We Have A Pope!

[Jakedubbleya]

we have a pope!

(story developing)

[Flow_Tech]

GREAT!..damnit..AO doesnt have a dodgy smiley. :ninja:

[mcveighr]

Joseph Ratzinger?

Benedict the XVI

[TheTramp]

Wow, the most conservative catholic possible is now the pope (German guy, can’t spell his name). Considering his past writings, he's going to really alienate a huge number of young American and European Catholics. :(

[Jakedubbleya]

if he alienates them they arent catholics, catholicism isnt conservative, its catholicism, theres a dogma that you follow or dont follow.

period.

revealing god isnt about forming him to your ego its about revealing who god is. like he changed because our generation NOW thinks its ok to have permiscuous sex.

if you want to pick and choose what you want to believe, there are a hell of a lot (what is it around 20 thousand now?) of protestant churches out there that do just that.

edit: oh yeah, and hoorah for Benedict the XVI!

[Lohman446]

if he alienates them they arent catholics, catholicism isnt conservative, its catholicism, theres a dogma that you follow or dont follow.

period.

revealing god isnt about forming him to your ego its about revealing who god is. like he changed because our generation NOW thinks its ok to have permiscuous sex.

if you want to pick and choose what you want to believe, there are a hell of a lot (what is it around 20 thousand now?) of protestant churches out there that do just that.

edit: oh yeah, and hoorah for Benedict the XVI!

Yeh.. we shouldn't pick and choose how we do things... like Latin mass for instance

Edit... Im going to try to keep this from being a religious discussion and turn it to a "man" discussion. Things evolve, some things slower than other, but overtime, anything that man has a hand in seems to evolve, this would of course include the Catholic church and its beleifs.

[TheTramp]

if he alienates them they arent catholics, catholicism isnt conservative, its catholicism, theres a dogma that you follow or dont follow.


Wow. Welcome to the real world. I don't think you're going to enjoy it. :(

[Jakedubbleya]

theology and sanity,
father frank j. sheed

read it, then tell me about the real world of catholicism.

Lohman, please read this article.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

[bubbleman441]

All along as I was watching TV I told my mom "Hey I betcha this guy was an ex Nazi and this is his plane for world domination." Turns out when they were giving his background info they said he was in Hitlers Youth. Lol, I laughed so hard!

[Steelrat]

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone but Catholics care. :confused:

[Creative Mayhem]

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone but Catholics care. :confused:


While it is true that the Pope is a Catholic position, the Catholic church does have major influences in almost all facets of religion. Whether other religions agree or not, they are affect in some way, shape or form.

[lopxtc]

Because the Catholic church has allot of pull / power in the World that goes outside of their own doors.

Aaron



I'm still trying to figure out why anyone but Catholics care. :confused:

[MedicDVG]

if he alienates them they arent catholics, catholicism isnt conservative, its catholicism, theres a dogma that you follow or dont follow.

period.

revealing god isnt about forming him to your ego its about revealing who god is. like he changed because our generation NOW thinks its ok to have permiscuous sex.

if you want to pick and choose what you want to believe, there are a hell of a lot (what is it around 20 thousand now?) of protestant churches out there that do just that.

edit: oh yeah, and hoorah for Benedict the XVI!
What an interesting notion. So you support his view on the role of women in the church? You support his mantra of "Pray, pay, obey?"

I am sorry, but I most vehemently disagree with many of the things Ratzinger stands for. 1 - he believes the American Catholic church needs to be "brought into line." I didn't realize that we were out of line in the first place. 2 - He doesn't support women being involved in the mass -- other then that of the sworn nunnery. 3 - He doesn't even want to invesitgate nor even talk about the role of Homosexuals as parents, and God forbid they want to serve as members of the church. Gimme a break. This guy makes Fallwell look liberal.

Ultra conservatism will kill the church quicker then anything. You evolve or you die. The election of Bennedict XVI is not evolution.

It would not surprise me to see the "American" Catholic Church and the "Roman" Catholic Church part ways in the next few years....

[Steelrat]

Because the Catholic church has allot of pull / power in the World that goes outside of their own doors.

Aaron

Well, I would argue that the election of British Prime Minister or Russian President is far more important in terms of world politics, but you never see this kind of attention lavished on those events.

And frankly, I think the importance of the Catholic Church in affecting world events is greatly exaggerated.

[Jakedubbleya]

What an interesting notion. So you support his view on the role of women in the church? You support his mantra of "Pray, pay, obey?"

I am sorry, but I most vehemently disagree with many of the things Ratzinger stands for. 1 - he believes the American Catholic church needs to be "brought into line." I didn't realize that we were out of line in the first place. 2 - He doesn't support women being involved in the mass -- other then that of the sworn nunnery. 3 - He doesn't even want to invesitgate nor even talk about the role of Homosexuals as parents, and God forbid they want to serve as members of the church. Gimme a break. This guy makes Fallwell look liberal.

Ultra conservatism will kill the church quicker then anything. You evolve or you die. The election of Bennedict XVI is not evolution.

It would not surprise me to see the "American" Catholic Church and the "Roman" Catholic Church part ways in the next few years....
Reply With Quote

Pope John Paul II made an infallible statement (please all of you flamers look up the infallibility of the pope and its limitations and boundaries before responding to this) regarding women becoming priests.

To ignore this would be to ignore all of catholicism, sorry but thats a dead issue.

the pray pay and obey view is and always has been the view of the church, its the nature of catholicism, sorry, american catholics who believe otherwise are entertaining false hope.

you should also read the article i told lohman to read, it is endorsed by ACTUAL catholic theologians, you know, the kind they dont let on CNN:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

I never said i believed any of it, just saying how it is.

No, believe it or not there are MANY "roman catholics" in america. If the "american catholics" split off they would no longer be catholics, just protestant religion #20001. one of the basis of catholicism is the lineage of the popes and the unified church.

[Lohman446]

Fundamentalism will generally go poorly with the American public - be it fundamental Islam, Catholichism, or politics.

[Ov3rmind]

Hoorah for organized religion. :rolleyes:

[93civiccpe]

He's just a man...

And I don't see how my religion is affected at all by catholocism. If you look at the history and corruption of the line of popes you would realize that a lot of it ends up being politics. I'm still trying to figure out how a conservative pope will kill the religion, when you just had a liberal pope who actually said he could see how the catholic faith could accept the ideas of evolution into it's faith. Nevertheless, I'm unaffected so I'll stay out of this.

[grw4w34]

He's old and ugly. No wonder he was picked.

[Jakedubbleya]

Fundamentalism will generally go poorly with the American public - be it fundamental Islam, Catholichism, or politics.

duh:)

[Jakedubbleya]

He's just a man...

And I don't see how my religion is affected at all by catholocism. If you look at the history and corruption of the line of popes you would realize that a lot of it ends up being politics. I'm still trying to figure out how a conservative pope will kill the religion, when you just had a liberal pope who actually said he could see how the catholic faith could accept the ideas of evolution into it's faith. Nevertheless, I'm unaffected so I'll stay out of this.

Oddly enough the corrupt popes were too concerned with being corrupt to actually change any doctrine.

JPII was no more liberal than Benedict the XVI is, they, unlike all of you, understood the basics of catholicism and went from there, Benedict is doing more of a reformation as opposed to the diplomacy of JPII, but still within the boundaries of catholic dogma. Things like womens priesthood, gay rights and abortion are not even real issues to the catholic. They have already been defined, and believe it or not the theology behind them is actually rather sensible, if you take the time to look it up.

once again i site this link for anybody wondering about catholic dogma and its flexibility/history/nature:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

in other words if you are going to post on a related topic, please educate yourself first so that i dont have-to babysit this thread.

[Jack_Dubious]

eh its an oldie but a goodie... :rofl:

[nippinout]

Oddly enough the corrupt popes were too concerned with being corrupt to actually change any doctrine.

JPII was no more liberal than Benedict the XVI is, they, unlike all of you, understood the basics of catholicism and went from there, Benedict is doing more of a reformation as opposed to the diplomacy of JPII, but still within the boundaries of catholic dogma. Things like womens priesthood, gay rights and abortion are not even real issues to the catholic. They have already been defined, and believe it or not the theology behind them is actually rather sensible, if you take the time to look it up.

once again i site this link for anybody wondering about catholic dogma and its flexibility/history/nature:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

in other words if you are going to post on a related topic, please educate yourself first so that i dont have-to babysit this thread.

The Catholic religion is not faultless, nor is the Pope. I was raised Catholic and there are some things that I do not believe that the Catholic religion does. Does that make me a sinner? Does that make me a heretic? The Church is not my moral or values system, they just helped shape mine.

I believe the Catholic church IS fallible. I believe the Pope is fallible. He is only human. To say that gay rights and abortion aren't real issues to the church is incorrect. They are issues for the parishoners, that makes it an issue.

You are a Catholic elitist. It is people like you that have pushed me away from church.

[TheTramp]

in other words if you are going to post on a related topic, please educate yourself first so that i dont have-to babysit this thread.

Wow, another holier-than-thou statement. I'm shocked. :rolleyes:

No need to baby-sit this thread we're probably not worth policing as we have strayed too far. You obviously know everything there is about Catholicism and your ideas are better then everyone else’s and obviously the ultimate truth. Good luck with that and may you covert as of us “non-Catholics” in the States (and Ireland because all my Irish Catholic friends feel the same) as possible. In fact, I don’t even see why we would need priests when you obviously have it all figured out :hail:

[Thordic]

Well, I would argue that the election of British Prime Minister or Russian President is far more important in terms of world politics, but you never see this kind of attention lavished on those events.

And frankly, I think the importance of the Catholic Church in affecting world events is greatly exaggerated.

The Pope has over a billion subjects, how many people live in England?

[Jakedubbleya]

Im just representing the authentic catholic viewpoint. I havent responded to any of the catholic bashing remarks, and yet when i imply that your ideas are unfounded i am flat out insulted?

Once again i never said i was catholic.

anyway its my lunchbreak ill be back later.

[Target Practice]

Jakedubbya, this needs to be said, even if I have to take a 3-day to say it.

You are a bad Christian which, last time I checked, was one of the MAJOR prerequisites to being a Catholic. You are the reason that Catholics in this country have a bad reputation.



Pope John Paul II made an infallible statement (please all of you flamers look up the infallibility of the pope and its limitations and boundaries before responding to this) regarding women becoming priests.

