|
Post by open mind on Sept 23, 2014 22:00:39 GMT -5
I never considered myself a criminal. Most of the young ones were sexually active. I was too afraid to go to the doc incase someone saw me and told Mum. The workers helped with the wedding and my family did have a good relationship with them probably another reason they obeyed everything suggested re wedding. They wanted it to be a quiet wedding not showy. Not in a wedding reception. That didnt bother me I had never dreamed of a white wedding. I grew up thinking white weddings and engagement rings were worldly. This blows me away: "Most of the young ones were sexually active." You really mean to say that most professing not married young people were sexually active??? OK, I've heard it happens, but would have never dreamed that it would be prevalent. Sexual activity before marriage was fairly common with young ones when I was growing up (including myself)...and i think it still is.. There were parents that were well aware of it and were of the opinion that they would rather know about it than it happening in secret behind their back...
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 23, 2014 22:11:05 GMT -5
This blows me away: "Most of the young ones were sexually active." You really mean to say that most professing not married young people were sexually active??? OK, I've heard it happens, but would have never dreamed that it would be prevalent. Sexual activity before marriage was fairly common with young ones when I was growing up (including myself)...and i think it still is.. There were parents that were well aware of it and were of the opinion that they would rather know about it than it happening in secret behind their back... The church rarely teaches against it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 23, 2014 22:41:53 GMT -5
Sexual activity before marriage was fairly common with young ones when I was growing up (including myself)...and i think it still is.. There were parents that were well aware of it and were of the opinion that they would rather know about it than it happening in secret behind their back... The church rarely teaches against it. An elder's wife who was a good friend of ours put her daughters on birth control pills immediately when they had their first monthly. I never dared ask what discussion accompanied the introduction of birth control to her daughters, but there were no unplanned pregnancies.
|
|
|
Post by breakingfree on Sept 24, 2014 1:53:03 GMT -5
I never considered myself a criminal. Most of the young ones were sexually active. I was too afraid to go to the doc incase someone saw me and told Mum. The workers helped with the wedding and my family did have a good relationship with them probably another reason they obeyed everything suggested re wedding. They wanted it to be a quiet wedding not showy. Not in a wedding reception. That didnt bother me I had never dreamed of a white wedding. I grew up thinking white weddings and engagement rings were worldly. This blows me away: "Most of the young ones were sexually active." You really mean to say that most professing not married young people were sexually active??? OK, I've heard it happens, but would have never dreamed that it would be prevalent. Many of my professing peers 16-20 years old were sexually active.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 24, 2014 3:58:23 GMT -5
I never considered myself a criminal. Most of the young ones were sexually active. I was too afraid to go to the doc incase someone saw me and told Mum. The workers helped with the wedding and my family did have a good relationship with them probably another reason they obeyed everything suggested re wedding. They wanted it to be a quiet wedding not showy. Not in a wedding reception. That didnt bother me I had never dreamed of a white wedding. I grew up thinking white weddings and engagement rings were worldly. This blows me away: "Most of the young ones were sexually active." You really mean to say that most professing not married young people were sexually active??? OK, I've heard it happens, but would have never dreamed that it would be prevalent. I didnt say prevelant luv. Most couples yes. Where I lived. No workers didnt talk about sex. They spoke against man magazines tho. We would be tittering at the back of convention tent..asking each other how the workers knew about those?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 24, 2014 4:05:51 GMT -5
Maja Hugs
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Sept 24, 2014 7:21:49 GMT -5
Sexual activity before marriage was fairly common with young ones when I was growing up (including myself)...and i think it still is.. There were parents that were well aware of it and were of the opinion that they would rather know about it than it happening in secret behind their back... The church rarely teaches against it. One potential problem I see is the language in the King James Bible. I had a friend who genuinely couldn't find anything in the bible relating to pre-marital sex. I had to explain what the word fornication meant.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 24, 2014 7:56:03 GMT -5
Technically the Anglicans didn't break away from the Catholics -- they stopped recognizing the Pope as having authority over the whole church. As far as the Anglican church is concerned they are "in communion" with the Catholic church, just not recognizing the Pope's authority. In their services they refer to themselves as the catholic church. It's hard to keep track of who broke away from who, but certainly all the western Protestant denominations did descent from the Roman Catholic church. Yes I stand corrected about the Anglican and Catholic Church. I have attended some funerals in Anglican Churches and they still recite the Apostles' creed that mentions their belief in Holy Catholic Church. Perhaps it was the Anglican Catholic Church. But more than likely the The Apostles' Creed you heard included the lines: I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
