NationStates Jolt Archive

After another "debate" on another forum (which consists of one evangelical guy - I assume baptist because of his beliefs and statements - usually going in and somehow relating the topic to religion and jumping down everyone's throats) I got the sudden urge to make a rant. As I was saying, one guy was telling everyone they were going to hell or something, and ANOTHER Christian called the rapture a heretical teaching and this rant struck me.

How can Christians even PRETEND to assert Christianity is the one, true religion when there are so many branches (over 100 recognized) of it with so many technical differences they sit around calling EACH OTHER heretics and fools? On what grounds can they go around trying to convert non-Christians, or even in some cases CATHOLICS, to their religion claiming to save peoples' immortal souls? They can't even on agree upon anything other specifics of their religion than "Jesus was the Christ and he died on the cross." Now granted, that may be a very important thing, but what abotu EVERYTHING ELSE. *In general* Christians go around trying to convert and convince other people to become Christian. Well, next time some one asks you to convert, ask them what branch of Christianity do they want you to convert to. Eastern Orthodox? Catholicism? Lutheran? Southern Baptist? Methodist? Anglican? WELL?! You obviously can't just accept Christ as your savior - that would be too easy, no, you have to get baptised one of the dozens of ways, and go to some church and take the eucharist in some sort of manner.


I don't see how Christianity can claim anything other than the "most numerous deviations for a single religion" reward, much less to be the religion that will save you from your sins (sins that are conveniantly defined for you by the Christian religion might I add). :headbang: Really, that is how I feel everytime I stop to consider all of this, in fact it might be a good part of the reason why I stopped being Christian, the whole bloody mess disgusts me.

It is a bloody mess.

Generally I forget inter-church politics and focus on being Christian. (I'm URC, equivallent to the UCC in america). I actually worship as a quaker which annoys some people but I don't give much.

I think the tv show picket fences answered your basic question:

"Religions are like farts. Yours is good, but everyone else's stinks"

:D

Yep. That was pretty random.

Ihatevacations']After another "debate" on another forum (which consists of one evangelical guy - I assume baptist because of his beliefs and statements - usually going in and somehow relating the topic to religion and jumping down everyone's throats) I got the sudden urge to make a rant. As I was saying, one guy was telling everyone they were going to hell or something, and ANOTHER Christian called the rapture a heretical teaching and this rant struck me.

How can Christians even PRETEND to assert Christianity is the one, true religion when there are so many branches (over 100 recognized) of it with so many technical differences they sit around calling EACH OTHER heretics and fools? On what grounds can they go around trying to convert non-Christians, or even in some cases CATHOLICS, to their religion claiming to save peoples' immortal souls? They can't even on agree upon anything other specifics of their religion than "Jesus was the Christ and he died on the cross." Now granted, that may be a very important thing, but what abotu EVERYTHING ELSE. *In general* Christians go around trying to convert and convince other people to become Christian. Well, next time some one asks you to convert, ask them what branch of Christianity do they want you to convert to. Eastern Orthodox? Catholicism? Lutheran? Southern Baptist? Methodist? Anglican? WELL?! You obviously can't just accept Christ as your savior - that would be too easy, no, you have to get baptised one of the dozens of ways, and go to some church and take the eucharist in some sort of manner.


I don't see how Christianity can claim anything other than the "most numerous deviations for a single religion" reward, much less to be the religion that will save you from your sins (sins that are conveniantly defined for you by the Christian religion might I add). :headbang: Really, that is how I feel everytime I stop to consider all of this, in fact it might be a good part of the reason why I stopped being Christian, the whole bloody mess disgusts me.

Being Reformed (more specifically Presbyterian) I probably have a slightly different view than some of the others:

First, while there are seperate branches; I do not see them as seperate churches; regardless of calling themselves Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist; they are all part of "the church" (sometimes called the Church invisible; which is composed of all true believers).

Second, I do not see different baptisms... As long as the person was baptised in a form they consider to be "valid" they were baptized; no matter if it was as a child, an adult; by sprinking or imersion, or the particular formula spouted by the one preciding over it...

In dealing with Eschatology; I happen to be at present Amillenial (similar to Orthodox, Reformed, Catholic, Lutheran and other various sects); though I had once considered "Historic" Pre-millenialism (Post-Tribulational Pre-Millenialism; or Non-Dispensational Premillenialism) though abandoned it over my own study; and have adopted the Convenential view..... Though I don't consider Eschatology much of a debate; and generally don't make it a point (unless dealing with Preterists and Dominionists; which I disagree with on more than mere Religious motivations; but Political as well)...

All in all, regardless of the particular flavour; I consider all Christians, Christians... And dislike some of the Hell-Fire/Brimstone ones myself....

I was always under the impression that not all Christians did agree that "Christianity" was the one true way -- especially because, as a Catholic, I've been told by Protestants of unmentioned sects that I was going to Hell and not following God's true teachings.....

It can be an interesting experience, having one of the Flock speaking to you as if you're not.....

Christianity is bubbling and expanding and changing and moving, just like a wave. It can splash happily all over you. It brings water to your soul... but it can leave you far behind if you've anchored yourself too firmly to a rock.