John Paul made an infallible statement allowing women altar servers. The new "pope" is against women in the curch period (except, of course, as nuns. When they are in that position, they cannot be seen outside of the convent. Bye bye, humanitarian work! Bye bye, spreading Christ's love! Bye bye, ministring to those who haven't heard the Good News, another major tenent of being a Christian and, subsequently, a Catholic)

So, the Beatles, AC/DC, and long hair send us to Hell, huh? Gee, sounds a lot like all of pop culture to me. If pop culture is so bad for us, why then did our previous infallible pope entertain a group of Polish breakdancers? Was he wrong in that? Even better, Sigfried and Roy entertained John Paul II on a separtate occasion. Would you say that our last infallible pope condones and recognizes magic and the occult? If so, I wonder what our new "pope" has to say about that.

I may be back, I may not. I can see where this thread is going, so I might not be able to even post again. So, in short, if this Panzerpope of yours doesn't get his act together, he's going to be losing quite a lot of real Catholics.

"Go in peace to love and serve the Lord."

Go in peace, indeed.

[Steelrat]

The Pope has over a billion subjects, how many people live in England?

Nice try, but that one doesn't hold any water. The catholic church cannot be compared to a nation-state.

[nippinout]

Well, I would argue that the election of British Prime Minister or Russian President is far more important in terms of world politics, but you never see this kind of attention lavished on those events.

And frankly, I think the importance of the Catholic Church in affecting world events is greatly exaggerated.

Did you see the millions of people who gathered in Rome? A massive mob of people, and not one incident of a jerkface. It brought together 200 world leaders. Even the Israeli president and Syrian leaders shook hands.

He wasn't just the leader of a religion, he was a head of state, and a man of peace.

[nippinout]

Im just representing the authentic catholic viewpoint.

You sir do not represent Catholics. You cannot speak for all of us.

Authentic veiwpoint? Only the Pope has the power to be the final say on the interpretation of the Bible. Each Pope can have different interpretations. To say that there is an authentic viewpoint is absurd and ignorant.

[SlartyBartFast]

in other words if you are going to post on a related topic, please educate yourself first so that i dont have-to babysit this thread.

Pathetic. That's why religion is doing so badly in the educated parts of the world.

If the apathetic masses would vote, the one issue fundamentalists would hold less sway in American politics too.

If you feel you have to "baby-sit, feel free to get lost. Morals, rights, society, theology are all matters of intelligent discourse. You may be too small minded to understand the concept, but no one has the one and only correct answer.

Wrap your mind around the idea that if YOU are correct and only one interpretation of gods message is correct, it might be YOU that's wrong and maybe it's only the Mormons, Jews, Protestants, or some bizzare little jungle sect that's going to heaven.

The link you posted? :tard:

Standard circular arguments and tautologies.

God gave man a mind powerful enough to question authority. To not question it is to go against God's will. If God was testing you, do you really think the correct answer is always don't question, do as you're told?

[Target Practice]

Im just representing the authentic catholic viewpoint. I havent responded to any of the catholic bashing remarks, and yet when i imply that your ideas are unfounded i am flat out insulted?

Once again i never said i was catholic.

anyway its my lunchbreak ill be back later.


So, wait. You may not be Catholic, yet you feel you have the right to speak out on *my* genuinely Catholic viewpoint.

Okay, new rule for the thread: Before your inane drivel gets any weight, you tell us if you are indeed a Catholic. Because if you aren't, you are 1) a edited out by TSC and 2) totally ungrounded in your position.

So, let's hear it. Put up or shut up.
In a perfect world, you'd do both.

[Lohman446]

The Pope and power... Stalin was known to ask his advisors, in regards to offending the church "how many divisions does the Pope command?"

[SlartyBartFast]

The Pope and power... Stalin was known to ask his advisors, in regards to offending the church "how many divisions does the Pope command?"

But let's remember the only reason the Vatican exists is because it once did command a large army.

Henry the VIII and other King as head religious figure types just weren't as good at spreading their churches as the Popes were at spreading Catholicism.

[Thordic]

Nice try, but that one doesn't hold any water. The catholic church cannot be compared to a nation-state.

You're absolutely right. Its bigger. Also, name me a nation that has been around for going on 2,000 years.

[SlartyBartFast]

You're absolutely right. Its bigger. Also, name me a nation that has been around for 2,000 years.

No. As a "state" it is tiny.

As a political influence, it does have a huge potential when people give up on the idea of separation of church and state and start enacting their beleifs as laws instead of protecting universal rights.

If it's wrong for the Imams, clerics, and Ayatollas to dictate Muslim political policy to the Muslim world, it's wrong for the Pope to dictate political policy to the Catholic world.

[WickeDKlowN]

I didn't read the entire thread since it's not a subject that I really care about so this might have been said but shouldn't that have picked someone that's oh, I don't know, not 80? They're going to have to go through it all again in a couple years.

[Target Practice]

I didn't read the entire thread since it's not a subject that I really care about so this might have been said but shouldn't that have picked someone that's oh, I don't know, not 80? They're going to have to go through it all again in a couple years.


That's the point. They're avoiding another 25-year papacy.

[Thordic]

The average career of a pope is something like 5-10 years. Somewhere in there.

[CaptaiN_JacK]

wtf? in our newspaper today (but written by the AP), the headline states: "black smoke at the vatican again signals cardinals' failure to elect a new pope" The story starts out: "black smoke emerged from the sistine chapel chimney again tuesday as the scarlet-robed..."

did someone make a mistake, or did i read something wrong?

[SIGSays]

yeah, you can't speak for all of us catholics... i'm catholic too... but i'm not a very good catholic.... blah!

[BobTheCow]

wtf? in our newspaper today (but written by the AP), the headline states: "black smoke at the vatican again signals cardinals' failure to elect a new pope" The story starts out: "black smoke emerged from the sistine chapel chimney again tuesday as the scarlet-robed..."

did someone make a mistake, or did i read something wrong?
There was a whole flurry of conflicting stories earlier today, they must have decided to go to press at the wrong time.

[SlartyBartFast]

There was a whole flurry of conflicting stories earlier today, they must have decided to go to press at the wrong time.

Uhm, they have to go to press when the paper is due out. The first votes in the morning were black smoke (remmaber that morning in the US is early afternoon in Italy).

[Hasty8]

if he alienates them they arent catholics, catholicism isnt conservative, its catholicism, theres a dogma that you follow or dont follow.

period.

revealing god isnt about forming him to your ego its about revealing who god is. like he changed because our generation NOW thinks its ok to have permiscuous sex.

if you want to pick and choose what you want to believe, there are a hell of a lot (what is it around 20 thousand now?) of protestant churches out there that do just that.

edit: oh yeah, and hoorah for Benedict the XVI!

By this arugement Jake, I take it you still find it acceptable to burn witches?

I find it very scary when people believe that they need a middle man to have a relationship with god.

As for dogma's they contructs of man, not god.


While it is true that the Pope is a Catholic position, the Catholic church does have major influences in almost all facets of religion. Whether other religions agree or not, they are affect in some way, shape or form.

Becuase the Roman Catholic church is currently the worlds largest land owning institution and also the strongest financial entity. They have a significant amount of power.

I don't mind religions having this status until they try to use it to control other people.


Well, I would argue that the election of British Prime Minister or Russian President is far more important in terms of world politics, but you never see this kind of attention lavished on those events.

And frankly, I think the importance of the Catholic Church in affecting world events is greatly exaggerated.
OKay Steel. then tell me why Bush is not allowing furthur expansion of the existing stem cell lines for research.


Nice try, but that one doesn't hold any water. The catholic church cannot be compared to a nation-state.
Oh my god. (no pun intended). Steel, how may leaders of the most powerful nations were in attendance of Karol's funeral? Bush was the first President to even attend a funeral which is a very powerful message in and of itself.

The Church has significant weight and should not be taken lightly.

[chefstevie]

Jakedubbya are you my religion teacher? but seriously why get in an arguement....if u dont like him fine if u do fine...but no one asked for ur opinion

[Echo419]

So... um... Sorry for bieng my self here but... Am i the only one who thinks he looks like a weasel that mated with a rat?

[spantol]

I've heard the term "rebound pope" used to describe this guy. I like it. After JPII's 25 year papacy, they wanted a traditionalist type guy to more or less stay the course for a few years. The Church doesn't handle ends of eras and the associated drama well; it isn't ready for a reformer.


I didn't read the entire thread since it's not a subject that I really care about so this might have been said but shouldn't that have picked someone that's oh, I don't know, not 80? They're going to have to go through it all again in a couple years.

[Jakedubbleya]

Wow, one at a time here people:) heh.


Pathetic. That's why religion is doing so badly in the educated parts of the world.

If the apathetic masses would vote, the one issue fundamentalists would hold less sway in American politics too.

If you feel you have to "baby-sit, feel free to get lost. Morals, rights, society, theology are all matters of intelligent discourse. You may be too small minded to understand the concept, but no one has the one and only correct answer.

Wrap your mind around the idea that if YOU are correct and only one interpretation of gods message is correct, it might be YOU that's wrong and maybe it's only the Mormons, Jews, Protestants, or some bizzare little jungle sect that's going to heaven.

The link you posted? :tard:

Standard circular arguments and tautologies.

God gave man a mind powerful enough to question authority. To not question it is to go against God's will. If Go was testing you, do you really think the correct answer is always don't question, do as you're told?

The educated parts of the world also happen to be the materialistic parts of the world, something that is well, unchristian by nature, and thus less likely to accept such teachings:) perhaps education has merely led the general populace to more extravagant excuses to live the way they(and i, im no exception) want...?

As for your "if you can do it is a sin not to" philosophy: By catholic teachings, God gave us free will so that we could prove that we could overcome those temptations and thus attain greater glory in heaven. It is also a catholic teaching that challenging and doubting the faith is not only natural, but healthy. This is not the standard in all religions, mormonism for example teaches that any doubts/challenges are direct from satan.

Now i can butt catholic philosophies all day against other ones, but thats not why im participating in this forum, if i wanted to do that i would have started a "hippies suck" thread. I am here as a counterweight to the popular media, which interviews the most liberal off the wall priests (the publisher of -America- magazine for example) and laymen and expects everybody to just accept what these mis-informed say, as catholicism. I would do this for most religions.

ahh what else....