Or the The Nicene Creed which included the lines: We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
Note the lower case 'c', in both cases, on the word catholic. It is difficult to hear the difference!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 24, 2014 8:32:50 GMT -5
I never considered myself a criminal. Most of the young ones were sexually active. I was too afraid to go to the doc incase someone saw me and told Mum. The workers helped with the wedding and my family did have a good relationship with them probably another reason they obeyed everything suggested re wedding. They wanted it to be a quiet wedding not showy. Not in a wedding reception. That didnt bother me I had never dreamed of a white wedding. I grew up thinking white weddings and engagement rings were worldly. This blows me away: "Most of the young ones were sexually active." You really mean to say that most professing not married young people were sexually active??? OK, I've heard it happens, but would have never dreamed that it would be prevalent. Has there been any period of time or area where this was not the case? Depending on the age group considered perhaps not most but certainly many. In an article published in the Magazine of History it was noted that: Marriage and birth records from the late 1700s reveal that between 30 to 40 percent of New England brides were pregnant before marriage.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 24, 2014 9:13:55 GMT -5
Sexual activity before marriage was fairly common with young ones when I was growing up (including myself)...and i think it still is.. There were parents that were well aware of it and were of the opinion that they would rather know about it than it happening in secret behind their back... The church rarely teaches against it. That makes me want to weep. I'll have to compose myself first and get over my shock, but I think this deserves its own thread.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 24, 2014 9:21:17 GMT -5
This blows me away: "Most of the young ones were sexually active." You really mean to say that most professing not married young people were sexually active??? OK, I've heard it happens, but would have never dreamed that it would be prevalent. Has there been any period of time or area where this was not the case? Depending on the age group considered perhaps not most but certainly many. In an article published in the Magazine of History it was noted that: Marriage and birth records from the late 1700s reveal that between 30 to 40 percent of New England brides were pregnant before marriage.I was not asking about the rest of the world, but about those raised in a church, and in particular a church that is strict in so many ways and that claims to be spiritually superior to other churches. My husband grew up in a church where they were taught about these things, and most of young people (when he was in that age group) were not sexually active. My 12 year-old's church group has had a whole series of lessons on pre-marital relationships, and I'm sure they'll hear it again and again.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 24, 2014 11:09:56 GMT -5
Has there been any period of time or area where this was not the case? Depending on the age group considered perhaps not most but certainly many. In an article published in the Magazine of History it was noted that: Marriage and birth records from the late 1700s reveal that between 30 to 40 percent of New England brides were pregnant before marriage.I was not asking about the rest of the world, but about those raised in a church, and in particular a church that is strict in so many ways and that claims to be spiritually superior to other churches. Like the early Puritans? How did your husband know people were not having sex? Hopefully they are also teaching your 12 year old about STDs and how to prevent them.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Sept 24, 2014 11:20:36 GMT -5
This is a tricky one to deal with. I think that people should be allowed to partake of the emblems if they feel that they are worthy of so doing, it is not for others, in my opinion, to judge who is and who is not worthy. In the end, God is the righteous judge and will judge and mete out punishment accordingly. It has caused me to think about what is written in Revelations 22: 14,15. 14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter into the city.15: For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and ladymongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. I have noticed that fornicators and adulterers are not specifically mentioned there, that is a little puzzling because as I understand it, fornication and adultery are sinful acts, aren't they? Double standards are most definitely unacceptable in any church family, if it is wrong for one it must be wrong for all others, God has no favorites when it comes to sinful acts and wrong doing. However, He is compassionate and forgiving to those who repent and ask for His forgiveness for any wrong doing. My question for some time lately has been about this "being worthy" to partake of the emblems! How does a person know if he/she is worthy? Is it not they who have repented and seek forgiveness? It surely wouldn't be those who have moved on past that sin without repenting, now would it? It certainly wouldn't be those who think they haven't sinned at all, would it? It would have to be the man/woman who have judged their own unworthiness, but admit their own need for cleansing and forgiveness, right?