Christianity is bubbling and expanding and changing and moving, just like a wave. It can splash happily all over you. It brings water to your soul... but it can leave you far behind if you've anchored yourself too firmly to a rock.
Okay Confucious, can you make that a little less crpytic

Ihatevacations']

How can Christians even PRETEND to assert Christianity is the one, true religion when there are so many branches (over 100 recognized) of it with so many technical differences they sit around calling EACH OTHER heretics and fools?

Well, if it weren't for that doofus named Martin Luther, Christianity wouldn't have been torn to shreds and factions that give Christians a bad rep.

I myself am Catholic, and I believe that Catholicism is supreme amonst Christian divisions by the following reasons:

1) Catholicism leads the league in faithful with over 1 billion Catholics world-wide.
2) Catholics are morally sound as they are taught only to have sex in marriage, unlike those Protestant whores. Abstinence would prevent STD's and we're much happier.
3) The Catholic church is the most stable, with a well-structured hierarchy of elders who serve to guide the congregation down the path to righteousness. Divisions like Congregationalism and Unitarianism have no sense of direction and nearly an anarchical structure, with all of its followers having no sense of direction in life, often following paths to darkness and evil.

Take that you Reformationist bastards. Have fun in hell.

Ihatevacations']Okay Confucious, can you make that a little less crpytic

I'm pretty sure the rock is Jesus and the water is the church...So, if you're too close to Jesus you'll get left behind by the church?

Well, if it weren't for that doofus named Martin Luther, Christianity wouldn't have been torn to shreds and factions that give Christians a bad rep.

I myself am Catholic, and I believe that Catholicism is supreme amonst Christian divisions by the following reasons:

1) Catholicism leads the league in faithful with over 1 billion Catholics world-wide.
2) Catholics are morally sound as they are taught only to have sex in marriage, unlike those Protestant whores. Abstinence would prevent STD's and we're much happier.
3) The Catholic church is the most stable, with a well-structured hierarchy of elders who serve to guide the congregation down the path to righteousness. Divisions like Congregationalism and Unitarianism have no sense of direction and nearly an anarchical structure, with all of its followers having no sense of direction in life, often following paths to darkness and evil.

Take that you Reformationist bastards. Have fun in hell.
I'm loosely with you, fellow Cat-lick, on the first and third point. The second point....well, I can safely say I know LOTS of salad-bar Catholics that may have sex, but don't have STD's and aren't "whores" by any means. As to where that last line came from......our opinions differ greatly. However, let's not forget, that in the broad history of the organized Church, Catholics came first.....

2) Catholics are morally sound as they are taught only to have sex in marriage, unlike those Protestant whores. Abstinence would prevent STD's and we're much happier.


Morally sound? What about all those pedophilliacs?

Advice: the Protestant whore comment might be labeled as flamebait and you could get a warning by the mods.

Well, if it weren't for that doofus named Martin Luther, Christianity wouldn't have been torn to shreds and factions that give Christians a bad rep.

I myself am Catholic, and I believe that Catholicism is supreme amonst Christian divisions by the following reasons:

1) Catholicism leads the league in faithful with over 1 billion Catholics world-wide.
2) Catholics are morally sound as they are taught only to have sex in marriage, unlike those Protestant whores. Abstinence would prevent STD's and we're much happier.
3) The Catholic church is the most stable, with a well-structured hierarchy of elders who serve to guide the congregation down the path to righteousness. Divisions like Congregationalism and Unitarianism have no sense of direction and nearly an anarchical structure, with all of its followers having no sense of direction in life, often following paths to darkness and evil.

Take that you Reformationist bastards. Have fun in hell.

You missed the Great Scism, which divided the Eastern and Western Church (Orthodox and Catholic); the Waldesians and Hussites of the 12th and 13th centuries; as well as Zwingli and Calvin of Switzerland.... Not to mention the formation of the Anglicans in England....

And I'm niether a Congregationalist, nor Episcopalian.... Unitarians are Congregational; so dividing the two as differing governments is arbitrary; the three primary forms of Church Government are Episcopal (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican); Congregational (Baptist, Puritan, Quaker, Pentecostal, etc.) and Presbyterian (Presbyterian and Coninental Reformed)....

Oh look, it's so cool to bash on Christianity and religion.

Okay Confucious, can you make that a little less crpytic
Many Christian groups = good.
It keeps a true dialogue, questions human political/social/moral structures and prevent the whole religion from being too monolithic, taken over by governments, despotic, or perverted.
Just like a fresh wave, you can't "hold" Christianity today. It's moving and active and changing. It's always been.

Oh look, it's so cool to bash on Christianity.

You will learn that it happens so freakishly often, newbie.

Oh look, it's so cool to bash on Christianity and religion.
There's a difference between bashing and discussing. Bashing is more often done by non-Christians -- if you'll notice, there are Christians present in the discussion as well, doing more than just trying to defend.

Ahem. Catholic teaching on sexual issues is sound, though its practice is inconsistent. Congratulations on having THE SAME ARGUMENT AS FIFTY MILLION OTHER PEOPLE. Technically, the priestly sexual abuse is the result of ephebophilia and not pedophilia - the attraction to pubescent, rather than prepubescent, boys (and sometimes girls in this case). The sexual abuse scandal was a direct result of the sexual liberation movement of the 1960s and more specifically the inclusion of a significant homosexual element into the priesthood. That's right, you don't hear of sex abuse scandals in the Boy Scouts do you, that's because they don't allow homosexuals in. If you're going to allow active homosexuals into a celibate atmosphere, you're going to have abuse. Finally, holding a minority of priests accountable for the moral integrity of 1.1 billion people borders on the psychotic.