All of you "catholics" saying what im saying isnt real catholicism... Do you understand the levels of sin? Did you know that when you go to communion in the state of mortal sin (lying, whacking off, so on), you are in fact commiting another mortal sin? (oh there are so many more of these little goodies..), have you ever actually read any thomas aquinas or theresa of avila, or ANY of the doctors of the church?

This is the catholicism that has been taught by the saints and theologians of catholicism for thousands of years. This cannot and will not change unless something drastic happens and that "somethign drastic" would effectively dissolve the church because one fallacy invalidates the whole of the church, naturally. UNIFORM catholicism is evident in the writings of PJII and all the saints. That the church would accept more modern, yet anti-doctrinal teachings would not be a step forward, but rather a falsification of all catholic theology. THAT is why issues like gay rights and women priests are NOT ISSUES, they cannot be open for debate. Not that anybody who knew what they were talking about debated them anyway, because they already fit inside the existing theology.

Personally, i have a lot of respect for any religion that is so unwavering. And i think that a religion that changes its doctrine on public whims is obviously a HUMAN church. IF God is, then God is who God is, not who you make him, and the catholic church fits very well into that philosophy. If you decide to just pick up a bible and thats how you want to connect with God you must accept that you are creating God more than you are getting to know him. Either that or that god is a multi-exstance self-conflicting God with no true identity, which imo isnt the God of the bible.

That he would establish an infallible institution to reveal himself makes sense. To love God completely one must KNOW God completely, now the catholic church does not have any claims to know God completely, but rather that they know most of what God has revealed and that is supposedly as close as we can get in this life and thus the fullness of christs teachings.
(FYI not only would God revealing everything change our existance as we know it, but it would negate the purpose of free will in the first place.)

so yeah,
thats the general idea behind it...

----------------------

On another note, i feel it is highly innapropriate and unreasonable to demand my religion under threat of editing. Up till now all that has been needed are basic facts on the catholic church, something that anybody could attain.

Could we take the general hostility level down a bit? I apologize for the babysitting comment, and i hope we can debate this like reasonable adults. I know religion is a very sensitive topic and i will try to be as sensitive as i can to those not of the catholic religion, although you might find me a bit blunt to the catholics, my apologies.

anyway, lets move away from that junk and talk about whats going to change, how you all feel, etc.

[Lohman446]

Isn't it normal to have one long pope (selected younger) followed by one short (selected later in life). I think it helps to balance things out...

[j.storm]

Oughta be interesting to see how long this new Pope stays in office. He's got history staring him in the face saying "Welcome to the top. You now have 5 years to live."
Not the kind of job i'd like

BTW--anyone see the irony in the name he those? Interesting that......

[Steelrat]

OKay Steel. then tell me why Bush is not allowing furthur expansion of the existing stem cell lines for research.


Oh my god. (no pun intended). Steel, how may leaders of the most powerful nations were in attendance of Karol's funeral? Bush was the first President to even attend a funeral which is a very powerful message in and of itself.

The Church has significant weight and should not be taken lightly.

-Bush's decision has nothing to do with the Catholic church.

-The reason so many leaders went to the funeral was pure PR. Don't mix up the influence of Christianity as a whole with the influence of the Catholic church and the Pope. I really can't think of any major world issues in which the Catholic church had any influence, other than certain domestic issues, and even then its the consituency that mattered, not the Pope. Bush may have shown up at the funeral, but its obvious that the US government never gave a crap what the Vatican thought when it made actual decisions. Showing up at the funeral meant nothing, and was purely symbolic.

[Target Practice]

On another note, i feel it is highly innapropriate and unreasonable to demand my religion under threat of banning.

What the hell?

[Jakedubbleya]

What the hell?



Okay, new rule for the thread: Before your inane drivel gets any weight, you tell us if you are indeed a Catholic. Because if you aren't, you are 1) a edited out by TSC and 2) totally ungrounded in your position.


aye, banning was the wrong word i meant editing.

[WicKeD_WaYz]

I didn't read the entire thread since it's not a subject that I really care about so this might have been said but shouldn't that have picked someone that's oh, I don't know, not 80? They're going to have to go through it all again in a couple years.


Thats the first thing I thought when I saw the guy. Here we go again.

[SAW]

Bush may have shown up at the funeral, but its obvious that the US government never gave a crap what the Vatican thought when it made actual decisions.
Case in point: United States' invasion of Iraq.

[Steelrat]

Case in point: United States' invasion of Iraq.

Exactly. Also, I know A LOT of catholics, including every member of my wife's family, and they all support the war, in direct opposition of the Pope's stance. Going against what the Pope says in no way affects their feelings about Bush. They all love em.

[TheTramp]

Once again i never said i was catholic.



WHAT!!!!!!
If you aren't a Catholic then piss off and don't tell others how their religion works.

I absolutly CANNOT believe that statment after what you posted. I am literaly appaled.

On the other hand, if you are then you're the fanatic type that makes the rest of us look bad.

[Jakedubbleya]

Exactly. Also, I know A LOT of catholics, including every member of my wife's family, and they all support the war, in direct opposition of the Pope's stance. Going against what the Pope says in no way affects their feelings about Bush. They all love em.

You CAN go against what the pope says, 99.999....% of evertyhing he says isnt infallible.
............
TheTramp...
Wait...? you cant believe that i never said i was a catholic? :)

Dont you think its a tad worse for people who dont know how their religion works to go around saying they do, than for me to clarify the stances of a specific church when i do in fact know its stances (they arent exactly a secret)?

As i posted already, the "fanatic" kind is the only kind. And i know u dont wanna look like some over-religious loser (god forbid), so i wont hold it against ya. Maby you should consider joining the fundamentalists... just accept jesus as your savior and your saved, would probably suit your lifestyle more conveniently (no offense to fundamentalism).
-----------------

But quite frankly I am appaled that you sit on your high horse knowing nothing of catholicism. Then presume to say that the faithfull catholics who live by their beliefs give you, a bad name.

[octane2079]

I'm Catholic here, and Jake is pretty much right. If you want to be truly considered part of the Catholic Church you have to be in it for all or nothing if you pick and choose then you turn it into a religion of convenience which is something that the Catholic Faith was never intended to be, it is just that a religion of FAITH if you do not believe in its ideals then pick another religion.

[nippinout]

I'm Catholic here, and Jake is pretty much right. If you want to be truly considered part of the Catholic Church you have to be in it for all or nothing if you pick and choose then you turn it into a religion of convenience which is something that the Catholic Faith was never intended to be, it is just that a religion of FAITH if you do not believe in its ideals then pick another religion.

It's hard to say that it's all or nothing when you have transubstantation going on.

I know what bread, wine, and blood taste like. I don't know what humans taste like, but what I have for Communion is bread and wine. To say otherwise is silly.

[MedicDVG]

While it is may be true that JPII made an ex cathedra statement disallowing any women from becoming ordianed clergy, Pope Bennedict would have them out of the church hierarchy completely. No more girl alter servers, no more women communion distributors, no more women reading the scriptures at mass, no more women cantors.

That my friend is 17th century thinking -- women = evil.. give me a break.

Why am I so vehement about this. Frankly its my mother's fault. My mother who for all her adult life has been a Catholic adult educator. She had led classes for bringing non-catholic adults into the Catholic church, held seminars for newly married couples that teaches the catholic tradition of family (tell me how a celibate can talk of the wedding bed and its importance in a healthy relationship) and has served as director of religieous education at over 14 parishes that we belonged to over the years (Army family -- what can I say, we moved a LOT). My mother has three masters degrees in catholic adult eductaion, catholic history, and in theology. But our new pope would treat her as some sort of oddity such as a bycycle riding trained bear -- an abboration to the norm.

That offends me. I have seen her deep faith time and time again. Our new pope would have her reciting novena and staying out of "men's business."

I still contend that an informed faith questions, seeks, and develops opionins based on teaching and experience. I have never been a fan of "pray, pay, and obey." I will not take my relationship with God at face value. I will examine it, learn from it, make mistakes, and grow with it. I will NOT have someone tell me "its this way or the highway" for that is arrogant, selfish, and close minded. That is not faith to me, but demagoguery.

[j.storm]

The popes position is biblical. Paul said that women should remain silent. Some people take the bible literally....probably including this new Pope.
BUT, I personally believe that was Paul's OPINION and not a direct command from God. Some people take things differant than others.
...plus, it's not like the pope's gonna come to any country and fire all the women teachers, etc.

[Jakedubbleya]

While it is may be true that JPII made an ex cathedra statement disallowing any women from becoming ordianed clergy, Pope Bennedict would have them out of the church hierarchy completely. No more girl alter servers, no more women communion distributors, no more women reading the scriptures at mass, no more women cantors.

That my friend is 17th century thinking -- women = evil.. give me a break.

Why am I so vehement about this. Frankly its my mother's fault. My mother who for all her adult life has been a Catholic adult educator. She had led classes for bringing non-catholic adults into the Catholic church, held seminars for newly married couples that teaches the catholic tradition of family (tell me how a celibate can talk of the wedding bed and its importance in a healthy relationship) and has served as director of religieous education at over 14 parishes that we belonged to over the years (Army family -- what can I say, we moved a LOT). My mother has three masters degrees in catholic adult eductaion, catholic history, and in theology. But our new pope would treat her as some sort of oddity such as a bycycle riding trained bear -- an abboration to the norm.

That offends me. I have seen her deep faith time and time again. Our new pope would have her reciting novena and staying out of "men's business."

I still contend that an informed faith questions, seeks, and develops opionins based on teaching and experience. I have never been a fan of "pray, pay, and obey." I will not take my relationship with God at face value. I will examine it, learn from it, make mistakes, and grow with it. I will NOT have someone tell me "its this way or the highway" for that is arrogant, selfish, and close minded. That is not faith to me, but demagoguery.

Its not a lack of respect for women, if you actually entertained that right to challenge and explore that you are so eccentric about you might have known that. I mentioned before how the church supports challenging the faith, pretending that this is some "dark age" church with no logical basis trying to hide its truths is ignorant.

Som examples of womens role in the church from some of the church doctors:

St. Tertulian:

"It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church [1 Cor 14:34–35], but neither [is it permitted her] . . . to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say sacerdotal office" (The Veiling of Virgins 9 [A.D. 206]).

Apastolic Constitution:

"[T]he ‘man is the head of the woman’ [1 Cor. 11:3], and he is originally ordained for the priesthood; it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation and leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For he says, ‘He shall rule over you’ [Gen. 3:16]. For the first part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them [women] to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of the priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ" (ibid., 3:9).

