a preist you are not allowed to marry, the church wants to change this in hopes that it will open the window for more people to become preists in the future, as preisthood is on a decline, now to me this sounds like the Catholic/christian religion is dying, if you have to change your rules and guidlines just so people will remain a part of the religion something is going wrong, how many more rules will be altered to keep people interested in the religion? and more importantly should these changes be allowed to take place? personally i dont believe they should, if being a preist means you have to not marry and no one wants to be a priest because of this, maybe it is time to accept that this religion is on its last run, a religion shouldnt have to make changes in order to keep members, the members should want to be part of the religion as is, because hey i would love to be christian...just as long as i can get married, eat meat during lent, not have to come in every sunday or every holiday, ect so make those changes and ill be christian too, but then again would that really still be christian?

so thats my first point id like to reflect on, secondly a lot of believers in god are starting to say, well hey maybe god created evolution, but again to me that is just another act of desperation, the bible clearly states that god created the heaven and earth in 7 days, it doesnt say 7 god days, just 7 days, to me it seems that the believers who believe god created evolution are again changing the guidlines inorder to appease members, so what say you guys?


again i apologize if im missing something as like i said im note completly sure these statements are factual, anyone who agrees with me or disagrees, please post up, anyone that knows any more info please post up, lets keep it civil though

-seeking

i don't have much to say about this other than catholicism is the only denomination of the christian religion that does not allow the priest/pastor/preacher/reverend/(insert name here) have a wife.... so i believe you're only talking about catholics in your first point... not "catholic/christian"s...

just thought i'd point that out...

^thats what i mean about how im not to sure about what i was saying, thank you for pointing that out

hey, no problem

Hmmm, well I have not heard much on this subject. I would like to point out the fact that the Pentecostal faith has in the past changed their beliefs. When I was growing up my uncle, A Pentecostal preacher, said their religion denied their followers the privilege to own or watch Tv. They said it was the wicked work of the devil. 20 years later(in the present) he is still a peacher of the same faith, owns 3 tv's, cable, computer and the internet. So the Catholic's are not the only ones that have changed their religion most all do it. Religion has changed over the centuries
and will probably continue to change. Like the fact that the Females were only allowed to wear dresses everday...then only dresses into the house of the lord...now women can wear whatever to church. Just goes to show you as society changes so does the world around us. We all make adjustments I guess and so do the churches. Just a few opinions I wanted to share.
Peace.

thats my point it seems that the churches have to make changes in order to keep the faith, no one is willing to make sacrifice for there faith so the church has to do it, it shouldnt be that way it should be the other way around, if the church has to change its ways to have followers than like i said, maybe that religion has ran its course and should be only remembered in history classes?

The rule that prevented priests from marrying was actually introduced fairly recently (I don't know the exact time..maybe early last century). The reason was because the church no longer wanted to have to give land to the widows of its priests, and so simply said they could no longer marry. It had nothing to do with religious beliefs.

This is less of a changing with the times idea, and more going back to factor settings

That's why I'm not catholic. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that they cannot marry. In fact, most catholic traditions and beliefs are not in the Bible.

As more and more denominations follow what the Bible teaches more closely, you'll definitely see change. Many times, man's traditions have gotten in the way of interpreting what the Bible really says. So if they started off not following the Bible closely, and are trying to change it so that they do follow it more closely, then change is not a bad thing.

yeah, like i heard that the catholic church is actually going to call the preachers brother instead of father, since in the bible, all men are equal..
women never HAD to wear dresses, at least, not biblicly, now the husbands might have made them but the bible didnt.
and what sithlard said is right, about the churches getting the denomination following the bible again instead of mans tradition

The story that the catholic church will relax its rules for the priesthood sounds to me like a cover up.
Instead of only admitting men who claim they'll be celibate their whole lives at an early age they will now admit family men.
Well i think in that case the only thing likely to die is the rampant paedophilia that goes on behond the doors of the vestry

It seems to me, and I may be ignorant, that the catholic church is being split by two types of believers: those who want to be accepting, loving, and more liberal; and those who feel they are devote, yet use their religion to espouse hatred and bigotry.