Speaking to the thread, look again at the claims of these religions. They all claim that Christ is the only way to salvation. But they don't all claim that their particular sect is equally crucial. Only one does: the Catholic Church. Because she is. The Church is contiguous from the time of Jesus Himself, and derives its authority from Peter the Apostle. No other church claims have the corner on salvation - to 'hold the keys to Heaven' - because those keys were given to Peter, and they reside in the Church of Peter's successors - the Catholic Church.

Speaking to the thread, look again at the claims of these religions. They all claim that Christ is the only way to salvation. But they don't all claim that their particular sect is equally crucial. Only one does: the Catholic Church. Because she is. The Church is contiguous from the time of Jesus Himself, and derives its authority from Peter the Apostle. No other church claims have the corner on salvation - to 'hold the keys to Heaven - because those keys were given to Peter, and they reside in the Church of Peter's successors - the Catholic Church.

ALLELUIA

GLORIA PATRI, FILIO, SPIRITU SANCTO

AMEN

Well, if it weren't for that doofus named Martin Luther, Christianity wouldn't have been torn to shreds and factions that give Christians a bad rep.

I myself am Catholic, and I believe that Catholicism is supreme amonst Christian divisions by the following reasons:

1) Catholicism leads the league in faithful with over 1 billion Catholics world-wide.
2) Catholics are morally sound as they are taught only to have sex in marriage, unlike those Protestant whores. Abstinence would prevent STD's and we're much happier.
3) The Catholic church is the most stable, with a well-structured hierarchy of elders who serve to guide the congregation down the path to righteousness. Divisions like Congregationalism and Unitarianism have no sense of direction and nearly an anarchical structure, with all of its followers having no sense of direction in life, often following paths to darkness and evil.

Take that you Reformationist bastards. Have fun in hell.

why try to prove my ponit when people make it for me?

ALLELUIA

GLORIA PATRI, FILIO, SPIRITU SANCTO

AMEN

Sola Christo, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria.....

Ihatevacations']why try to prove my ponit when people make it for me?
This in and of itself goes beyond proving your point -- it proves that even those of the same denominations don't agree. Personally I think this is all WAY extreme, and I myself am a Catholic from birth.

Ihavevacations, you have broken into an entirely new realm of religious discussion.

That's right, you don't hear of sex abuse scandals in the Boy Scouts do you, that's because they don't allow homosexuals in. If you're going to allow active homosexuals into a celibate atmosphere, you're going to have abuse.

bit defensive, or jsut homophobic? How do you know they were homosexuals? How do you know they were ACTIVE homosexuals? What about heterosexuals or ACTIVE heterosexuals joining the priesthood? What about heterosexuals molesting young boys? Move on, nothing to see here

Ihatevacations']bit defensive, or jsut homophobic? How do you know they were homosexuals? How do you know they were ACTIVE homosexuals? What about heterosexuals or ACTIVE heterosexuals joining the priesthood? What about heterosexuals molesting young boys? Move on, nothing to see here

Does anyone remember the South Park where Big Gay Al was replaced by the manly pedophile? ;)

It's illogical to assume that pedophiles are only homosexual, and that the Church abuse scandal was due to homosexuals in the priesthood. It was the Church's fault for moving these men from parish to parish rather than removing them, and I as a Catholic own up to this truth. The victims deserved their payment, and I hope that we can avoid such terrible lapses in the future.

Sola Christo, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria.....

Codex Da Vinci cloaca est :p

I don't get denominations either, and I'm a Christian, ELCA Lutheran to be exact. Luther really didn't mean to split from the Church. He nailed up his famous theses(SP?), and he was chased away pretty much. What I don't like is the Roman Catholic Church's elitist attitude. Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors, talked with Samaritans(Which was a no-no), and accepted Gentiles, and the Catholics go and make it look like Christianity is about EXclusion instead of INclusion. As far as I'm concerned though, there is one Holy catholic(Meaning Universal, it only means Roman Catholic when upper-cased.) church, which is everyone who believes that Jesus is the Saviour, and you don't even have to be a Christian to be saved.

I don't get denominations either, and I'm a Christian, ELCA Lutheran to be exact. Luther really didn't mean to split from the Church. He nailed up his famous theses(SP?), and he was chased away pretty much. What I don't like is the Roman Catholic Church's elitist attitude. Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors, talked with Samaritans(Which was a no-no), and accepted Gentiles, and the Catholics go and make it look like Christianity is about EXclusion instead of INclusion. As far as I'm concerned though, there is one Holy catholic(Meaning Universal, it only means Roman Catholic when upper-cased.) church, which is everyone who believes that Jesus is the Saviour, and you don't even have to be a Christian to be saved.
Once again, may I point to the rich divide in attitudes of Catholics? Personally, our Congregation promotes a much more inclusive attitude, until I was a teenager and in public schools I never knew that there were actually Catholics out there that fit the "characteristic" mold. We're not all that bad.