The Didascalia:

"For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed. . . . For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us" (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [A.D. 225]).

Wow, what a stunner huh? women subordinate? guffah!

the church has an entirely different view of feminism obviously. The woman is subordinate to the man and the man is all sacrificing to the woman, much like the relationship with christ and the catholic church. (christ died for the church church serves christ), a basic reference used in the sacrament of marriage.

Mary was the most perfect human ever born next to christ, how could they possibly consider women to be inferior? Different but equal, thats the consensus.

The reason for women having no role in mass is because all of the mass is directly tied to the priest, which is a male role. This isnt somethign that is solid, mostly tradition and logic, Benedict XVI may indeed issue an infallible statement saying women are not to have any role in mass, and youd just haveto accept it. Or he may not and you could debate it all you wanted. According to the church its the holy spirits choice whether it will reveal the role of women in mass to the church.

I dont necessarily agree with all these views but that is what, and a tad of why, they are.

17th century thinking? no, its 2000B.C.(at least) thinking.



The popes position is biblical. Paul said that women should remain silent. Some people take the bible literally....probably including this new Pope.
BUT, I personally believe that was Paul's OPINION and not a direct command from God. Some people take things differant than others.
...plus, it's not like the pope's gonna come to any country and fire all the women teachers, etc.

The church put the bible together, id assume they have a relatively good idea of what to take literally and what not to, especially a former head of doctrine. There are many reasons (as stated above) that the pope may choose to debunk women from church teaching roles.

[tropical_fishy]

the church has an entirely different view of feminism obviously. The woman is subordinate to the man and the man is all sacrificing to the woman, much like the relationship with christ and the catholic church.


Okay, let's pretend for a minute that you're right. remember now, we're just pretending. Do we understand the meaning of "subordinate"? In case we don't: "Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary, subject to the authority or control of another." Now pardon me, but I don't belong to any man. Ever.


Mary was the most perfect human ever born next to christ, how could they possibly consider women to be inferior? Different but equal, thats the consensus.

You know, we tried that seperate but equal thing. You know where it got us? Nowhere. If the Catholic Church dies out, it will be because the women of all the developing countries it is so dominant in get sick of being property for their husbands.

The Bible says a lot of ridiculous things:

Leviticus 25:44 Says quite clearly that we may possess slaves.
Exodus 21:7 allows you to sell your daughter into slavery.
Exodus 35:2 tells us to kill people who work on the Sabbath.
Leviticus 11:10 forbids you to ingest shellfish. God will smite you for those clams.
Leviticus 20:14 commands you to kill your family for inter-familial affairs.


So... what's "good" tradition what's "bad" tradition? When it serves the white males best, I suppose.


"He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord."

--Deuteronomy 23:1

Sorry honey. Please stay out.

[Jakedubbleya]

Youre entitled to disagree with the church but i wish you would not make it my fault, ive disclaimed in all my posts that these views are not necessarily mine.

1. "subject to the authority or control of another", thats the one.

2. Generalizations of out of context old testament passages doesnt prove anything, for one because well, it doesnt even say much of anything, since the sources i used were the founding fathers of the church, and not from the old testament. and secondly, christ did away with old testament.

3. The african jews who founded these traditions werent exactly your typical white male.

[j.storm]

1: Generalizations of out of context old testament passages doesnt prove anything

2: and secondly, christ did away with old testament.

3: The african jews who founded these traditions werent exactly your typical white male.

1: Good point
2: No, not really. He fulfilled it and released man from the law (but never made some of the law void, ei: 10 commandments)
3: Yup. Try getting that point across to the world though. THEN you will be the man :D

[tropical_fishy]

Actually, passages from the Old Testament have everything to do with the argument. Leviticus states how you must run your life, as a good Christian. Now, we either accept these passages as infallable, or we do not.

You've posted twice-- once saying that since the Church leaders put the Bible together it's what's best for the people. Now, when I show you the parts that people no longer follow, they're "out of context" and not relevant. Pick a position.

I realize that the leadership of the Church has changed, but I think the Church has warped the teachings in the Bible to fit its own agenda. In this case, Catholicism benifits from restricting women from power positions, under the guise of "oh, well, it's tradition." There are a great many traditions in Catholicism that have been lost over time, and a great many that have been gained (the Christmas tree, for example, is a pagan thing). The papacy decideds what will be lost and what will be gained, and I think that their actions against women in the Church is a deliberate and calculated motion.

[j.storm]

The entire Old Testiment is a moral tail, for the most part. It's the harmony of God, if you will. Many things in the OT, taken contextually where valid for those time periods, but were invalidated by the New Testiment (or more preciselly Jesus). Some thing's that come to mind are the eating of meat, then pork...etc....
But the OT is split into two columns: Law and 'faith'
Law was put into effect to control the jews as a kind of "you asked for it" type thing.
Faith was always present as the harmony and true plan of God. Or in other words: "here's the law. Keep it and come to heaven. Break it just once and prepare for a serious heat stroke"

The whole point of the NT was Jesus saying: "your free from the Law. Now faith takes precidence."

But again, I think that somethings in the NT...that where not stated in the gospels but were in Paul's letters, are holdovers from the laws. I may be wrong on that one, but I don't think so. I would lump that in with the one where guys have to worship without a hat, and women have to wear one.

The case can be rested with this: Jesus in the melodic line of the OT harmony and the fulfillment of the law. Thusly, since he was the world's first women's right advocate (yeah, I said that) I think we can assume that he never meant for women to be second class citizens.

and there is a biblical case for showing that Paul was still dealing personally with the same traditions he was trying to condemn or taut...whichever the case may be.


All my opinion mind you. If i'm wrong, i'm wrong. (that last post may have not been for me anyway)

[j.storm]

I realize that the leadership of the Church has changed, but I think the Church has warped the teachings in the Bible to fit its own agenda. In this case, Catholicism benifits from restricting women from power positions, under the guise of "oh, well, it's tradition."

Good point, although I think every type of church warps something or other to fit their own ideas.
....don't know how the RCC would benifit by keeping women down though. Maybe just to keep a good 'ol boys club, but who really knows.....

[93civiccpe]

You sir do not represent Catholics. You cannot speak for all of us.

Authentic veiwpoint? Only the Pope has the power to be the final say on the interpretation of the Bible. Each Pope can have different interpretations. To say that there is an authentic viewpoint is absurd and ignorant.

Can someone, and I mean anyone tell me where in the Bible it say this about the pope having the final say on the interpretation of the Bible? Actually, can anyone even show me where in the Bible it says we need a Pope?? There is only one man ever to be exalted above all other men and that's Jesus.


On another note, God has used a lot of great women in His ministry. The Bible does call for the man to be the head of the household and head of the church as it is his responsibility. But in no way does God say women should not be involved or that women are inferior. There are so many strong women in the Bible that God builds up, not condemns. I think it is appropriate that God chose a rib bone from Adam to make Eve. God didn't take a bone from the skeleton as if to say women were above men, and he didn't take one from his feet as if to say women were to be below men. He took the rib bone.. a bone that is at his side, close to his heart, and under the protection of his arm. God created woman as a helpmate for man. The sexist idea that women are supposed to be silent is garbage. God calls all of us to spread the gospel to every living creature.

Too many people get carried away with religion. Religions are based on the customs of man. The Bible never says that we need a Pope. Didn't Christ die so that we could all come to Him directly and speak to Him?? When Christ died the veil was broken.. no longer did we need a preist to intercede for us, but we can go to Christ ourselves.

I would be very cautious about quoting Bible verses in here and taking different translations to get your point across. The Bible says Satan knows the verses very well himself, as he twists them and perverts them to mislead. You need to read those verses in context to get the meaning of them.

I enjoy seeing how many young people are this strong in their faith. I do pray that each and every one of you searches out what you believe. I personally do not consider myself religious, because that refers to customs of man, and I tell people this. I believe it is way more important to have a relationship with God than to follow a set of rules set forth by man.

[j.storm]

Can someone, and I mean anyone tell me where in the Bible it say this about the pope having the final say on the interpretation of the Bible? Actually, can anyone even show me where in the Bible it says we need a Pope?? There is only one man ever to be exalted above all other men and that's Jesus.


On another note, God has used a lot of great women in His ministry. The Bible does call for the man to be the head of the household and head of the church as it is his responsibility. But in no way does God say women should not be involved or that women are inferior. There are so many strong women in the Bible that God builds up, not condemns. I think it is appropriate that God chose a rib bone from Adam to make Eve. God didn't take a bone from the skeleton as if to say women were above men, and he didn't take one from his feet as if to say women were to be below men. He took the rib bone.. a bone that is at his side, close to his heart, and under the protection of his arm. God created woman as a helpmate for man. The sexist idea that women are supposed to be silent is garbage. God calls all of us to spread the gospel to every living creature.

Too many people get carried away with religion. Religions are based on the customs of man. The Bible never says that we need a Pope. Didn't Christ die so that we could all come to Him directly and speak to Him?? When Christ died the veil was broken.. no longer did we need a preist to intercede for us, but we can go to Christ ourselves.

I would be very cautious about quoting Bible verses in here and taking different translations to get your point across. The Bible says Satan knows the verses very well himself, as he twists them and perverts them to mislead. You need to read those verses in context to get the meaning of them.

I enjoy seeing how many young people are this strong in their faith. I do pray that each and every one of you searches out what you believe. I personally do not consider myself religious, because that refers to customs of man, and I tell people this. I believe it is way more important to have a relationship with God than to follow a set of rules set forth by man.


Hmmm.....what's that word?

oh yeah. AMEN!

[Lohman446]

Actually, passages from the Old Testament have everything to do with the argument. Leviticus states how you must run your life, as a good Christian. Now, we either accept these passages as infallable, or we do not.


Passages in Leviticus call for the public stoning of people who plant more than one crop in the same field - where clothing made of a blend of materials, and many other things. Funny when people state "Leviticus says" they just leave out the fundamental "laws" that are... umm less than acceptable in today's society.

[93civiccpe]

Passages in Leviticus call for the public stoning of people who plant more than one crop in the same field - where clothing made of a blend of materials, and many other things. Funny when people state "Leviticus says" they just leave out the fundamental "laws" that are... umm less than acceptable in today's society.