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 24, 2014 12:07:29 GMT -5
The same way the posters who said that most of their friends were having sex knew - through conversation, sharing about struggles, spiritual questions. Of course, it happened, but it wasn't a norm.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 24, 2014 12:13:00 GMT -5
This blows me away: "Most of the young ones were sexually active." You really mean to say that most professing not married young people were sexually active??? OK, I've heard it happens, but would have never dreamed that it would be prevalent. I didnt say prevelant luv. Most couples yes. Where I lived. No workers didnt talk about sex. They spoke against man magazines tho. We would be tittering at the back of convention tent..asking each other how the workers knew about those? OK, so what's the difference between "most couples" and "prevalent"? That only those who were in a relationship were sexually active? I did assume that, though
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 24, 2014 12:34:25 GMT -5
While Anglicans did not directly break away from RCC, they grew out of the Church of England, which of course broke away from RCC. Remember the story... the pope wouldn't let King Henry VIII annul a marriage. But yes, they are "in communion," just like they are with Orthodox churches. The Anglican Church didn't grow out of the Church of England, it IS and always WAS the Church of England. "Anglican" means "English". It's the English Catholic Church, protesting against the domination of the Bishop of Rome. And no, it wasn't technically a break at all - more like an estrangement. There is the Church of England, of Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and Anglican churches outside of UK. Now you try going to Scotland and tell them they belong to the Church of England!?!? But they all (with the exception of some 'Anglican' churches) belong to the Anglican Communion (not 'church'). Isn't that true? Out of curiosity, what is the difference between 'breaking away' and 'estrangement'?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 24, 2014 12:54:30 GMT -5
The Anglican Church didn't grow out of the Church of England, it IS and always WAS the Church of England. "Anglican" means "English". It's the English Catholic Church, protesting against the domination of the Bishop of Rome. And no, it wasn't technically a break at all - more like an estrangement. There is the Church of England, of Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and Anglican churches outside of UK. Now you try going to Scotland and tell them they belong to the Church of England!?!? But they all (with the exception of some 'Anglican' churches) belong to the Anglican Communion (not 'church'). Isn't that true? Out of curiosity, what is the difference between 'breaking away' and 'estrangement'? "Breaking away" means divorce. "Estrangement" means we're not getting along. I don't know about Scotland or Ireland, but I know that members of the Anglican Church in Canada call themselves Church of England as well -- my grandparents and a whole tribe of relatives and a prominent priest is Church of England in Canada. In the US they call themselves Episcopalians, and consider themselves part of the Anglican (English) Communion of the Catholic church. The archbishop of the whole Anglican communion is in England. The Church of Scotland and the Episcopal Church in the US are neither broken away nor estranged from the English Church -- they just live in other countries. In case you're wondering where I got this -- I wrote a college paper on it for an Episcopal priest. I'm sure he'd have corrected me if I were wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 16:04:35 GMT -5
This is a tricky one to deal with. I think that people should be allowed to partake of the emblems if they feel that they are worthy of so doing, it is not for others, in my opinion, to judge who is and who is not worthy. In the end, God is the righteous judge and will judge and mete out punishment accordingly. It has caused me to think about what is written in Revelations 22: 14,15. 