DUDE, that would be Jesus' blood, not Holy Spirit.. you have to inhale the Holy Spirit...


Seriously people....

/not serious

The point is, if the "RCC was the only real Western Church, just as the Orthodox were the only real Eastern Church," then it is rather inaccurate to say that the RCC "was considered the universal church" prior to the Reformation, don't you think? I'm sure that after the Great Schism, the Ecumenical Patriarch did not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be the universal church prior to the Reformation, anymore than he considers it so now. Universal chuch in the West, okay, but not simply the universal church. (And prior to the Great Schism, I think one would have to say that the universal church consisted of both the Roman Church and the Byzantine churches. But then the Copts, the Syriacs and others might have a beef with that statement. ;) )

Unless she meant the Holy Sprite. :D

Yes but you have to consider in the frame of mind of Europeans around the Reformation. There WAS no Eastern world as far as they were concerned. Oh there was China.. and some strange stuff that came there, but they were hardly "civiliazation" in the minds of your average European. For Jean Smithe of France, as well as Juan Doe in Spain, etc.. your only option was The Church.

That is an interesting thought! No Eastern world which was the cradle of Civiliazation?

But, if You are talking about The Roman Catholic Religion, they wanted to rulke the known so called civilized world as in Europe.

Oh, there was a King of Turkey that had a lot to do with things of Christianity!

Check it out.:)

Perhaps for the average Johannes Doe on the street, but hardly so among the Reformers or many others of the time. John Calvin's writings show a fair degree of familiarity with and influence of Eastern Orthodox theology. Cranmer's liturgical reforms in England show familiarity with Orthodox liturgical forms. There are numerous other examples. Educated people were familiar to a greater or lesser degree with Eastern Orthodoxy. That doesn't mean that they were prepared to ask for Orthodox missions in Switzerland, but they had an understanding of the Church in its Eastern as well as Western forms, and an understanding of the history of the Church in both its Roman and Byzantine forms. And remember that there are Eastern European countries that are and have long been Orthodox rather than Catholic. So while as a practical matter the Roman Church may have been considered the only game in town in Western Europe prior to the Reformation -- with the exception of certain pre-Reformation "Protestant" groups, some of which, like the Waldensians, still exist today -- it's not because they didn't know anything about Eastern Christianity.

In some ways, the Reformers thought that Orthodoxy taught the same "errors" that they perceived in the Roman Catholic Church, while in other ways they thought that it had avoided certain "errors." Meanwhile, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church considered the Orthodox heretical, or at least outside the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" because the Orthodox rejected the primacy of the See of Peter -- and therefore were not "One" with the See of Peter. The Orthodox likewise believed that the Roman Church had improperly "added" to the Catholic faith, thereby ceasing to be Catholic.

And, of course, politics was often at the root of what was considered "the only option."

i think we should be tolerant of people that are all colors and religiouns and sexual choices.

I agree wholeheartedly.

People who use bad grammar and spelling in 20 posts in 5 minutes, however, should meet the fate of William "Braveheart" Wallace and be disembowled while still alive.

And I wholeheartedly heart Sheila.:D

True. And that's clearly what drove the Reformers.. (or as we Catholics call them, the LYING HERETICS WHO WILL BURN IN HELL.... I'm totally kidding)

But if they wanted to attend an Orthodox church, they were SOL without traveling quite far.

They were the ones who brought these things to the attention of the guy on the street. As I understand, Luther never really wanted to break away, just fix problems. Before the reformation, your choice was the RCC, or nothing-which could lead to problems with the Church and government.

Indeed. They were reformers not break-awayers. But it got out of hand.

Right. Luther, Calvin and other of their generation were hoping to reform the church, not start a new one. I sometimes wonder whether, if they were alive after Vatican II, they would still see as strong a need for Reformation.

I think we're over-analyizing this, not too mention doing some considerable high-jacking (plus having a fun discussion, imo). My only point in my first post (that started the high-jack) was that some Eastern Orthodox might take issue with the unqualified statement that prior to Reformation the Roman Catholic Church was "considered the universal church." If the statement to which I was responding had been phrased that in Western Europe or in the West, the Roman Catholic Church was considered the universal church prior to the Reformation, then I think there'd be little room for argument. But without that qualification, I think a simple and accurate response is "Not in Greece, it wasn't." That's all I was saying.

Excellent point.

But thread hijacks are fun!

And this wasn't going anywhere much besides "I'm glad my chapter doesn't follow the rules"

Very well said and very much appreciated! Your whole post was very well put and it is so nice to see someone respect other people so greatly, no matter their race, religion, or creed! Thank you!

I don't think Atheists should be a member, since wehn you join a glo you take an oath to that organization and most importantly to god. And if you don't believe in god, then there is nothing to hold you accountable.

Hmmm.... well other than I guess your honour as a gentleman or as a lady...