Yes,
And if your children backtalk you then you have the right to stone them as well. Kids could not disrespect their parents. Please Please Please read the context. This is stating Jewish laws/customs at the time. Nowhere in it does it say that is God's law. God gives us His desires of how we should live according to the Ten Commandments. And they were to show us that we need a Saviour because we are all guilty of all of them. It says in the Bible that if you have broken one of them you have broken all of them. Now I know right now you are saying "I've never murdered"... "I've never slept with anyone else's wife"... but know this, the Bible says if you hate someone then it is the same as committing murder in your mind. It also says that if you lust after a woman you have committed adultery in your heart with the impure thoughts. None of us are innocent... no not one. Jesus was the only perfect person to walk the face of the earth, and He was the ultimate sacrifice. That is the most important thing to know and believe. Too may people get caught up with the bickerings of man's customs which we've incorporated with the Bible to form religions. That breakup of God's family is not what He desires.. He desires for us all to be able to come to Him and worship Him together.

Another thing. The Bible/rules do not change with the time. Just because this generation thinks that pre-marital sex is okay, GOD DID NOT CHANGE HIS MIND ON THIS. A sin is still a sin. He still sees it as a sin. The Bible says that when two get married and come together God no longer sees them as 2 people.. but as one. He sees that married couple as one complete unit. No longer is the man and woman having to lean on God to provide what they don't have, but now they have each other. Every time you have sex with some stranger I feel that's a piece of your soul you are giving away. It is very clear God's views on sex, every time you see it mentioned in a positive way it is mentioned in the context of marriage. When you see it in negative ways, (Soddam and Gomorrah)sp? and also King David with Bethsheba are good examples, it happens outside the bounds of marriage. If you are wondering God's take on homosexuality, it is a sin. It is very clear. Look at Soddam and Gomorrah, it lists the perversions and sins. Among those are "man sleeping with man and man sleeping with animals". Also, when God created a partner for Adam he chose Eve.. a female. All throughout the Bible it clearly explains that marriage is between a man and a woman. Just because our perverted society can accept this does not mean God does. He sees it as a sin.

I'm not trying to come down or condescend on anyone. I have grown up going to several churches (catholic, assembly of God, baptist)... and I truly came to know a deep relationship with God in College. The church I go to is amazing. The pastor goes through the Bible chapter by chapter, verse by verse. I'm not having the same sermons screamed at me every sunday. Instead I am actually learning all sorts of information and truths that God provided for us in His Word. I pray that all of you have a close relationship with God.

God Bless,
Shaun

PS> I am not trying to put down anyone or flame anyone or anything like that. I will answer any questions that anyone has, either in here or in a pm.

[Lohman446]

Actually, passages from the Old Testament have everything to do with the argument. Leviticus states how you must run your life, as a good Christian. Now, we either accept these passages as infallable, or we do not..


This is stating Jewish laws/customs at the time. Nowhere in it does it say that is God's law

You see why it doesn't add up, yes I realize they are not both your quotes

[Lohman446]

It is very clear God's views on sex, every time you see it mentioned in a positive way it is mentioned in the context of marriage. When you see it in negative ways, (Soddam and Gomorrah)sp?

In Soddam and Gomorrah does not Levi (??) offer his virgin daughters to the crowd to have there way with, who still demand the three male strangers (??) which is what earns the wrath of God?

PS: I have no problems running this debate, as long as everyone stays civil... maybe we will be allowed leniency if we are mature enough about it.

[SlartyBartFast]

The educated parts of the world also happen to be the materialistic parts of the world, something that is well, unchristian by nature, and thus less likely to accept such teachings:) perhaps education has merely led the general populace to more extravagant excuses to live the way they(and i, im no exception) want...?

The Pope and the Catholic church are the last people on this Earth who should be complaining about materialism. :rolleyes: :tard:

Their living arrangements and life style are a little extravagant don't you think?

And are you insinuating education is unchristian? Sorry if you aren't but that's the ultimate stupid conclusion you have to come to if you follow your line of argumentation to it's conclusion.

And I'd have to argue that generalised materialism is a FAR lesser sin than the concentration of material wealth, corruption, and power seen in uneducated and undeveloped areas (and I for one would also add the Vatican). :rolleyes:

So, God wanted us stupid and obedient serving our masters.

Hell, why don't we go back to the days that the church didn't think that slaves had souls so it was ok to mistreat them. Or that burning heretics was good (but at least John Paul II finally admitted the inquisition might not have been a good thing).

Sounds to me you'd be perfectly happy as a slave in the dark ages. Thankfully the majority of people don't side with your views.

[Lohman446]

The Pope and the Catholic church are the last people on this Earth who should be complaining about materialism. :rolleyes: :tard:


Considering someone else stated in this thread they are the largest owner of land in the world... (unverified) I would have to agree

[Jakedubbleya]

Actually, passages from the Old Testament have everything to do with the argument. Leviticus states how you must run your life, as a good Christian. Now, we either accept these passages as infallable, or we do not.

You've posted twice-- once saying that since the Church leaders put the Bible together it's what's best for the people. Now, when I show you the parts that people no longer follow, they're "out of context" and not relevant. Pick a position.

I realize that the leadership of the Church has changed, but I think the Church has warped the teachings in the Bible to fit its own agenda. In this case, Catholicism benifits from restricting women from power positions, under the guise of "oh, well, it's tradition." There are a great many traditions in Catholicism that have been lost over time, and a great many that have been gained (the Christmas tree, for example, is a pagan thing). The papacy decideds what will be lost and what will be gained, and I think that their actions against women in the Church is a deliberate and calculated motion.

1.As insfallible or not?
The entire bible was chosen as inspired by the holy spirit(by catholics), thus infallible. But is it aplicable? no. As i said, christ did away with the old testament (by fulfilling it),

2.It is clear that you have not studied/or even read the bible at all.. For the third time christ did away with the old testament meaning yes, that they are not relevant. As for out of context, do you knwo what context is?

3.the church would only benefit from letting women have the same role as men. sorry but that argument holds absolutely no water. If the church "warped" the teachings of the bible then those "warped" teachings would eb the most logical, considering the church put the bible together in the first place.
-----------------------------
j.storm, i had a post a little while back on the thread going more in depth into the logic of the catholic church's existance. You should look through it:)
But heres a minor debuffer to the whole no church/pope in the bible:
"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18) Yes, this is the correct translation. It was originaly wriiten in aramaic plus petra is the feminie form for petros and could not have been used to ddescribe peter, thus petros was used.
also see 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14.
I will point out once again that the early christians who eventually put together the bible site peter as being pope and holder of the keyes to heaven. I will give examples if asked.
-----------------------------
Slartybartfest;
obviously you know nothing of of the lifestyle of the former pope. Most of his time was spent between praying/confessing/in church, the rest, was used to give interviews, writing his books and overseeing the church (a one billion memer institution). Not exactly any free time.

You are really getting rather nasty slarty, i will answer these remaining points, but if you post like that again i will ignore your posts.

1. Yes, im insinuating education is unchristian when every priest has an eight year degree...? I dont know where you got that but you obviously need to read my post again, then put it back in context, where a responsible person would have put it in the first place.

2. yes completely ignoring the fact that its the poor deprived who are zealous in faith, not the rich corrupted. Id like to see you point out a specific example of corruption in the vatican please.

3.No, according to the church God wants you to go to heaven and this is the testing ground. In other words, learn all you can, do all you can, the church fits into that philosophy.

I think this is the tenth time or something ive said this, and its clear that you are trying to make this personal. But once again, these arent necessarily my views.

[Lohman446]

3.No, according to the church God wants you to go to heaven and this is the testing ground. In other words, learn all you can, do all you can, the church fits into that philosophy.
.

So.. I have the power to go against the will of God? By making choices that go against His desires?

And I hear talk of the fufillment of the old Testament. Why then does the Church still hold some laws (values, ethics, etc.) from it and yet ignore others?

[Jakedubbleya]

So.. I have the power to go against the will of God? By making choices that go against His desires?

And I hear talk of the fufillment of the old Testament. Why then does the Church still hold some laws (values, ethics, etc.) from it and yet ignore others?

1. correct, thats the idea behind your state of existance.

2. Not all things were done away with, jesus himself stated that the ten commandments for example were in full effect. The un-christian laws and the traditions based uopn those laws are what was discarded in that respect. Much of it is also relative to the nature of God and Christ, God does not change and neither does Christ so certain things of that nature were kept, this is all through centuries of "revelation" of course, something I went into further depth with in an earlyer post.

[Mer]

And I hear talk of the fufillment of the old Testament. Why then does the Church still hold some laws (values, ethics, etc.) from it and yet ignore others?


$$$$$$$


Rules that are not popular will decrease membership and therefore decrease donations.

It is beneficial for organized religions in general to focus mostly on the popular rules that keep membership up and therefore keep the "pledges" flowing.

[Jakedubbleya]

Mer is correct to an extent, some traditions are flexible and can be bent to suit a parrticular culture, such as saying mass in a different languages/making the poeple more involved in the mass.

[SlartyBartFast]

The entire bible was chosen as inspired by the holy spirit(by catholics), thus infallible. But is it aplicable? no. As i said, christ did away with the old testament (by fulfilling it),

Pure and utter rubbish. The first corner stone of the lie that is organised religion.

The Bible is UNDENIABLY selectively edited, interpreted, and assembled by HUMANS. Not God.

And remember: the people deciding which bits to leave in, how to translate them, and then how to interpret them are all being tested as much as every lay person. Who's to say they passed the test?


Id like to see you point out a specific example of corruption in the vatican please.

Wow. Where do you start? How about the Cardinal that was part of this last conclave that has fraud charges outstanding against him?



3.No, according to the church God wants you to go to heaven and this is the testing ground. In other words, learn all you can, do all you can, the church fits into that philosophy.

Well then. If it's a testing ground, why be so blind and ignorant as to believe that one institution, or worse one person, has the singular definition of truth and the right path?

Pretty lame test if the correct answer was ALWAYS "do as you're told".


I think this is the tenth time or something ive said this, and its clear that you are trying to make this personal. But once again, these arent necessarily my views.

Well, I find it difficult to have a sane conversation with someone who is trolling. The answer to the validity of religion or the CAtholic church in particular cannot always be more quotes of Catholic teaching and indoctrination. It's classic circular logic.

How about discussing YOUR views then? This is what I find abhorrent about religion and discussing it with devout believers in particular. Often they'll say "it's not necessarily my view" but they lack the moral fiber to voice their opinion. Or, scarier still, they are so blinded by faith that they genuinely don't have an opinion.