14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter into the city.15: For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and ladymongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. I have noticed that fornicators and adulterers are not specifically mentioned there, that is a little puzzling because as I understand it, fornication and adultery are sinful acts, aren't they? Double standards are most definitely unacceptable in any church family, if it is wrong for one it must be wrong for all others, God has no favorites when it comes to sinful acts and wrong doing. However, He is compassionate and forgiving to those who repent and ask for His forgiveness for any wrong doing. My question for some time lately has been about this "being worthy" to partake of the emblems! How does a person know if he/she is worthy? Is it not they who have repented and seek forgiveness? It surely wouldn't be those who have moved on past that sin without repenting, now would it? It certainly wouldn't be those who think they haven't sinned at all, would it? It would have to be the man/woman who have judged their own unworthiness, but admit their own need for cleansing and forgiveness, right? Yes it could be something along those lines; i don't know this for certain but I believe that it is a sort of feeling of self assessment or self judgement based on how one feels about oneself in a spiritual contex. I suppose it is the sort of feeling one gets when something bad happens to them and they say to themselves : I don't think that I deserved that, I am a God fearing person; or fthe feeling one gets when something good happens to them and they say I don't think I deserve that, they must be more deserving folks more worthy of it than I am.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 24, 2014 16:19:32 GMT -5
There was one thing that really bothered me most of the time since I had grown up. First of all, people were asked to not partake of the emblems because of their unworthiness. Then, on the other hand, partaking of the emblems was touted as some kind of a cleansing exercise for moving forward. Apparently there is something wrong with everyone, but the ones that got caught don't have the opportunity to be cleansed of it.
Apparently the sin really IS in getting caught.
The real underlying purpose of asking people to refrain from taking the emblems is to make an example of them, and shame them before others in order to prevent others from being caught doing the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 24, 2014 17:58:04 GMT -5
There was one thing that really bothered me most of the time since I had grown up. First of all, people were asked to not partake of the emblems because of their unworthiness. Then, on the other hand, partaking of the emblems was touted as some kind of a cleansing exercise for moving forward. Apparently there is something wrong with everyone, but the ones that got caught don't have the opportunity to be cleansed of it. Apparently the sin really IS in getting caught. The real underlying purpose of asking people to refrain from taking the emblems is to make an example of them, and shame them before others in order to prevent others from being caught doing the same thing. Jesus didn't make an example of Judas in the Last Supper.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 24, 2014 18:42:32 GMT -5
Jesus didn't make an example of Judas in the Last Supper. He couldn't. He was needed to carry out Jesus' plan.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 24, 2014 19:04:56 GMT -5
There was one thing that really bothered me most of the time since I had grown up. First of all, people were asked to not partake of the emblems because of their unworthiness. Then, on the other hand, partaking of the emblems was touted as some kind of a cleansing exercise for moving forward. Apparently there is something wrong with everyone, but the ones that got caught don't have the opportunity to be cleansed of it. Apparently the sin really IS in getting caught. The real underlying purpose of asking people to refrain from taking the emblems is to make an example of them, and shame them before others in order to prevent others from being caught doing the same thing. Jesus didn't make an example of Judas in the Last Supper. I actually confronted the elder of our meeting about that. He thought he should tell an outsider who came to the meeting not to take the emblems. He asked me what I thought, and I told him that Jesus passed the cup to Judas. But then, 2 weeks later he screamed at me over the phone, uninterrupted, for 45 minutes straight, and told me he couldn't have fellowship with me any more.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 24, 2014 19:06:46 GMT -5
Jesus didn't make an example of Judas in the Last Supper. He couldn't. He was needed to carry out Jesus' plan. Gnostics have a very good explanation for the theory that Judas and Jesus collaborated in the "final chapter".