I don't get denominations either, and I'm a Christian, ELCA Lutheran to be exact. Luther really didn't mean to split from the Church. He nailed up his famous theses(SP?), and he was chased away pretty much. What I don't like is the Roman Catholic Church's elitist attitude. Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors, talked with Samaritans(Which was a no-no), and accepted Gentiles, and the Catholics go and make it look like Christianity is about EXclusion instead of INclusion. As far as I'm concerned though, there is one Holy catholic(Meaning Universal, it only means Roman Catholic when upper-cased.) church, which is everyone who believes that Jesus is the Saviour, and you don't even have to be a Christian to be saved.
Slow down there slick, what about all the other religions condemning people. The southern baptists make your descriptions of the catholics (which I have never even heard of any of them doing that) look like playing well with others. And if you think that is flamebait or trolling, consider this: The southern baptists split away from the other baptists because the other baptists wern't fundamentalist enough.

Catholics go and make it look like Christianity is about EXclusion instead of INclusion.

We Catholics do not EXclude those of other religions and divisions. Instead we try to INclude them through conversion by consent. At my church every Sunday, there is a group of over a dozen peole each week who are blessed at mass and sent off to prepare for conversion into our church, which opens its arms to all who seek healing and cleansing of spirit.

Simonist']Once again, may I point to the rich divide in attitudes of Catholics? Personally, our Congregation promotes a much more inclusive attitude, until I was a teenager and in public schools I never knew that there were actually Catholics out there that fit the "characteristic" mold. We're not all that bad.

I know, I meant the Church, as in its Doctrines, not as individuals. And yeah, I prefer not talking about Southern Baptists. They bite. :p

Well, if it weren't for that doofus named Martin Luther, Christianity wouldn't have been torn to shreds and factions that give Christians a bad rep.

I myself am Catholic, and I believe that Catholicism is supreme amonst Christian divisions by the following reasons:

1) Catholicism leads the league in faithful with over 1 billion Catholics world-wide.
2) Catholics are morally sound as they are taught only to have sex in marriage, unlike those Protestant whores. Abstinence would prevent STD's and we're much happier.
3) The Catholic church is the most stable, with a well-structured hierarchy of elders who serve to guide the congregation down the path to righteousness. Divisions like Congregationalism and Unitarianism have no sense of direction and nearly an anarchical structure, with all of its followers having no sense of direction in life, often following paths to darkness and evil.

Take that you Reformationist bastards. Have fun in hell.

I wrote something intelligent and point-by-point, and then realized blind hate ignores reason.

Please go to www.religioustolerance.com and change your lack of knowledge and learn some about Protestantism.

Your opinion is very Christian-You're called to hate the sin and love the sinner-Even if what you believe to be true was in fact true(which it isn't), you need to be acting in love(which you aren't).

I don't have the time or the ability to correct such misunderstandings.

We Catholics do not EXclude those of other religions and divisions. Instead we try to INclude them through conversion by consent. At my church every Sunday, there is a group of over a dozen peole each week who are blessed at mass and sent off to prepare for conversion into our church, which opens its arms to all who seek healing and cleansing of spirit.
I believe, by my interpretation, that's actually what he was talking about...the Catholics that teach that ONLY by being a Catholic can one be "right". That's a very Vatican I way of thinking; even early Christians and Catholics preached it was more about actions than anything else.

Ihatevacations']Slow down there slick, what about all the other religions condemning people. The southern baptists make your descriptions of the catholics (which I have never even heard of any of them doing that) look like playing well with others. And if you think that is flamebait or trolling, consider this: The southern baptists split away from the other baptists because the other baptists wern't fundamentalist enough.

The SBC is often racist, anti-Semitic, and intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their implausible and narrow-minded interpretation of the Bible. I debate them all the time because they actively seek out fights against Catholics. It gets pretty heated, and unless one is a good debater like you or I, they will appear to have a strong argument. In reality, it's half-baked theology and out-of-context Biblical passages (They are notorious for using Romans)

I go to a non-dominance church and we just focus on being faithful christians of our time not of 2000 years ago.

The SBC is often racist, anti-Semitic, and intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their implausible and narrow-minded interpretation of the Bible. I debate them all the time because they actively seek out fights against Catholics. It gets pretty heated, and unless one is a good debater like you or I, they will appear to have a strong argument. In reality, it's half-baked theology and out-of-context Biblical passages (They are notorious for using Romans)

Southern Baptists got Bush into office. Case closed.

Simonist']I believe, by my interpretation, that's actually what he was talking about...the Catholics that teach that ONLY by being a Catholic can one be "right". That's a very Vatican I way of thinking; even early Christians and Catholics preached it was more about actions than anything else.

Not really, only hardcore traditionalists use that idea (the Latin name evades me) and I personally feel that one gets to heaven by works, not faith. However, I feel that faith encourages good works, and so I interpret the idea of salvation through faith as meaning through works that demonstrate faith regardless of actual belief. James and the Jewish Christians believed this quite strongly because it is a Jewish belief and so I think Jesus would feel the same way.

Southern Baptists got Bush into office. Case closed.
Wait a second.....okay, I apologize for formatting the opinion of you I did, but I guessed by your previous statements that you'd be fiercely Conservative and probably a Republican.....um....correction?

Not really, only hardcore traditionalists use that idea (the Latin name evades me)
Opus Dei?

They're not QUITE as crazy as modern media makes them look. I would suggest you research it yourself, if your opinion was founded by the Da Vinci Code or the likes. If not, and you know about 'em and still think they're freaky, then....well, I still agree, but all I'm saying is they're given a slightly worse rep than they deserve.

