This incomplete list is not intended to be exhaustive.
This list corrects erroneous beliefs that are currently widely held about notable topics. Each misconception and the corresponding facts have been discussed in published literature. Note that each entry is formatted as a correction; the misconceptions themselves are implied rather than stated.
== History ==
=== Ancient to early modern history ===
Vomiting was not a regular part of Roman dining customs. In ancient Rome, the architectural feature called a vomitorium was the entranceway through which crowds entered and exited a stadiu...
The things I hate the most about my teachers' biases were these nationalist undertones in everything. It's not their fault though, it was somewhat official at that point.
I remember being very sorry for one of my theology teachers in high school; she was an ex-nun and the kids gave her an AWFUL time about whether she was qualified to teach theology because of that.
Most of my theology teachers were Jesuit trained, which may have helped, but the general attitude of the school was very healthy and supportive regardless of my not even being Christian.
We didn't have a separate religion teacher until the seventh grade, so it was our normal class teacher who taught us. Evangelic Lutherans as most Finns, at least nominally. From seventh grade onward, we had a more religious teacher, but she was of the "hippie protestant" pluralist type that I found very agreaable.
Catholicism is prevalent enough out here that "Christian" is used to mean "non-Catholic but religiously inclined," often even for those of non-Christian faiths.
BTW the differences between the various orthodox churches are small in comparison to protestant churches and yeah I was colloquially using them in the way BESW suggested
A friend mentioned that their school's religion teacher forbade the terms "catholic" and "orthodox" as the sole names for the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (despite their use being very widespread)
The reasoning was that the names are "loaded". "Catholic" means roughly that the tradition is "original", and "orthodox" means... well, "orthodox". Correct, in a way.
The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is the second largest Presbyterian church body and the largest conservative Reformed denomination in the United States. The PCA is Reformed in theology, Presbyterian in government, Evangelical in spirit, and mission minded. There is a blend of Reformed practice and broad evangelicalism.
== History ==
=== Background ===
The PCA has its roots in theological controversies over liberalism and neo-orthodoxy that had been a point of contention in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (formerly the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America...
The Evangelic Lutheran church of Finland (the largest church by far) is similarly reluctant (I don't even know if they'd have the power to make statements as an entity). Any official-ish statements they make are in the form of "kinda, but... it's a tricky subject" for anything even slightly controversial.
See when you say politically active in the USA that basically means press conferences and funding to think tanks, lobbyists, and grass roots initatives
Well, our Evangelic Lutherans have also made pro-gay statements lately, both figurative and concrete. For example they cut funding to missionary organizations that spread thegood old "homosexuality is a sin" message.
That's about as far as they'll go - they won't support (or actively oppose, for that matter) gay marriage or anything.
Yeah, but the Bible isn't that sexy for a church that tries to preserve its fading prestige and support. They were nearly universal here a few decades ago because almost everyone was a believer. Now they don't want to lose those who like Jesus but dislike gay-bashing.
So a good comparison is PCA (mine and @waxeagle's denomination) and PCUSA. Theres a long interesting history in their eventual split but its basically over how worldly the church should ultimately be. PCUSA has some sub-sects that even have active (as in sexually) gay and lesbian ordained pastors
Marja-Sisko Aalto (born Olli-Veikko Aalto July 29, 1954) is a Finnish transsexual minister of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. She was the vicar of the Imatra parish from 1986 to 2010.
In November 2008, Aalto told the media that she was a trans woman and was having a sex reassignment operation. This caused a great controversy in the Church. The bishop of Mikkeli, Voitto Huotari, commented that there is no juridical obstacle for Aalto continuing as a vicar, but that there will be problems.
In 2009 almost 600 members left the Imatra parish. In November 2009 Aalto returned to the job of vicar after...
“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.
One reason the Catholic Church integrated so widely and inextricably into the cultures it spread to (and I'm not disregarding the forcible integration elements, but this is really important too) is that it simultaneously managed to provide a universal structure while being extremely adaptable to local cultures on all the non-essential bits.
Catholics from one part of the world going to mass in another part of the world often feel very out of place.
@besw to be fair the protestant church has been doing an insane amount of translations for the last 50 years to make the bible as universally available as possible
One of my personal friends is an Evangelic Lutheran priest who actually almost crossed the line - he was questioned by the council of something for his book, titled Everyone gets to Heaven: Necessary clarifications to the Christian dogma.
That was a fairly radical opinion, but still not radical enough to warrant any further action. The Evangelic Lutheran church gives its members, even the priests, considerable liberty of interpretation about everything.
As long as it's not something that easily alienates a lot of people, such as open racism or sexism or support for genocide or anything like that.
Mm. I'm using it specifically because it's such a wide definition, including the priesthood and learned in most non-Christian religions as well--including rabbis.
In the Bahá'í Faith, a marriage must be witnessed by people in good standing with the community (which is defined clearly but nearly every Bahá'í meets the requirements), and then it has to be reported to the local administration.
Our Ev.Lut church still has the right to marry people, but marriage is nowadays primarily a secular thing anyway. Honestly I'd rather split off marriage as a spiritual institution and as a secular institution totally.
Mmm. Bahá'ís have to get married according to whatever secular laws are binding on them, too (we're supposed to obey all our government's laws).
But yes, the legal/financial/etc aspect of marriage does seem... difficult to reconcile... with the spiritual element in cultures where governments are not spiritually influenced.
It's a difficult topic because it's hard to root down to the base assumptions about the nature and role of government, its relation to ethics and morals, and the source of morality.
I think justice and mercy are inherently spiritual qualities and governments cannot rule ethically without some source of guidance on which to base their decisions, and because justice, mercy, ethics, and morality are fundamentally spiritual the guiding principles of a just government must be spiritual. Where governments do not draw on such guidance directly, they instead are just inasmuch as they draw on the spiritual savour unknowingly infused in whatever source of guidance they do choose.
But I know that's a very controversial way of looking at ethics, and that various forms of humanism and humanist-like philosophies are currently more prevalent.
(I think humanism's got some things right, but it throws out the baby with the bathwater.)
I see the secular marriage as mostly an administrative thing to make stuff easier for people who love each other. Of course, it differs by country, but here in Finland it's like that.
Yes. It's a very flexible system too, because it's still compatible with having a spiritual marriage on top of it.
Although I think most secular marriages do have some spiritual or symbolic element; few couples get married without loving each other at all, for purely practical reasons (although that happens).
I lived in Ecuador for a while, which is a secular state in a Catholic dominated country, and that's basically what they have. You get married twice, civil ceremony, then religious.