Heck, I think the Pope is a bigot... and I'm sure he's lovin' himself some young boys too.

LOL, tj

who knows? maybe... the title of POPE is wrong anyway, as are bishops and archbishops, there is no point, nor is there any support by the bible that these labels should exist.

i dont find anything wrong with changing the rules regarding who can be a priest or anything nonessential like that. is there a line to be drawn? yes, but it should be on salvation related issues, not something rather trivial like celebacy for priests and how long it took for the earth to be created.

The problem is whose Bible do they follow. All christian religions that I know of have rules or practices that are not perscribed in their bible. Such as the concept of a church. Where in the bible does it ssay that a group of beleivers are to go out a build a church building? How about collections to support the church? Didn't Jesus somewhere in the bible say to render onto ceaser what is ceaser's when speaking of money. Someone corrrect me, but I bet the koran doesn'r specify that giant minurets be built on mosques, but many times they are. I wonder if the koran even speaks of building mosques?

There are religious community rules and there are god ordained rules. The community rules need to change periodically to keep the faitful in the pews or else how are the leaders going to preach god's rules.

Man-made rules should be changed, if not disregarded. God's rules, however, should not. Ever.

but arent these "man made" rules inplace because "god" told them to have them?

No. Unless God specifically tells them (i.e. Moses, etc, the OT in general), they are man-made, and therefore completely irrelevant. God doesn't tell people subliminally what to think (thus free will) or how to screw religion up with their opinions, people do. God has a voice, it sounds like thunder, I doubt they'd miss it if they actually heard it.

How do you know that God told them? Here is a prime example of taking the word of someone who has be dead over 3500 years and probably never existed at all. Strangely there is no mention of Moses anywhere except in the bible and certain Jewish documents written nearly a thousand years latter.

the world is changing and the religion either needs to change to keep up with it or just plainly die out because it's housing old, dumbass rules that no one obeys anymore.

Which is why the world is in the state its in today..

- Dark

this is again what im talking about, the rules should be finite, if the rules have to change to keep up with the world, then imo the religion was not meant to be

take vanilla ice for an example, he started off as a rapper, people liked him but then grew out of his style, so now years later he wants to change his whole style up to come back? theres something wrong with that, its fake, its not him

or take 8-track for an example, as the world changed and technology got better, 8-track died out, you dont see apple comming out with an i-track now a days do you? its because 8-track ran its course and is over with

now for religion, people want to get married now a days, they dont want or have time to go to church every sunday, ect so instead of the religion saying ok looks like our time is up, they pull a vanilla ice and try to change there ways to be liked again, its fake, and not what the religion once was

so, all those that think religion is not a part of our world think its ok to kill someone? or to steal from someone? well, if not, that is two COMMANDMENTS, how about MEN BEING EQUAL???? that is why slavery is wrong, because MEN ARE EQUAL, RACISM IS AGAINST THE BIBLE AND AGAINST CHRISTIANITY, plus, OUR COUNTRY IS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIAN BELIEFS..... THAT IS WHY WE ARE FREE!!!

I'm a Catholic, and despite our many problems, I still love my wayward, weary and battered church. There are still too many wonderful things about it for me to disown it completely.

I don't love the false doctrines and politics that have been used to control and manipulate the community. Too many power-hungry individuals have used the church to pull people away from God's one true requirement: That we love each other as he loves us.

Ashley-Star*Child got it right:



The church has always been changing--it has to. After Vatican II, numerous teachings and traditions were discarded simply because they were no longer valid for our community, and they weren't God's laws in the first place. God is a living, moving force. To remain static in our beliefs without growth in our faith would lead to a separation from God.

Man makes errors. The Church is made up of good and bad men, as with everything in this world. We can't hide behind "infallibility" any longer. To recognize the bad, purge it, and move forward is the only way to progress. I believe the church is now recognizing the need for even more change, and this will be a good thing as long as it leads us back to the fundamental elements of God's law.

I love the passage in the Bible where the Church is compared to a bride with a dirty wedding dress. The bridegroom (God/Jesus) comes and makes the bride's dress white and clean again. (In other words, we are a "work in progress.") This is how I view my Church.