Simonist']
They're not QUITE as crazy as modern media makes them look. I would suggest you research it yourself, if your opinion was founded by the Da Vinci Code or the likes. If not, and you know about 'em and still think they're freaky, then....well, I still agree, but all I'm saying is they're given a slightly worse rep than they deserve.

I actually never had the chance to read it, but I'll be getting it soon. Still, I always prefer to do outside research on the topic rather than take the word of a work of fiction (one loaded with some startling facts, however) so I'll be sure to include them.

Simonist']Wait a second.....okay, I apologize for formatting the opinion of you I did, but I guessed by your previous statements that you'd be fiercely Conservative and probably a Republican.....um....correction?

I live in Boston, where everyone hates the fact that they're Americans. Note that the only Catholic president (JFK) was a Democrat. Catholics aren't Republicans because they believe in peace rather than war, and work for the benefit of the poor rather than the wealthy.

I live in Boston, where everyone hates the fact that they're Americans. Note that the only Catholic president (JFK) was a Democrat. Catholics aren't Republicans because they believe in peace rather than war, and work for the benefit of the poor rather than the wealthy.
Well, I apologize. I live in the Midwest, specifically the Kanas City region, where most Catholics are Republicans as well. In fact, most ADULTS are Republicans. I knew I was a member of a tiny minority here....glad to know there are Catholics with intelligent political views elsewhere. Maybe I should move....

To Christians and non-Christians (and everyone in between) alike:

The Christian church today has issues--this discussion merely illustrates a few--and is a poor reflection of what God wants it to be. For what it's worth, take this one Christian's apology for our messiness. We aren't the way we are supposed to be.

Simonist']Well, I apologize. I live in the Midwest, specifically the Kanas City region, where most Catholics are Republicans as well. In fact, most ADULTS are Republicans. I knew I was a member of a tiny minority here....glad to know there are Catholics with intelligent political views elsewhere. Maybe I should move....

Gte out of there before your brain rots!

We're human, what'd you expect?

Well, if it weren't for that doofus named Martin Luther, Christianity wouldn't have been torn to shreds and factions that give Christians a bad rep.

I myself am Catholic, and I believe that Catholicism is supreme amonst Christian divisions by the following reasons:

1) Catholicism leads the league in faithful with over 1 billion Catholics world-wide.
2) Catholics are morally sound as they are taught only to have sex in marriage, unlike those Protestant whores. Abstinence would prevent STD's and we're much happier.
3) The Catholic church is the most stable, with a well-structured hierarchy of elders who serve to guide the congregation down the path to righteousness. Divisions like Congregationalism and Unitarianism have no sense of direction and nearly an anarchical structure, with all of its followers having no sense of direction in life, often following paths to darkness and evil.

Take that you Reformationist bastards. Have fun in hell.

THank you oh so much for helping along peoples good opinion of Catholics on this forum. And you wonder why people get annoyed.

THank you oh so much for helping along peoples good opinion of Catholics on this forum. And you wonder why people get annoyed.
I've learned in my years that if somebody is going to have a bad opinion of you or a group with which you are involved, there's very little you can do to change their mind entirely. However, if only one person says something that offends somebody and turns them off to a group, it's very easily undone by agreeable actions of other members of the group.

I'm in agreement that this may cast a poor light on Catholics as a whole, but I wouldn't nearly go so far as to blame the person or whomever taught them.

Just about all Christian Churches I am aware of follow the Nicene Creed. It's kinda like being American, we all profess belief and follow the Constitution, we just argue what the particulars mean. ;)

Just about all Christian Churches I am aware of follow the Nicene Creed. It's kinda like being American, we all profess belief and follow the Constitution, we just argue what the particulars mean. ;)
Our Church encouraged us to learn the Athanasian and Chalcedoanian Creeds in addition to the Nicean. Perhaps we are unusual in that.

Well, if it weren't for that doofus named Martin Luther, Christianity wouldn't have been torn to shreds and factions that give Christians a bad rep.

I myself am Catholic, and I believe that Catholicism is supreme amonst Christian divisions by the following reasons:


I'm sure this will make for either a fantastic response or none at all, but perhaps you'd care to elaborate why Luther was a doofus. His interpretation of Romans about the necessity of faith, as well as his criticism of Catholic practices of the time, such as the sale of plenary indulgences, were spot on. I disagree with some of what he said, but unlike the Catholic Church of the day, I wouldn't call him into the Inquisition for those things I disagreed with, either.

Moreover, as of Vatican II, Lutherans are part of the Church, although technically we are excommunicates. Mind you that excommunication doesn't mean that we aren't going to get into heaven, however. Per Dante Aligheri's Purgatorio, we just have to wait a heck of a long time before we enter purgatory for the expurgation of our sins. So unless you are one of those freaky uber-Catholics that doesn't accept the affirmed teaching your own Pope because his teaching isn't Catholic enough, you might want to tone down the rhetoric. Brother.


1) Catholicism leads the league in faithful with over 1 billion Catholics world-wide.
2) Catholics are morally sound as they are taught only to have sex in marriage, unlike those Protestant whores. Abstinence would prevent STD's and we're much happier.
3) The Catholic church is the most stable, with a well-structured hierarchy of elders who serve to guide the congregation down the path to righteousness. Divisions like Congregationalism and Unitarianism have no sense of direction and nearly an anarchical structure, with all of its followers having no sense of direction in life, often following paths to darkness and evil.