Considering that so many eigth grade educated priests that perpetuated most the the nastiest and heinous moments and regiemes in history, I can happily say I'm either safe so far as heaven goes without following the Catholic church. Or, if this messed up universe is run by a diety that doesn't care what you do, but instead judges on what you believed, well I'll happily vent my anger at them and serve my time with all the other faultless millions sent to somewhere else.

[Lohman446]

2. Not all things were done away with, jesus himself stated that the ten commandments for example were in full effect. The un-christian laws and the traditions based uopn those laws are what was discarded in that respect. Much of it is also relative to the nature of God and Christ, God does not change and neither does Christ so certain things of that nature were kept, this is all through centuries of "revelation" of course, something I went into further depth with in an earlyer post.


The entire bible was chosen as inspired by the holy spirit(by catholics), thus infallible. But is it aplicable? no. As i said, christ did away with the old testament (by fulfilling it)

How goes that?

[Jakedubbleya]

Pure and utter rubbish. The first corner stone of the lie that is organised religion.

The Bible is UNDENIABLY selectively edited, interpreted, and assembled by HUMANS. Not God.

And remember: the people deciding which bits to leave in, how to translate them, and then how to interpret them are all being tested as much as every lay person. Who's to say they passed the test?



Wow. Where do you start? How about the Cardinal that was part of this last conclave that has fraud charges outstanding against him?




Well then. If it's a testing ground, why be so blind and ignorant as to believe that one institution, or worse one person, has the singular definition of truth and the right path?

Pretty lame test if the correct answer was ALWAYS "do as you're told".



Well, I find it difficult to have a sane conversation with someone who is trolling. The answer to the validity of religion or the CAtholic church in particular cannot always be more quotes of Catholic teaching and indoctrination. It's classic circular logic.

How about discussing YOUR views then? This is what I find abhorrent about religion and discussing it with devout believers in particular. Often they'll say "it's not necessarily my view" but they lack the moral fiber to voice their opinion. Or, scarier still, they are so blinded by faith that they genuinely don't have an opinion.

Considering that so many eigth grade educated priests that perpetuated most the the nastiest and heinous moments and regiemes in history, I can happily say I'm either safe so far as heaven goes without following the Catholic church. Or, if this messed up universe is run by a diety that doesn't care what you do, but instead judges on what you believed, well I'll happily vent my anger at them and serve my time with all the other faultless millions sent to somewhere else.

1.It is believed by the church and all christians that the bible was inspired by the holy spirit not written.

2.Quote: "Pretty lame test if the correct answer was ALWAYS "do as you're told".

OK, now how many people "do as they are told"?. Looks like it turned out to be one hell of a test afterall, it only maks sense that God would provide the path. catholicism merely related that path to logic and the nature of God. I explained the logic of a divinely establed institution in relation to the views of christianity in an earlyer post.

3.The reason why its not "necessarily my view" is obviously to keep the topic away from the individual, get it? Obviously this was necessary. get it now?

edit: oh, and the pedephilia by priests? those priests were obviously not good catholics first of all, secondly, those priests can be traced back to seminaries that during the seventies were run by the secularists. They were more like gay-orgy houses than seminaries really.

Keep in mind this is an institution run by men, it is not going to be perfect. The belief is that the dogma will remain constant regardless of the actions of the proprieters. This is evedint in that the dogma HAS stayed constant through many many scandals in the church including a few centuries of "for sale" popehood.

[Jakedubbleya]

Lohman what do you mean.

[Jakedubbleya]

Well, I find it difficult to have a sane conversation with someone who is trolling. The answer to the validity of religion or the CAtholic church in particular cannot always be more quotes of Catholic teaching and indoctrination. It's classic circular logic.

I am relaying catholicism out of my respect for it, not debating philosophies. Your assumptions on catholicism have largely been wrong, i have corrected those assumptions. I dont see how that is in any way "circular logic".

[SlartyBartFast]

Keep in mind this is an institution run by men, it is not going to be perfect.

BINGO!!! We Have A Winner!!!! :clap:

The writers "inspired" to write the original passages and stories of the Bible, the interpreters who translated the ancient languages, the scribes that copied the translated texts, the patrons that edited, censored and rewrote passages to create versions of the Bible, the Pope, the Cardinals, the priests, EVERYONE in an imperfect human being.

EVERY one of them is part of God's test. Every one of them might be failing that test. In accepting and blindly following or having faith in their interpretation of God's word, YOU (generic you, not the personal you) might be failing that test.

The election of one man, by a group of men, in an organisation of men (and may it be enlighened enough one day to recognise women as equally spiritual and valid as leaders as they finally recognised that slaves had souls) does not magically and miraculously change a fallible man into an infallible being with the one true interpretation of Gods path and will.

And put down the "secular" seminaries all you want, but can the Catholic church weasle it's way out of the Evils perpetuated by early missionaries, the support of the inquisition, the denial of non-whites having souls, the residential school and orphanage abuses?

And the Seventies?!? Sorry, but a good number of the priests and others involved in various sexual and abuse scandals had long since finished their training before the seventies and regardless were all under the control and responsibility of the church. If everyone involved is a bad-Catholic, that goes all the way up to the Cardinals at least and undoubtably right to the top as the coverup and acceptance was systemic.

If those priests can exist within the church as bad catholics, how can the church claim a cardinal, or a pope, or the very institutions they represent be above the same human failings?

The history of the Vatican and the Popes is as corrupt and political as the history of any monarcy or state.


OK, now how many people "do as they are told"?. Looks like it turned out to be one hell of ta tst afterall, it only maks sense that God would provide the path, catholicism merely related that path to logic and the nature of God. I explained the logic of a divinely establed institution in relation to the views of christianity in an earlyer post.

Is it an institution run by men or an institution run by the Divine? Once again the contradiction. Divinity filtered though thousands of imperfect humans somehow remains devine, while individuals within that instituion can still be "bad catholics" and fallible.

And you still don't get my point repeated question. What proof do you have the doing as you are told and following with blind faith are the right answer? We'll only know if we passed the test after we've gone over to whatever is on the other side.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Dozens of religions are all equally convinced that only they will ascend to paradise or heaven. What makes you so ABSOLUTELY certain that you have it right and they have it wrong? Quote Catholic teachings all you want. They're absolutely meaningless in the comparison because the Jews or Mormons or Jehovas or Orthadox whatever can each quote me their teachings with equal conviction.

[SlartyBartFast]

I am relaying catholicism out of my respect for it, not debating philosophies. Your assumptions on catholicism have largely been wrong, i have corrected those assumptions. I dont see how that is in any way "circular logic".

But, my views on Catholicism are only "wrong" if you accept that Catholicism is "correct".

Hence: Circular dogma.

It's certainly not respect from you in the sense you respect it amognst other philosophies, I see adherence and belief in it as THE philosophy. You're not debating philosophies because from the supporting links you've provided you don't accept there are other philosophies to compare.

Therefore, QED, you do believe what you are writing. Otherwise, you'd have to qualify the numerous quotes and self supporting dogmas.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dogma

Personally, you've got an uphill battle to convince me that definition 1c isn't the one that applies:
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

The "it might not be my opinion" is a very pervasive technique to convince people of a position. It's like a sibling telling another that "It's not me that's saying it, it's mom...". It let's you get out of the heavy work and difficulty of explaining why you believe. It then turns the discussion aginst the ill-prepared and opens the possibility of them having to argue why they don't believe and then catch themselves in the trap or if they can't argue why they shouldn'y, they guess they should. It is afterall impossible to prove a negative.

[mcveighr]

When Slarty gets involved in an arguement, you really dont see him lose often.

[Lohman446]

Its hard to overcome circular arguments.

If you accept that god is omni-potent (all powerful), knows everything, and is good then evil cannot exist.

For if it does exist and he knows of it and could stop it and does it, than he is not fully good
If it does exist and he knows it, and wishes to stop it, but cannot than he is not all powerful
If it does exist and he does not know it, but could and would stop it, than he is not all knowing.

It leaves you with.. well whcih one of the three is he not.

:) Its a philisophical argument, I beleive in God. I beleive in a slightly modified Lutheran viewpoint of God that I am nto going to get into. Unfortunately it is a beleif on faith, and logical and philosophical arguments cannot support it.

[Jakedubbleya]

Is it an institution run by men or an institution run by the Divine? Once again the contradiction. Divinity filtered though thousands of imperfect humans somehow remains devine, while individuals within that instituion can still be "bad catholics" and fallible.

The view is that it is an institution that was divinely ESTABLISHED. Now some of that divinity flows into the roles of its proprieters, but not enough to make sure they go straight to heaven just by having that authority. They haveto take the same test everybody does. In fact to go astray with that authority is considered perhaps the greatest of sins. I think that covers most of what you posted. "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" this is the promise jesus made when he gave peter the church.


What proof do you have the doing as you are told and following with blind faith are the right answer? We'll only know if we passed the test after we've gone over to whatever is on the other side.

I was purposely staying away from answering that question, as i made clear in my last post.

I will answer it now to a small degree though. I will reiterate that it is not blind faith, as is the case with other religions. Catholicism is based on universal philosophy as well as christian theology. It does not make any logical sense, as you stated, for a religion to exist if it cant be shown to be possible or even probable. Judaism and christianity have been shown by many of the greatest thinkers of all time to be possible if not probable explanations for human existance (albert einstein?).

Proof of God to all, as i mentioned earlyer, would negate the nature of our existance and thus such an argument can not be used.

It is also from my personal and fairly educated experience that says catholicism cannot be logically dis-proved (you have no idea how many times ive debated this). Thus it is a possibility. That possibility is turns into a probability if you accept that there is a God. Merely from the nature of a supposed/projected God, and the fact that there are no other religions on earth that come close to the combined historical backround, influence and infalled theological nature, or the understanding of the projected nature of God that the catholic church poseses.

It comes down to, eventually, was Jesus Christ indeed the son of God (it can be inferred merely from the fact that true judaism no longer exists on the planet in its original formt that yes, he was).

And did creation stem from God (does god even exist?)? I cant answer that one.

See but now what ive started is a war from the non catholics which is why i ignored your question previously.

[Jakedubbleya]

Its hard to overcome circular arguments.

If you accept that god is omni-potent (all powerful), knows everything, and is good then evil cannot exist.