One more thing--I found the following, though meant to be a joke, highly offensive:



I do not agree with all of Pope John Paul II's actions while pope. I detest the current scandal in the church in relation to pedophilia. However, even a brief study of Karol Wojtyla's life will show a man who came from poverty, worked hard for his education, helped Jew's escape from the Nazi occupation, and lived a life of service to others. He is far from a bigot, has a great appreciation for all cultures, is highly intelligent, and is a very spiritual, if not saintly, person.

he is a good man, but i dont think there should be lables, like pope or bishop, we are all brothers and all the labels do is make those people better or higher than us... remember jesus said that heaven rejoices more over one sinner repenting and asking for forgiveness than 99 righteous people that need no repentance.

Very well said HowdyDoo.
When the disciples of Christ went out to the churches of the time they were not instructed to bring them all into accord with each other. They were addresses as individual communitys with unique problems and concerns. Christianity was never designed to be a one world church.
Being raised in the Catholic church I know were you come from and admire your sense of devotion.
I personal prefer evangelical or baptist churches as it more in line with what I believe. As long as a church sticks with the basic principles of christianity It should be a personal choice of were one feels comfortable worshiping.
All the Best
Irish

right. irish, denomination doesnt matter, belief is all that matters. the church, people, mess up, but thats why jesus died, so we can be forgiven...

Yes, I partly agree with you on this. I think the position of Pope has been blown out of proportion, and the hole hierarchy thing in the church is questionable.

But, if we are going by what we find in the New Testament, Jesus did assign certain positions to people. (Peter was the "rock.") Catholics have been using this as the foundation of our church.

I read an enlightening book called The Bishop that addressed the political atmosphere found in today's church. It was a fictional story, but showed the progression of a rather uninspired priest and his journey to the papacy. It was rather wonderful in the way this man's faith grew and changed and how he actually remade the papacy to a more community-oriented, Christ-like position. If I find the author's name, I'll add it later (It's the same author of the Joshua books.)

Irish,

I know where you are coming from...I think the only reason why I have remained Catholic is because I became in involved with the Charismatic movement. However, instead of leading me to another religion, it made me want to help change my current one, though I respect others who have left to find a more suitable venue. God bless!

This is not to much of a suprise. Seeing that if you look at the history of Christianity both Catholic and Protestant they are always changing to keep and get new members. They will do what ever it takes to do this, Encluding changing a Holidays date or creating new ones. If that is what it takes to draw bigger crowds.

Could Religion (All) be dieing out? If the various religions are so concerned that they need to change their rules and lure people to them then perhaps they have out lasted their usefulness.

I believe this is doubtful. No matter what your views are on religion, man has shown an innate need to believe in a deity, and he generates a religion out of that need. History has proven this over and over again.

However, I believe that standard religions are going through an evolution of sorts. Perhaps it will be a refining period, or a time when more religions actually combine to form one body but with less hierarchy. I think we'll become more community-oriented and get back to the basics of Christianity.

I believe religion will die out as we move to colonize space... Religion will not be as important to people in the next 50 years I think. There are still a lot of old generations around going to church.. Kids today will have better things to do in the future.

Religion "Evolving"!
Sorry I could not help but laugh at that. It made my day

It doesn't take much to amuse you, does it?

If your intention was to address the irony of combining Christianity and the theory of evolution, I must admit that I find that both beliefs can coincide quite comfortably. I'm a Christian and I believe in the theory of evolution.



This is an interesting theory, but I have yet to see where man's previous explorations (to previously undiscovered lands/continents, or under the oceans/seas, etc.) has caused this to happen. Space is just another exploration of the unknown--I see no valid reason to conclude that it will lead to the dismantling of religion.

Religion will one day be looked upon as an immature phase of human existance.
We do not need to look to anyone to find god, for he is already within us.
The key nto finding"god" lies within, not some preacher telling you that IU will show you the way to god.

Do you have anything to substantiate this belief other than it's just your opinion?

I refer to man's history, which shows a continuous use of religion to fill an innate need.

As far as religion is an "immature phase" of the human's existence--that is simply ridiculous! Man's history has shown a continued use of religion, in many forms. So your theory is that the only phase man has known since his creation is an "immature" one? Golly gee. You must be a trekkie.