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 24, 2014 19:48:43 GMT -5
My question for some time lately has been about this "being worthy" to partake of the emblems! How does a person know if he/she is worthy? Is it not they who have repented and seek forgiveness? It surely wouldn't be those who have moved on past that sin without repenting, now would it? It certainly wouldn't be those who think they haven't sinned at all, would it? It would have to be the man/woman who have judged their own unworthiness, but admit their own need for cleansing and forgiveness, right? Yes it could be something along those lines; i don't know this for certain but I believe that it is a sort of feeling of self assessment or self judgement based on how one feels about oneself in a spiritual contex. I suppose it is the sort of feeling one gets when something bad happens to them and they say to themselves : I don't think that I deserved that, I am a God fearing person; or fthe feeling one gets when something good happens to them and they say I don't think I deserve that, they must be more deserving folks more worthy of it than I am. Re worthy Are we worthy of partaking. No. What makes a person worthy is based on the relationship with father and son. When we are bornagain by th3 spirit if god we come inside the love they have for each other. So based on that I/we can boldly approach the throne of grace. This knowledge once you grasp it is liberating in itself. Its about his mercy and love for humanity. Essentially this is how it works. Causing fear confusion etc to drop off.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 24, 2014 21:13:20 GMT -5
There was one thing that really bothered me most of the time since I had grown up. First of all, people were asked to not partake of the emblems because of their unworthiness. Then, on the other hand, partaking of the emblems was touted as some kind of a cleansing exercise for moving forward. Apparently there is something wrong with everyone, but the ones that got caught don't have the opportunity to be cleansed of it. Apparently the sin really IS in getting caught. The real underlying purpose of asking people to refrain from taking the emblems is to make an example of them, and shame them before others in order to prevent others from being caught doing the same thing. Your first sentence to me is unbiblical because Jesus Christ is all about setting captives free healing and deliverance you were right in feeling the way you did. Christ made a way for our freedom Lets say I have unforgiveness in my heart. Based on the scriptures that say through Christ I am forgiven all wrong doing when I acknowledge and repent for any ill/wrong doing taking accountability for it.
When I acknowldege/ confess/ repent he forgives me. What happens when I choose to do that and forgive the one who hurt me. The spiritual tie is broken. That spiritual tie had the right to be there because I gave it place. Once it is broken I am no longer tied to that person. Im now free from the unforgiving spirit. This is real and it works. I call it practical christianity.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 24, 2014 21:18:49 GMT -5
Jesus didn't make an example of Judas in the Last Supper. I actually confronted the elder of our meeting about that. He thought he should tell an outsider who came to the meeting not to take the emblems. He asked me what I thought, and I told him that Jesus passed the cup to Judas. But then, 2 weeks later he screamed at me over the phone, uninterrupted, for 45 minutes straight, and told me he couldn't have fellowship with me any more. Whaaaat?? Thats dreadful. Ive known of non christians attend a ch service. The emblems were passed round they partook then accepted Christ at the end of the service because during that time of inner reflection that persons heart was touched by the holy spirit. There is so much we dont understand and I sometimes think we are limited in our lack of of knowledge but he is not limited in what he can do to achieve his purposes.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 24, 2014 21:38:17 GMT -5
There was one thing that really bothered me most of the time since I had grown up. First of all, people were asked to not partake of the emblems because of their unworthiness. Then, on the other hand, partaking of the emblems was touted as some kind of a cleansing exercise for moving forward. Apparently there is something wrong with everyone, but the ones that got caught don't have the opportunity to be cleansed of it. Apparently the sin really IS in getting caught. The real underlying purpose of asking people to refrain from taking the emblems is to make an example of them, and shame them before others in order to prevent others from being caught doing the same thing. Your first sentence to me is unbiblical because Jesus Christ is all about setting captives free healing and deliverance you were right in feeling the way you did. Christ made a way for our freedom Lets say I have unforgiveness in my heart. Based on the scriptures that say through Christ I am forgiven all wrong doing when I acknowledge and repent for any ill/wrong doing taking accountability for it.
When I acknowldege/ confess/ repent he forgives me. What happens when I choose to do that and forgive the one who hurt me. The spiritual tie is broken. That spiritual tie had the right to be there because I gave it place. Once it is broken I am no longer tied to that person. Im now free from the unforgiving spirit. This is real and it works. I call it practical christianity. I've heard of that approach too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2014 3:16:29 GMT -5
Sexual activity before marriage was fairly common with young ones when I was growing up (including myself)...and i think it still is.. There were parents that were well aware of it and were of the opinion that they would rather know about it than it happening in secret behind their back... The church rarely teaches against it. would they teach against it any less than Jesus did?
|
|