Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand OP's quandary. Believe in Jesus and what he stands for, but not crazy about organized religion. The Episcopal Church seems to bring in a lot of Catholics who had enough and want a church more understanding of various types of people

I could never get that excited about Jesus. Yes, he's a good guy, but there are lots of good guys throughout history. Jesus just managed to found a major religion. Without intending to, apparently. That supposedly was Peter's doing. Then Rome, the major political power at the time, got into the act.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand OP's quandary. Believe in Jesus and what he stands for, but not crazy about organized religion. The Episcopal Church seems to bring in a lot of Catholics who had enough and want a church more understanding of various types of people

I could never get that excited about Jesus. Yes, he's a good guy, but there are lots of good guys throughout history. Jesus just managed to found a major religion. Without intending to, apparently. That supposedly was Peter's doing. Then Rome, the major political power at the time, got into the act.

Anonymous wrote:I understand OP's quandary. Believe in Jesus and what he stands for, but not crazy about organized religion. The Episcopal Church seems to bring in a lot of Catholics who had enough and want a church more understanding of various types of people

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound Episcopalian.

Kinda non sexist Catholic-lite.

fwiw - God and Jesus aren't sexist. Those teaching came about as a sign of the times. I sometimes wonder how they consider the Pope only being male and only being white in all the years since Jesus (except 3). This can't possibly be regarded well that PEOPLE still believe God only wants to speak through white males. Oh well, human nature sucks.

Have you, uh, read the New Testament?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Branches of Christianity that believe in sphere sovereignty won't include politics in their preaching because they think that's wrong.

Couldn't agree more!

Rules out Baptist and many other rogue protestant churches.

Anonymous wrote:The Bible is a good place to start.

Anonymous wrote:Branches of Christianity that believe in sphere sovereignty won't include politics in their preaching because they think that's wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had to guess, your politics are far outside the mainstream and so you view statements that others consider mainstream as political.

I can’t speak to Protestantism or other parts of the country but I have not seen this as an issue in Catholic churches in MD/DC or Boston when I used to live. Typically the most overtly political churches are the mainline ones with political flags and signs everywhere.

Boston Catholic churches full of either Magas or Christmas and Easter Catholics. It’s either cultural or political. Not a lot of living the faith types.

Catholics are among the most mainstream people in the country in terms of their voting practices and views. You can look it up. Again, it is more likely that many of the posters on this thread actually do not have mainstream views and are projecting by calling those that do “political.”

{The 95% of the country that is more right leaning than me is SOOOOO political.}

Sure. I’m sure that’s it. :/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound Episcopalian.

Kinda non sexist Catholic-lite.

fwiw - God and Jesus aren't sexist. Those teaching came about as a sign of the times. I sometimes wonder how they consider the Pope only being male and only being white in all the years since Jesus (except 3). This can't possibly be regarded well that PEOPLE still believe God only wants to speak through white males. Oh well, human nature sucks.

Consider that for centuries, the Catholic Church was only in Europe and is still patriarchal. That explains all the white guys.

And for centuries it hasn't been, yet nothing has changed. Catholicism started to spread in the 1400s, so 700-800 years and . . . Nothing changed.

It started to spread, yes, but until the 20 century, there were no Cardinals outside of Europe.

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/comment-how-the-conclave-of-cardinals-will-chose-next-pope/#:~:text=For%20many%20centuries%2C%20the%20College,in%20the%201903%20papal%20election.

"For many centuries, the College of Cardinals was dominated by Europeans; Italians, in particular. In fact, the first time a non-European cardinal actually cast a ballot in a conclave was only in the 20th century, when Baltimore’s archbishop, James Gibbons, voted in the 1903 papal election. Now, the College of Cardinals has members from over 90 countries, with Francis having appointed nearly 80 percent of them. "

I am not defending the Catholic Church. Just explaining, accurately

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound Episcopalian.

Kinda non sexist Catholic-lite.

fwiw - God and Jesus aren't sexist. Those teaching came about as a sign of the times. I sometimes wonder how they consider the Pope only being male and only being white in all the years since Jesus (except 3). This can't possibly be regarded well that PEOPLE still believe God only wants to speak through white males. Oh well, human nature sucks.

Maybe the omnipotent god should have known better and had Jesus be born to as an aboriginal woman in Australia. This is/was "his" one chance to convince humanity of the pathway to salvation (from "his" rules BTW).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound Episcopalian.

Kinda non sexist Catholic-lite.

fwiw - God and Jesus aren't sexist. Those teaching came about as a sign of the times. I sometimes wonder how they consider the Pope only being male and only being white in all the years since Jesus (except 3). This can't possibly be regarded well that PEOPLE still believe God only wants to speak through white males. Oh well, human nature sucks.

Maybe the omnipotent god should have known better and had Jesus be born to as an aboriginal woman in Australia. This is/was "his" one chance to convince humanity of the pathway to salvation (from "his" rules BTW).

Anonymous wrote:You sound Episcopalian.

Kinda non sexist Catholic-lite.

fwiw - God and Jesus aren't sexist. Those teaching came about as a sign of the times. I sometimes wonder how they consider the Pope only being male and only being white in all the years since Jesus (except 3). This can't possibly be regarded well that PEOPLE still believe God only wants to speak through white males. Oh well, human nature sucks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound Episcopalian.

Kinda non sexist Catholic-lite.

fwiw - God and Jesus aren't sexist. Those teaching came about as a sign of the times. I sometimes wonder how they consider the Pope only being male and only being white in all the years since Jesus (except 3). This can't possibly be regarded well that PEOPLE still believe God only wants to speak through white males. Oh well, human nature sucks.

Maybe the omnipotent god should have known better and had Jesus be born to as an aboriginal woman in Australia. This is/was "his" one chance to convince humanity of the pathway to salvation (from "his" rules BTW).

Would people have listened to her?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had to guess, your politics are far outside the mainstream and so you view statements that others consider mainstream as political.

I can’t speak to Protestantism or other parts of the country but I have not seen this as an issue in Catholic churches in MD/DC or Boston when I used to live. Typically the most overtly political churches are the mainline ones with political flags and signs everywhere.

Boston Catholic churches full of either Magas or Christmas and Easter Catholics. It’s either cultural or political. Not a lot of living the faith types.