Are there any intelligent athiests out there? If so, you are welcome to take over this thread and I will happily bow out.

I am entitled to my opinion, as you are to yours.
Some of the other comments in your post come from that huge ego of yours.
Call me a trekkie if you want.
Label me if you want.
If that fills your need to be superior to me, great.
Whether you agree or not religion is based on a premise that someone else will show you the way to god.
This is not true. Religion provides a great community of like minded people to gather.
This is where goid is created.

Beam me up scotty!!!

My huge ego stands corrected! But, hey, just for fun...are you a trekkie?

I agree with you 100 percent that religion provides a great community of like-minded people to gather and worship.



You are in error in assuming I believe this way. I ask no one else to show me the way to God other than him. (As a Christian, I believe Jesus is God.)

I see where we are both assuming too much--and I see that we are actually in agreement on many things. But I find your belief that man will no longer find a need for religion (as we both defined and agreed upon) once he has "matured" rather naive. It simply does not work with regard to man's history.

Perhaps in a utopia, or a heaven if you believe in one, this will be possible. But I doubt this will happen in man's lifetime on earth. (Oh, I get it now--it's that John Lennon song again...Imagine.)

I do believe that our current forms of religion will change and hopefully for the better. I believe we will become more community-oriented and not rely on a political, patriarchal leader to guide us. But I still believe there will be different forms of religion--man just has too many differences, and cultural preferences, to abandon them altogether.

You know what we need? A new religion... one similar to what Turtle commented on earlier: A church of Self-Belief (or Self-Actualization).

People should take responsibility and accountability for their existence and actions.

People need to accept that "bad things" happen to all of us, and you need to remain calm and just deal with issues head-on (and not waiting around for someone else to intervene).

A strong enough following might be able to over-throw the immenant disaster brewing within the U.S. Gov't.

Isn't that the New Age movement or Scientology? I think people have tried--but I don't see it working that well.

[quote=HowdyDoo,Mar 16 2005, 12:02 PM[right][snapback]527943[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

My huge ego stands corrected! But, hey, just for fun...are you a trekkie?

I agree with you 100 percent that religion provides a great community of like-minded people to gather and worship.

[quote]Whether you agree or not religion is based on a premise that someone else will show you the way to god.[/quote]

You are in error in assuming I believe this way. I ask no one else to show me the way to God other than him. (As a Christian, I believe Jesus is God.)

I see where we are both assuming too much--and I see that we are actually in agreement on many things. But I find your belief that man will no longer find a need for religion (as we both defined and agreed upon) once he has "matured" rather naive. It simply does not work with regard to man's history.

Perhaps in a utopia, or a heaven if you believe in one, this will be possible. But I doubt this will happen in man's lifetime on earth. (Oh, I get it now--it's that John Lennon song again...Imagine.)

I do believe that our current forms of religion will change and hopefully for the better. I believe we will become more community-oriented and not rely on a political, patriarchal leader to guide us. But I still believe there will be different forms of religion--man just has too many differences, and cultural preferences, to abandon them altogether.
[right][snapback]527992[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Not really, but I did wqatch it as a child.
All my programming comes from a Protestant background.
My parents forced me into this religion as a child, and when I became an adult actually left god, and the church for 20 years.
2 years ago I had an NDE, and this has changed me profoundly.
It has awoken my sixth sense, and as such my awareness has expanded.
I will agree that religion has been a constant in the evolution of man, but we also have to look at how man has secularized religion, and made it into a business.
Many of our current problems comes from the belief that your chosen form of religion is the only one.
People live in fear, of death, fear being used to keep people coming back to the church.
The love part of religion, I feel we are going to keep, it is the fear part of religion that we need to dispell and eliminate.
You believe Jesus as being God.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Jesus carried within him the presence of God, which is pure energy.
When Jesus broke the bread at the last supper, he referred to the bread a the embodiment of God. He was not referring to his own body, but used it to reference
the body of god.
We are each a crumb in the loaf of god. We all maintain the qualities of the whole loaf, yet lack quantity.
This is what Jesus was referring to at the last supper.
I reespewct your right to maintain your own belief.
I just need to ask, do you think that is all there is?
Do you want to know more?
What you believe to be the truth is just the beginning of what is the truth.
I believe in your truth, but I also believe that there is more to learn.

