>>>>The money is donated by people who want to contribute. No one is forced to give.
>>>
>>>Only publicly shamed if they don't. I've seen the plate being passed in so many movies. They do create peer pressure.
>>
>>Movies? hmmm well Ok....
>
>Hey, that's as close as I got into the situation. And I know the Christianity in general was very loud when some movies weren't to their liking, so if all those movies were wrong, they surely had a way to complain.

They usually don't complain when they're mocked, unless it deals with their core issue like questioning the devinity of Christ. Thus, you heard some grumbling about "Da Vinci Code" (Spell?). But even that didn't bother many Christians all that much. They certainly don't slice off heads or send out death threats. In short, Christians are probably the most tolerant people.

>
>>Peer presure? arn't we mature enough to look beyond peer presure and not judge others?
>
>The peer pressure comes probably from not knowing whether others will judge you or not. Specially the typical scene when the guy keeps the plate in front of you for some time and waits. I've seen such scenes...

Maybe the church should have someone else passing the plate next time.:)

So, it's the awkwardness you don't like. But I promise you no one thinks anything of it if you can't/don't contribute.

>
>>>It's not just that - can you be a quaker, orthodox and mormon at the same time?
>>
>>I think you'll find enough common belief in quaker and orthodox and Christianity. But LDS (mormons) are whole another group of animals. :)
>
>I don't care whether they differ by just placement of commas in their texts, or more seriously. The question here is whether they allow their members to be members elsewhere at the same time, or not.

Yes. Of course. This is a free country. You can go to any church you choose. or you don't have to attend church.

Usually one would have a home Church. But they can attend any other church they want.


>
>>>Is it so? Never saw them on TV, nor in movies. And I mean HIGHER. How many of them have a pontifice maxima?
>>
>>pontifice maxima... is this a Catholic thing?
>
>Pardon my Latin, but it's just the catholics who still call their topmost priest that way. Initially, it was the boss of all Christianity (in the Roman times), the pontifex maximus - priestissimus, one may translate. Pontifice maxima is just the feminine form thereof.
>
>In short: how many Christian (or other) denominations have a female top priest?

Don't know. But I'e seen several demoninations where their senior paster is a woman. Nothing wrong with that. Many Anglican and Episcopalian churches have women pierst and administrators.

But why is this so important? If a person is a good messenger, let him/her speak. In the big picture of things, this is not even important... IMO.