Take that you Reformationist bastards. Have fun in hell.

1) Since when does the number of people who subscribe to a religion automatically make that religious teaching valid?

2) You might want to reread your religious teachings. When it comes to whores, Thomas Aquinas argued for their existence, while it was that dumbass Protestant Martin Luther who smeared them at every turn.

3) I suppose that is one way to put it. From a Lutheran perspective, another way to say it is that you Catholics are too reliant upon "interpretations" of Scripture as opposed to what is actually staring you in the face when you read the Bible. Personally, I tend to think of Lutheranism as the best of both worlds: we pay attention to theologians like Aquinas, but not to the exclusion of all else, and our discrimination is based on reason as opposed to dogma.

Just about all Christian Churches I am aware of follow the Nicene Creed. It's kinda like being American, we all profess belief and follow the Constitution, we just argue what the particulars mean. ;)
Do these Creeds have treasure maps on the back of them?

Do these Creeds have treasure maps on the back of them?
Well, MINE did, but my pastor had a habbit of doing neat things to keep kids interested in church, like hiding cookies somewhere and giving you a chance to find them later. Not sure what other people's churches do.

Simonist']Wait a second.....okay, I apologize for formatting the opinion of you I did, but I guessed by your previous statements that you'd be fiercely Conservative and probably a Republican.....um....correction?

I am from Michigan and I voted for Bush. The Catholic Church does not preach peace unequivocally, but the 'just war theory.' I believe that the war in Iraq is not a just war, and if I had a chance to vote on whether or not we went, I would have voted no. The 2004 election was about more than just the Iraq war, though, and most of the other issues were ones the Church had clear anti-Democratic/anti-Johns stances on. In my opinion, these outweighed the issue of the war. Catholics are pro-social work, anti-death (abortion and death penalty except in extreme cases), and pro-family. They aren't conservatives or liberals, although contemporary liberals are becoming progressively anti-religion and anti-orthodoxy. They're Catholic first and foremost, either orthodox or heretical.

bit defensive, or just homophobic? How do you know they were homosexuals? How do you know they were ACTIVE homosexuals? What about heterosexuals or ACTIVE heterosexuals joining the priesthood? What about heterosexuals molesting young boys? Move on, nothing to see here
My critics would do well to compare statistics of male accusers to female. Going off the facts is not homophobia. Inactive homosexual priests wouldn't have molested anyone because they were INACTIVE. I'm spoon-fed by the media as much as anyone else, but I've never heard of a female accuser, and I'm almost certain that male victims far outnumber female, so I doubt the problem was heterosexual in any large degree. Besides, if the molesters were heterosexual, why wasn't there this degree of molestation before the sixties? Don't confuse labeling with refutation; you do a great disservice to both of them.
What about heterosexuals molesting young boys? Are you listening to yourself? Attraction to male humans=homosexuality. I wasn't aware that the definition was malleable.

Viva il Papa!

Per Dante Aligheri's Purgatorio, we just have to wait a heck of a long time before we enter purgatory for the expurgation of our sins. So unless you are one of those freaky uber-Catholics that doesn't accept the affirmed teaching your own Pope because his teaching isn't Catholic enough, you might want to tone down the rhetoric.
Dante's work was actually regarded as politically geared at the time; every level of Hell that he detailed, and the sins that lead to that, was geared at a member of what he viewed as his opposition. The Catholic Church does not recognize Dante's Divine Comedy as dogma, and no respectable Church leader would ever point to it and say "Yup, that's how it goes". That would be as foolish as saying that The Da Vinci Code would be accepted as fact by the Church.

I live in Boston, where everyone hates the fact that they're Americans. Note that the only Catholic president (JFK) was a Democrat. Catholics aren't Republicans because they believe in peace rather than war, and work for the benefit of the poor rather than the wealthy.

Um... right. This Connecticut Yankee (and Catholic) is an Independent. And do you really want to hold up a known womanizer as a beacon of Catholicism?

Politics and religion SHOULD not mix!!

our discrimination is based on reason as opposed to dogma.

Please quote me a Catholic article of dogma which is independent from reason.

I am from Michigan and I voted for Bush. The Catholic Church does not preach peace unequivocally, but the 'just war theory.' I believe that the war in Iraq is not a just war, and if I had a chance to vote on whether or not we went, I would have voted no. The 2004 election was about more than just the Iraq war, though, and most of the other issues were ones the Church had clear anti-Democratic/anti-Johns stances on. In my opinion, these outweighed the issue of the war.
Ok, I'm sorry if I haven't read this enough times in reference to my statement, but....please remind me, and kindly because I'm not poking fun or kidding around, what my statement had to do with voting for Bush, or especially the war in Iraq....

Furthermore, in our area (in the Midwest at least) there were 29 female accusers of the priest scandal, and I'm quite sure there were probably more than that around the nation. There were actually more female accusers that I heard of, regionally, than male.

Simonist']Ok, I'm sorry if I haven't read this enough times in reference to my statement, but....please remind me, and kindly because I'm not poking fun or kidding around, what my statement had to do with voting for Bush, or especially the war in Iraq....