Turtle,

Thanks for sharing your background; I found it very interesting. It is sad, though, that some Christian churches have alienated many of its people. There are just too many scarred Christians out there--a big sign that we need to change.

I'm very fortunate; I wasn't forced into my religion out of duty or fear. However, spirituality was always evident in my family and it intrigued me. I had wonderful role models. I made an adult decision, after having a religious experience, to continue to worship in my church. I have a sister who joined the Episcopal church, and another believes in God but prefers not to worship in a church. I have no problems with this.

I don't believe that my religion is the only way to worship God. Long ago, I came to the realization that the God I know and love would never condemn a person simply because he has never heard the name of Jesus. I realize that this belief goes against many teachings of Christian churches, but God is way too big for us to box him up in only one religion.

I base my belief on this: Jesus told us that he is the way, truth and life. I believe that if you live the way, truth and life, even though you have never heard the name of Jesus before, you still know "Him." In this way, you can be a Hindi and still live like a Christian and be entitled to the rewards of heaven. Some of the most Christ-like people I know aren't Christians!

As for my belief that Jesus was God...this is a very deep, personal belief. I see where your Protestant background has colored your beliefs, as my Catholic ones have colored mine. I believe that Jesus was also man--he was a wonderful mix of both God and Man--as we all are! Nothing could be gained by debating our differences on this--I guess we need to agree to disagree and let it go.



As for these questions...no, I do not think this is all there is. As I stated earlier in this thread: Heh, I guess it is kinda egotistical to quote yourself. Sorry!

I will refer to Tao: the only constant is change

What does not change, becomes obsolete. If beliefs founded thousands of years ago no longer fit reality, they must change or fade away.

In my marketing textbook there was an actual example of how churches resort to latest marketing techniques to increase attendance and "fight competition" - I thought it was hilarious

This is what I was thinking when I posted.

This topic has been bugging me for a long time. I'm no Christian lore master or intellect, but what I do know is that the religion is based of Jesus's and God's teachings, and thats how it needs to stay -- no ands ifs or buts because of trend, popularity, or lack of membership. Unfortuneatly, the way I see it, most of this word was lost long ago. The religion is surely changing.

If even Catholics are not afraid to change their beliefs to be popular and get more members, I see an utter lack of faith as the problem. If they believe in popularity and converting people to the religion they lost true faith in long ago, I see this as more of a game -- and as some would say, they're revering the devil. I never knew greed and lust were Christian teachings, thought they were two of something called the seven deadly sins.

it's not faith that's changing, it's only the church

two different things altogether?

Perhaps Christ came 2000 years ago and said Be Nice...and look how complicated it got

well, im a Catholic. but let me tell you, the Catholic Church is SCREWED UP. arrogant Popes, popular opinion, politics, years of tradition, and just plain confusion have reaked so much havoc with what the church teaches, its unbelievable. in my opinion, we need to just get rid of all those rigidly superficial, incredibly petty, meaningless little man-made rules and doctrines and just get back to the basics. and you would be amazed how many Catholics agree with me. the church has become an almost hopelessly cold, formal, falsely pious organization of nincompoops. we really need another reformation, one INSIDE the church, but this is, of course, the wrong time for that. we should have gotten our stuff together six hundred years ago, when nothing could touch us, but i ramble. changes like that, where people could actually get back to Jesus, would be tremendously welcome by just about everybody, but the changes lately have just been the same old garbage.

[SIZE=14]Feel Better!!!!

"hey i would love to be christian...just as long as i can get married, eat meat during lent"

You can get married and eat meat during lent. The reason why catholic preists do not marry is because having a family can get in the way of there duties. My best freinds dad is a minister and he aggrees with that.

I'm a Catholic and ever since I have seriously studied the bible and become a more frequent visitor to church I have come closer to God and in no way have I been sucked into anything. I know this becaus I have even serious questioned some of the beliefs and have found goo fair answers for the beliefs. I sudy the bible regualy and I am happy that I have. The faith is never garbage thank you very much.