For if it does exist and he knows of it and could stop it and does it, than he is not fully good
If it does exist and he knows it, and wishes to stop it, but cannot than he is not all powerful
If it does exist and he does not know it, but could and would stop it, than he is not all knowing.

It leaves you with.. well whcih one of the three is he not.

:) Its a philisophical argument, I beleive in God. I beleive in a slightly modified Lutheran viewpoint of God that I am nto going to get into. Unfortunately it is a beleif on faith, and logical and philosophical arguments cannot support it.

unless you accept that conquering evil results in greater good (why it is love that god put us here, out of hope that we would overcome the evil and attain greater glory with him.) And while this does not aplly to the linearly infinite and perfect God, it does apply to the limited human.

let that one brew for a bit:)

edit: oh, and the catholic church doesnt claim god is ALL powerfull, he is powerfull inside his own infiniteness(???), think of god as having three infinite lines or planes that extend for eternity but only in that direction. He isnt infinite in every respect for obvious reasons. His infiniteness was hinted to be things like love, truth, etc etc. Thus the reason for purgatory etc etc, we cannot become on ewith an infinitely perfect being unless we to are at least perfect etc etc.(i think you understand this part tho lohman)

so yes, logical and philisophical arguments can support it, just try harder:)

[SlartyBartFast]

It comes down to, eventually, was Jesus Christ indeed the son of God (it can be inferred merely from the fact that true judaism no longer exists on the planet in its original formt that yes, he was).

I would LOVE to see you locked in a room with a orthadox Jew after saying that. :rolleyes:

Typical conservative Catholic viewpoint. Sell yourself as loving and respectful, then go say something derogatory with a great big smile. :tard:

If Belief is NOT fact. Then no rational, intelligent, or logical mind can with any certainty claim one belief is better or more true than another.

So, if your faith is based on the underlieing tenet that you must have faith and beleive. And that in your mind is sufficient in your mind to explain you entire position to me. How can you with any honesty of character dismiss the same argumentation from someone else?

You let that one brew for a bit. :)

[SlartyBartFast]

Judaism and christianity have been shown by many of the greatest thinkers of all time to be possible if not probable explanations for human existance (albert einstein?).

So, you admit that the concept of God is improbable? Or, is this another blatant adoption of a small part of an idea out of context to support your unwaivering views?

Of course great minds would say it was POSSIBLE. Even the most feable of minds accepts you can't prove a negative.

If you have a view that can accept modern advancements and discoveries in a religious context, then great. If you're a loon that thinks the world is only 6000 some odd years old, well.....

[SlartyBartFast]

They haveto take the same test everybody does. In fact to go astray with that authority is considered perhaps the greatest of sins. I think that covers most of what you posted.

Nope. As to be expected it completely skirts the issue. Accepting what I said and asked while completely ignoring the point.

Now let's try again, if the Pope were to say that human sacrifices should occur and begins to perform them in the Sistine chapel, would you agree?

He's being tested and failing. On a path straight to hell.

But is disobeying his authority and fighting him not fighting for good? Would you not go to Heaven for fighting his sin?

Or, another perhaps more likely one: You visit the Vatican accidentally get lost from the tour group and find the Pope sodomising a young boy. He commands you not to tell.

Is there anyway you could then go to heaven?

Do you believe that you would go to Heaven by committing sins because you were commanded by authority to do them?

:rolleyes:

Don't get me started on the horrid sins commited by priests that don't fight evil and allow murderers and assorted criminals go unpunished for the sins they confess.

And if secular law isn't holy law, how else are you supposed to fight evil if not by enforcing laws both secular and holy designed to protect the innocent?

[Jakedubbleya]

So, you admit that the concept of God is improbable? Or, is this another blatant adoption of a small part of an idea out of context to support your unwaivering views?

Of course great minds would say it was POSSIBLE. Even the most feable of minds accepts you can't prove a negative.

If you have a view that can accept modern advancements and discoveries in a religious context, then great. If you're a loon that thinks the world is only 6000 some odd years old, well.....

1. I cant say its probable or improbable, and in my opinion theres not enough information for ANYBODY to say it is one or the other.

2. Othodox judaism is A JOKE in relation to biblical judaism.

3. Im still not going to divulge if im catholic or atheist.

4. The religious context is this: God is unchanging.

oh and a derogatory smiley for good measure :rolleyes:

[Jakedubbleya]

Nope. As to be expected it completely skirts the issue. Accepting what I said and asked while completely ignoring the point.

Now let's try again, if the Pope were to say that human sacrifices should occur and begins to perform them in the Sistine chapel, would you agree?

He's being tested and failing. On a path straight to hell.

But is disobeying his authority and fighting him not fighting for good? Would you not go to Heaven for fighting his sin?

Or, another perhaps more likely one: You visit the Vatican accidentally get lost from the tour group and find the Pope sodomising a young boy. He commands you not to tell.

Is there anyway you could then go to heaven?

Do you believe that you would go to Heaven by committing sins because you were commanded by authority to do them?

:rolleyes:

Don't get me started on the horrid sins commited by priests that don't fight evil and allow murderers and assorted criminals go unpunished for the sins they confess.

And if secular law isn't holy law, how else are you supposed to fight evil if not by enforcing laws both secular and holy designed to protect the innocent?

Ive answered those questions, connect the dots buddy.

[SlartyBartFast]

3. Im still not going to divulge if im catholic or atheist.

:rofl:

You're kidding right? If you're not a Christian you're a troll spouting hot air out of every orifice.

Only a devout Catholic would make derogatory claims such as your own towards other religions while claiming nothing but truth for Catholicism and still think the participants in the conversation were dull minded enough to still think you might be an Atheist.

If you're an Atheist, they should ex-communicate you. (oh, wait. how would that work? :ninja: )

And back to 1.

Funny how one opinionated, dismissive, narrow view and interpretation of a book can find another opinionated, dismissive, narrow view and interpretation of a book a "joke".

But if you live up to my stereotype of a devout religious type I can feel your smirk and condescention from here.

If you're an Atheist and a pathetic excuse for a troll, you must be having a grand old time being a hypocrit and quoting things you can't support.

[SlartyBartFast]

Ive answered those questions, connect the dots buddy.

No you haven't. Buddy.

Quoting Catholicism says Catholicism is right, does not connect the dots. It just makes a nice self-supporting exclusionary circle of Dogma.

If you have answered the above it should be simple to reiterate. Shouldn't it?

If you posses and believe in the truth, shouldn't you be capable of answering direct questions such as these without resorting to Dogma and provide personal opinion?

Shouldn't the truth be simple to state?

You see the Pope shagging a young boy (hope this doesn't earn me a ban). He orders you to keep quiet and says he acting on Gods will. What do you do? Is he still infallible? Is he going to hell? Will you go to hell for staying quiet? Will you go to hell if you disobey his authority? Is there any way you could then go to heaven?

[SpecialBlend2786]

Slarty = awesome.

[Jakedubbleya]

No you haven't. Buddy.

Quoting Catholicism says Catholicism is right, does not connect the dots. It just makes a nice self-supporting exclusionary circle of Dogma.

If you have answered the above it should be simple to reiterate. Shouldn't it?

If you posses and believe in the truth, shouldn't you be capable of answering direct questions such as these without resorting to Dogma and provide personal opinion?

Shouldn't the truth be simple to state?

You see the Pope shagging a young boy (hope this doesn't earn me a ban). He orders you to keep quiet and says he acting on Gods will. What do you do? Is he still infallible? Is he going to hell? Will you go to hell for staying quiet? Will you go to hell if you disobey his authority? Is there any way you could then go to heaven?

Literally, i answered this question, try reading instead of (your favorite word) trolling.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakedubbleya
3. Im still not going to divulge if im catholic or atheist.





You're kidding right? If you're not a Christian you're a troll spouting hot air out of every orifice.

Only a devout Catholic would make derogatory claims such as your own towards other religions while claiming nothing but truth for Catholicism and still think the participants in the conversation were dull minded enough to still think you might be an Atheist.

If you're an Atheist, they should ex-communicate you. (oh, wait. how would that work? )

And back to 1.

Funny how one opinionated, dismissive, narrow view and interpretation of a book can find another opinionated, dismissive, narrow view and interpretation of a book a "joke".

But if you live up to my stereotype of a devout religious type I can feel your smirk and condescention from here.

If you're an Atheist and a pathetic excuse for a troll, you must be having a grand old time being a hypocrit and quoting things you can't support.

And that makes me a troll how?
-
Only a devout catholic would make derogatory claims even though thats uncatholic, you sir are a genius.
-
One would first have-to be catholic, and it takes more than dis-belief to be ex-communicated.
-
If you knew anything about biblical history you too would know that yes, orthodox judaism does not abide by the same standards as biblical judaism, thsi isnt dismissive its historical and agreed upon by most scholars (including jews). I think i know which half of this conversation is opinionated dismissive and narrow minded.
-
Ive met holy men, and a smirk is something id be rather surprised to see on their faces, dont insult something you obviously know nothing about.
-
Some athiests show respect.

[tropical_fishy]

writers "inspired" to write the original passages and stories of the Bible, the interpreters who translated the ancient languages, the scribes that copied the translated texts, the patrons that edited, censored and rewrote passages to create versions of the Bible, the Pope, the Cardinals, the priests, EVERYONE in an imperfect human being.

Okay then, so let's say they all put a human bias on it. Is it not possible that they were biased against women as well? After all, God may have commanded them to write, but if the dogma is correct, then men have free will to do as they please... and perhaps at that point they "pleased" to surpress women.


Now some of that divinity flows into the roles of its proprieters, but not enough to make sure they go straight to heaven just by having that authority. They haveto take the same test everybody does. In fact to go astray with that authority is considered perhaps the greatest of sins. I think that covers most of what you posted. "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" this is the promise jesus made when he gave peter the church.

The greatest of sins? Hmmm, now I think you're making stuff up. Along with OT stuff being worthless... you know why? Because all GOOD Catholics follow the Ten Commandments. That's an OT thing, dear. And nowhere in the Ten Commandments (God's LITERAL word to the people, rather than a mish-mash of various mistranslated stories) says nothing about abusing authority.


1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.

Now... where's the part about power?


Quoting Catholicism says Catholicism is right, does not connect the dots. It just makes a nice self-supporting exclusionary circle of Dogma.

Agreed.