Furthermore, in our area (in the Midwest at least) there were 29 female accusers of the priest scandal, and I'm quite sure there were probably more than that around the nation. There were actually more female accusers that I heard of, regionally, than male.

No offense taken. It's just that Bush, and his war, have far more support from conservatives/Republicans than liberals/Democrats, so I thought it was a safe jump... I edited my post to reflect your question.

And, as far as I've heard, the epicenters of the sex abuse scandal wasn't the Midwest but instead New England and California (and Canada), all very liberal places compared to the Midwest.

No offense taken. It's just that Bush, and his war, have far more support from conservatives/Republicans than liberals/Democrats, so I thought it was a safe jump... I edited my post to reflect your question.
Many thanks, makes way more sense to me.

Maybe it's because I was raised by an excommunicated activist (my Da was divorced -- no matter how new-age our Church is, they won't sit well with that), but I consider that though religion and politics are two separate realms in my life, they're probably of equal importance when neither of them are being discussed or questioned. I don't know how to explain that adequately, and I'm not sure my wording makes any sense, but I hope I got it across well enough.

My critics would do well to compare statistics of male accusers to female. Going off the facts is not homophobia. Inactive homosexual priests wouldn't have molested anyone because they were INACTIVE. I'm spoon-fed by the media as much as anyone else, but I've never heard of a female accuser, and I'm almost certain that male victims far outnumber female, so I doubt the problem was heterosexual in any large degree. Besides, if the molesters were heterosexual, why wasn't there this degree of molestation before the sixties? Don't confuse labeling with refutation; you do a great disservice to both of them.
And you might do well to read church history. There is a long history of priests breaking their vows throughout the middle ages, even the popes. Given the fact that this broke due to massive coverups, I think it would be safe to assume that the reason we did not hear of this before hand was due to massive coverups. It's rather like assuming that molestation and rape did not happen within the 1950's becuse it wasn't on the news. It did, you just never talked about it.

And you might do well to read church history. There is a long history of priests breaking their vows throughout the middle ages, even the popes. Given the fact that this broke due to massive coverups, I think it would be safe to assume that the reason we did not hear of this before hand was due to massive coverups. It's rather like assuming that molestation and rape did not happen within the 1950's becuse it wasn't on the news. It did, you just never talked about it.

We didn't "talk about it" until after the turn of the century. And we're not talking about sex abuses of the Middle Ages. We're talking about now. And unless the Church suddenly lost some vital part of its "covering-up agency," there really WEREN'T anywhere near as many abuses before the sexual revolution.

Simonist']Many thanks, makes way more sense to me.

Maybe it's because I was raised by an excommunicated activist (my Da was divorced -- no matter how new-age our Church is, they won't sit well with that), but I consider that though religion and politics are two separate realms in my life, they're probably of equal importance when neither of them are being discussed or questioned. I don't know how to explain that adequately, and I'm not sure my wording makes any sense, but I hope I got it across well enough.

I just think religion should trump politics when they're in conflict. Catholicism isn't an American institution, so Catholics can't technically keep themselves to one party because the issues are particularly American. Many Catholics do this anyways, just because it's more comfortable. A lot of Protestant sects in the US don't have this problem because they're uniquesly American. Also, the US Anglican church decided to endorse gay priesthood openly, and now they'll probably be excommunicated en masse from the worldwide Anglican communion.

Ihatevacations']After another "debate" on another forum (which consists of one evangelical guy - I assume baptist because of his beliefs and statements - usually going in and somehow relating the topic to religion and jumping down everyone's throats) I got the sudden urge to make a rant. As I was saying, one guy was telling everyone they were going to hell or something, and ANOTHER Christian called the rapture a heretical teaching and this rant struck me.

How can Christians even PRETEND to assert Christianity is the one, true religion when there are so many branches (over 100 recognized) of it with so many technical differences they sit around calling EACH OTHER heretics and fools? On what grounds can they go around trying to convert non-Christians, or even in some cases CATHOLICS, to their religion claiming to save peoples' immortal souls? They can't even on agree upon anything other specifics of their religion than "Jesus was the Christ and he died on the cross." Now granted, that may be a very important thing, but what abotu EVERYTHING ELSE. *In general* Christians go around trying to convert and convince other people to become Christian. Well, next time some one asks you to convert, ask them what branch of Christianity do they want you to convert to. Eastern Orthodox? Catholicism? Lutheran? Southern Baptist? Methodist? Anglican? WELL?! You obviously can't just accept Christ as your savior - that would be too easy, no, you have to get baptised one of the dozens of ways, and go to some church and take the eucharist in some sort of manner.


I don't see how Christianity can claim anything other than the "most numerous deviations for a single religion" reward, much less to be the religion that will save you from your sins (sins that are conveniantly defined for you by the Christian religion might I add). :headbang: Really, that is how I feel everytime I stop to consider all of this, in fact it might be a good part of the reason why I stopped being Christian, the whole bloody mess disgusts me.

I agree with you. All the different denominations are crazy. However, I think you may have missed the point:

Religion is not preached. Religion is accepted through personal discovery. All the churhces can preach to you, but if you have a firm stance and a close relationship with God, you will be able to allow the religion to be true to yourself, not to your church.