Sure, I agree that from the standpoint of someone who is not an Atheist the whole thing doesn't seem to make sense. It especially doesn't help that many Atheists treat the term as a religion in and of itself and so claim to represent all others.
Allow me to retort: As it turns out, "God" for many Atheists in Greek Life is more of a concept than anything else. When I swear to my oaths "under God" I'm swearing my oaths to the respectable simplification of moral guidance and ethical conduct that our founders saw fit to enact. I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe in God. But I can't entirely say that I'm not religious, for my fraternity is my religion. It's values are great enough to guide me to live a good life, do well by others, and hopefully die having made the lives of others not only improved and happier, but also changed in such a way that they would also seek to do well by others whenever possible.
Perhaps not everyone is comfortable with this definition, but I've yet to be confronted about it.

So if you don't swear an oath by God, it's not a real oath?

Huh.

Not every GLO includes an oath to God within it. Just because yours does doesn't mean that's the end all be all of GLOs...

If this is reflected at me, I never said my fraternity was the end all of glos, however, I did assume that all glos have an oath to god in them, an assumption I am going to stick with. It is like an atheist swearing an oath to tell the truth in court. What would be the meaning of that oath? Nothing.

When I pledged, I had to swear on a stack of bibles as tall as me. I dropped out eventually. I'm gonna burn baby burn!!!!!!1

So if you don't swear to God.. then it doesn't count?

I don't understand that concept. Most oaths made do not involve one to God.. I'm not even talking about fraternity oaths. Atheists in court swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth... adding God in doesn't change anything.

Besides that, how many people "OMG SWEAR TO GOD" and don't mean that either.

Many GLOs have Christian or other religious connections. Even those that do may not swear an oath TO GOD or BY GOD. Heck, they could say a prayer and still not swear to or by God.

Back in the day it was enough to swear upon your sacred honor, however, nowadays honor doesn't mean anything. When was the last duel you heard about due to an infringement upon someone's honor? It was the same thing with God and oaths. Now neither mean anything, with proof coming from the fact that atheists are allowed to make oaths.

You're still not making sense. The vast majority of oaths taken do not involve God. Are you saying that even if they Don't involve God, a Christian's oath is better than an atheist's?

What about a Muslim's word? Or a Buddhist's, or a Hindu's, or a Wiccan's?

What about a Jew's.

Does it have to be swearing by YOUR God?

Very good point.

So, the thing is if a possible new member knows what may be in store as far as swearing to some one or something and do not feel comfortable then why even think about joining?

I am curious, what does and Atheist beleive in?

So is it not also true that people are invited to become members? It is not just a right to join. GLOs are selective groups of people anyway.

I think you have a very skewed perception of what honour is, if you use duels as a measure of it :rolleyes:

Anyways like my Fraternity Brother Tom said above - GLOs are selective, and hopefully they are selective enough to recruit those to whom an oath means something, no matter to what it is given...

As I sit here watching CNN, seeing folks blowing each other up, and contemplating all the millions of people who have been killed in the name of God, I have to laugh at anyone who worries that a kid smart enough not to buy into that crap may not be honorable enough to join a college fraternity.

Thanks for the comic relief.

(Jono shakes head, makes a cocktail, and sits back to watch the continuing carnage)

Wish You Were Here and We would be enjoying the same Cocktail and shaking our heads!

You're absolutely right, considering the schism that led to the establishment of the alternate papal seat at Constantinople.

Would you, sir, defend your honor with your life? I would, in the gentlemenly manor by which those before us have. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence at one point or another participated in a duel, and you might even recall the story of Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasurey, and Aaron Burr, Vice-President of the United States engaging in a duel of honor. The defending of honor is not a concept I would except a Canadian to understand.

Quakers (who are Christian) also do not swear on the Bible or to God, if I recall. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Interesting, but remember, dueling was outlawed after that altercation.

What's with the bloody insult? First you claim to be a "gentleman" and then you question both my personal honour and that of Canada... now as for a duel, I'll be more than happy to fence with you any day

Will You allow Me to be your second?:D I will make an exception in this case!

Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder, but some must have very narrow eye slits to the world of life.

Hmmm...I have to wonder about the original topic of this thread...

I have friends in Christian GLOs like Sigma Phi Lambda, Beta Upsilon Chi, Phi Kappa Chi, and Kappa Chi Alpha--for the most part, they're pretty accepting of whoever is interested in joining. Anyone know if specifically Christian organizations have a religion requirement or not? (Not that an atheist would be comfortable with the weekly chapter Bible study so much, but I have to wonder...?)

My understanding is that Alpha Delta Chi does (you have to regularly attend a church approved by the sorority).

Foil, Epee, or Sabre? I will duel left handed in order to make it fair.

Lets say Sabre... and you can use you strong hand - after all it wouldn't be fitting to defeat you unless you had a chance :p I've been fencing since 1988, and for the Carleton University team from 1993-1996...

I'm not going to carry on this facade any longer. But I will say that it's a shame that you're carrying on your glory days 10 years out.

I fence too. In fact, I'm looking to put one in my backyard so that my dog won't get out.

How big of a dog? Cause you should definately go with a big fence for a big dog.

Unless it's an atheist dog, then he won't be able to make the leap of faith over a fence.

... on topic?