You see the Pope shagging a young boy (hope this doesn't earn me a ban). He orders you to keep quiet and says he acting on Gods will. What do you do? Is he still infallible? Is he going to hell? Will you go to hell for staying quiet? Will you go to hell if you disobey his authority? Is there any way you could then go to heaven?

Look! He's formed the Protestant religion all by himself. Yay!

But anyway, interesting quandry. I suppose the issue would be the homosexuality rather than the incest, because that's just the way the Church works.

From my experience with Christians of all flavors, I'd say most people would say if the Pope went to confession and asked God for forgiveness (or just prayed to God for forgiveness) and was truly sorry, then God would forgive him.


Passages in Leviticus call for the public stoning of people who plant more than one crop in the same field - where clothing made of a blend of materials, and many other things. Funny when people state "Leviticus says" they just leave out the fundamental "laws" that are... umm less than acceptable in today's society.

That was my point.

[Jakedubbleya]

The greatest of sins? Hmmm, now I think you're making stuff up. Along with OT stuff being worthless... you know why? Because all GOOD Catholics follow the Ten Commandments. That's an OT thing, dear. And nowhere in the Ten Commandments (God's LITERAL word to the people, rather than a mish-mash of various mistranslated stories) says nothing about abusing authority.



Originally posted by: Jakedubbleya
2. Not all things were done away with, jesus himself stated that the ten commandments for example were in full effect. The un-christian laws and the traditions based uopn those laws are what was discarded in that respect. Much of it is also relative to the nature of God and Christ, God does not change and neither does Christ so certain things of that nature were kept, this is all through centuries of "revelation" of course, something I went into further depth with in an earlyer post.

Im your priest, i say its ok to have sex with your little brother even though I never do it myself, bu tim yoru onlyt referance and thus everybody has sex with their little brothers.

Yeah.. no sin there :rolleyes:

priests by nature are in part responcible for the sins of their followers (and potential damnation) if they teach them incorrectly, which could be a hell of a lot of sins, thus the worst of sins (potentially).

[trevorjk]

meh the dudes like 400 and will die with in the next year anyways, so yay for a new pope! :rolleyes:

bah religion :(

[tropical_fishy]

2. Not all things were done away with, jesus himself stated that the ten commandments for example were in full effect. The un-christian laws and the traditions based uopn those laws are what was discarded in that respect. Much of it is also relative to the nature of God and Christ, God does not change and neither does Christ so certain things of that nature were kept, this is all through centuries of "revelation" of course, something I went into further depth with in an earlyer post.

So who decides what's "unchristian"? Christianity was FOUNDED by Judaism. Anything that is Jewish is FUNDAMENTALLY CHRISTIAN.

Priests are put in place to lead their followers to God. They are not put in place to police their followers. They provide a moral ground for people to function on. I've never been in a church or met a priest who has said, "you must do _________," unless it's something about accepting Jesus into your heart or following the Bible. I've heard priests CONDEMN actions, but not really condone them.

A priest (or pope) is there to lead the faith/congregation, not to lead individual people's lives.

[Jakedubbleya]

So who decides what's "unchristian"? Christianity was FOUNDED by Judaism. Anything that is Jewish is FUNDAMENTALLY CHRISTIAN.

Priests are put in place to lead their followers to God. They are not put in place to police their followers. They provide a moral ground for people to function on. I've never been in a church or met a priest who has said, "you must do _________," unless it's something about accepting Jesus into your heart or following the Bible. I've heard priests CONDEMN actions, but not really condone them.

A priest (or pope) is there to lead the faith/congregation, not to lead individual people's lives.
Whatever, sure, why not, thats exactly what i meant :rolleyes:

Im exausted of this conversation, its leading nowhere, it was stupid for me to begin and i apologize.

Id recommend some literature but im relatively certain nobody would read it, if thats not the case feel free to pm me.

Dont expect any more posts from me on this thread, i hope exchanges between me, slarty and others didnt effect how we will treat each other on the other threads:)

Have fun with it guys. :dance:

[octane2079]

Though I know slarty will prolly prove me wrong for saying this, but isn't this whole argument about the future of the Catholic Church so its a moot point in comparing the Catholic Church with anything else because the only current unknown factor is the Pope and it is his views who we should be debating?

Also about the Pope's infallibility: He only can make dogmatic statements when he officially speaks from the chair of peter which very rarely happens. Most of the actual decision making is left up to the individual bishop's in the diocese. And unless they're decisions go against dogma then they are given a respectable amount of independence.

[TheDuelist]

Sorry but it all seems like sheep to the slaughter to me. Good luck finding out whats the truth on the other side. Let me know how it worked out for you. The best representation of Christianity was Jesus standing on a hill administering to his flock, not some overly ornate marle and gold structure "dedicated" to a God who supposedly tells his "people" not to be materialistic. When you read the real bible come see me. I would be interested to know what versions everyone here reads? King James? Just a thought.

I have nothing against those of religion and I find the study of Jesus and the church an interesting history lesson. My problem comes when the so called "philosophy" of said religion gets interpreted by man with all of his faults and fallibilities.

Either way, go with God if that is your choice...perhaps you are correct. Me. I'll sit on the hill and see what happens.

[spantol]

TheDuelist: Ever heard the Story of Hank (http://www.hanway.co.uk/hank.html)? Any time organized religion comes up, I think of it.

[SlartyBartFast]

Literally, i answered this question, try reading instead of (your favorite word) trolling.
:rolleyes:
I'm lazy, quote yourself and point out my stupidity. Please.

Anyone else who thinks you've already answered, point it out please?

This is why I don't go to church. Lots of high handed quotes, no expalination, zero justification, no room to discuss, and if you question anything, all you get is "Go start from the beginning and read everything again." :rolleyes:


And that makes me a troll how?

Because it's a very strange Atheist that would be so respectful of religion, let alone exclusively supportive of one Christianity, and so disrespectful of others.


Only a devout catholic would make derogatory claims even though thats uncatholic, you sir are a genius.


I know it's not derogatory in your eyes. Because to the prejudiced, the bigoted, the indoctrinated, or the exlusionary mind saying what you beleive to be the truth is never considered derogatory.

I've only seen such high handed double standards of praising one, claiming neutrality, and insulting another, while backing out of responsibility by saying it's a groups thoughts and not necesarily your own from the devout and other indoctrinated members of groups/cults/sects.


Ive met holy men, and a smirk is something id be rather surprised to see on their faces, dont insult something you obviously know nothing about.

The "smirk" is all in attitude. I've had lengthy discussions with ministers of a number of faiths. The most open and frank being with the Unitarians. But whether it's a Rabi or a Priest, or an Imam, if you don't swallow thier beleif whole and stop questioning you quickly get the cold shoulder and the patronising "You jus tdon't understand my son."

It's been fun.

[Lohman446]

The "smirk" is all in attitude. I've had lengthy discussions with ministers of a number of faiths. The most open and frank being with the Unitarians. But whether it's a Rabi or a Priest, or an Imam, if you don't swallow thier beleif whole and stop questioning you quickly get the cold shoulder and the patronising "You jus tdon't understand my son."

Reality: a main cornerstone of religion is faith... faith in things that cannot be proven through logical argument. The problem becomes when people don't admit this and try to continue to argue it. Faith... not logic. Trying to make a great logical argument when faith is involved, without admitting the role of faith in your beleifs, just makes you look :tard: .

[SlartyBartFast]

Reality: a main cornerstone of religion is faith... faith in things that cannot be proven through logical argument. The problem becomes when people don't admit this and try to continue to argue it. Faith... not logic. Trying to make a great logical argument when faith is involved, without admitting the role of faith in your beleifs, just makes you look :tard: .

And I couldn't agree more. :cheers:

But in admiting that FAITH is the cornerstone only the strongest can then reveal what their PERSONAL faith is based on.

Then you have the next HUMONGOUS leap that only those who are truly comfortable with themselves, their beleifs, and their place in the universe can make. The acceptance that different faiths and beliefs are just as valid. Equal, but different.

As evidenced in my exchage in this thread, few are willing to explain why one Faith is more valid than another. Those that try are doomed because their arguments only how weight if a double standard is imposed and the exact same arguments are somehow invalid in support of the other faith.

Just considering the Christian and Muslim faiths, it will truly be an age of enlightenment when both reach the same level of openess as each other. In history, each has swung between extremes. The Muslim world was advanced and developed as Christians struggled in teh dark ages. Christians had the Renaissance while Muslims had passed own dark ages. The Muslim world is now changing and once again approaching openess and slowly embracing a world view. Christians/Catholics are teetering on the brink of a new dark ages.

(what else can you call the drive to conservatism, and the fight to banish science from schools?)

Human advancement will arrive when religions talk TO each other and not DOWN to each other.

While the British chilrren's story The Chronicles of Narnia still had the nasty notion of eastern religion (read muslim) prayingto an Evil deity, it did at least have a worhty central message. Prayers for good are always heard by God. Regardless of the deity the prayer is sent to. Prayers for bad or evil are always heard by the devil.

The story perhaps erred in limiting the plot to two deities on good and one evil. It would have interesting if the story could have shown THREE dieties and concluded that both good Gods were but one and the same. But, remains a powerful message and explains how evil can be accomplished in the name of good.

(I'm really amazed this thread progressed without getting closed. Congratulations to all.)

God Speed, Best Wishes.

[Jack_Dubious]

SlartyBartFast.....

FLAWLESS VICTORY!

:cheers:



On a serious note tho.... No matter what God we pray to, be it Jehovah, Allah, or L. Ron Hubbard...I think we call all agree upon some universal truths.
What ever all knowing omnipotent force created the universe, definately created women to be subservient to men. Am I right or what, guys??? Cmon..cant I get an Amen?

:rofl:

JDub

[matt-o]

All along as I was watching TV I told my mom "Hey I betcha this guy was an ex Nazi and this is his plane for world domination." Turns out when they were giving his background info they said he was in Hitlers Youth. Lol, I laughed so hard!
yeah i saw that he had those creepy recessed eyes with the dark rings and before i even knew he was german i thought he looked like a nazi, they give some bullcrap story about him deserting but i respect the ones that stuck with their service more than the ones that bailed. also nostradamus predicted that this pope would be the devil and im starting to beleive that with the way hes gonna alienate people.

they should picked the black guy IMO

catholicism was made to be the way it is for the purpose of controlling the people. it should be obvious that if there is a god no human being could possibly comprehend it and therefore all religions are inherently wrong except for the ones that allow for changes. this is my only beef with catholicism.