We didn't "talk about it" until after the turn of the century. And we're not talking about sex abuses of the Middle Ages. We're talking about now.
No, your statement read that sexual abuse within the church didn't start till after the sexual revolution of the 60's allowed gay men into the priesthood. My point is that this is false as there has been a long history of such abuses within the chuch going back quite a bit.

I agree with you. All the different denominations are crazy. However, I think you may have missed the point:

Religion is not preached. Religion is accepted through personal discovery. All the churhces can preach to you, but if you have a firm stance and a close relationship with God, you will be able to allow the religion to be true to yourself, not to your church.

I disagree with you. A church, as an institution and a body, is meant to be the represenative of Christ on Earth. Christ calls others to Himself through His body, not just individually.

I just think religion should trump politics when they're in conflict.
Oh, I meant to say that, my bad. When it's an issue of both religions and political nature, I'm more of a moralist -- I'd say at least 90% of the time I'm a Catholic before a Democratic Socialist, but once in a VERY GREAT while, there are some things that I think must prevail from a political front. For instance, I'm actually pro-choice in responsible situations (such as rape, extreme financial inability to either support or put up for adoption (which is a lot more common than many people would think), or danger to one or both parties), and that's something that almost no Catholics can understand my points on.

No, your statement read that sexual abuse within the church didn't start till after the sexual revolution of the 60's allowed gay men into the priesthood. My point is that this is false as there has been a long history of such abuses within the chuch going back quite a bit.

This entire thread has confined itself to the recent rash of accusations against child-molesting priests in the 60s and 70s and you take me to task for not SPECIFYING? Find me another post than yours which discusses the entire 2000-year history of the Church's sexual exploits and then I'll actually debate. Until then you're just expanding the thread past the point of meaningful debate.

I disagree with you. A church, as an institution and a body, is meant to be the represenative of Christ on Earth. Christ calls others to Himself through His body, not just individually.

But that is secondary to personal salvation and understanding of the religion, right? You have dedicated yourself to Christ, not to your church.

And if you do not first form your opinion, how will you be sure if the church is right or wrong?

I was raised Baptist... and now I loosely goto a catholic church. I don't really follow the evangelical groups, it's just not my form of worship, much of the reason why I left the southern Baptist church. But I myself consider mostly all of the churches, God's Houses and it is up to the individual to make up the mind of what church God is pulling them to.

One Christian stand point that should echo, is that the only thing that can send you to hell is by not believing in Christ. We shouldn't spend to much time on what church is better, but what church beings you closer to God. Like in revelations the letter to the seven churches. All the churches have a fault that keeps them from being close to God.

On the point of hell, I differ on. Christ is the only way to heaven and hell is a place absent from GOD. Well I believe that Hell has different levels and what most people believe as fire and brimstone isn't exactly where people can end up... though nothing is as great as heaven. Hell was not meant for man and was ment only as a punishment for the fallen angels. God would not send his beloved people, the jews to the fires of hell. If you have a good soul I believe you will end up in Paradise or also called Abraham bosom or in other pagan based religions the land of the dead.

I think those who do great evil deeds and they out way the good... those are the ones who go to hell.

Well, if it weren't for that doofus named Martin Luther, Christianity wouldn't have been torn to shreds and factions that give Christians a bad rep.

I myself am Catholic, and I believe that Catholicism is supreme amonst Christian divisions by the following reasons:

1) Catholicism leads the league in faithful with over 1 billion Catholics world-wide.
2) Catholics are morally sound as they are taught only to have sex in marriage, unlike those Protestant whores. Abstinence would prevent STD's and we're much happier.
3) The Catholic church is the most stable, with a well-structured hierarchy of elders who serve to guide the congregation down the path to righteousness. Divisions like Congregationalism and Unitarianism have no sense of direction and nearly an anarchical structure, with all of its followers having no sense of direction in life, often following paths to darkness and evil.

Take that you Reformationist bastards. Have fun in hell.


Hey! Since when has any protestant church advocated sex outside of marriage? I'm not protestant (nor am I catholic, I am one of the rare New Testament Christians :D) but that was mean!

Simonist']Oh, I meant to say that, my bad. When it's an issue of both religions and political nature, I'm more of a moralist -- I'd say at least 90% of the time I'm a Catholic before a Democratic Socialist, but once in a VERY GREAT while, there are some things that I think must prevail from a political front. For instance, I'm actually pro-choice in responsible situations (such as rape, extreme financial inability to either support or put up for adoption (which is a lot more common than many people would think), or danger to one or both parties), and that's something that almost no Catholics can understand my points on.

I had no idea you were Catholic! I am happy now.

Anyways.. it all seems to come back to abortion, doesn't it? In terms of rape, I think abortion is a mistake more than a deliberate evil, because it denies God any chance to make good come out of the evil of the rape itself. Also, because nobody is psychic, abortion based on projected inability to provide for the child is an act of distrust of God's Providence - a failure to trust that "God will provide." Finally, in extreme cases of danger to one or both parties, I am with you. If the baby's birth will cause the mother to die, it's a toss-up. The child has more potential than the mother does societally, but without a mother its human development is put severely at risk. If the baby's birth will cause both to die, abort abort abort. Life is sacred, but killing two people to save one principle is over-the-top. The baby's death is still evil, but it is the lesser of two.

That's my basic premise: granted the highest value of Life, which is the lesser of two evils?

I just think religion should trump politics when they're in conflict.

I cant agree with that. Politics will always have people presenting facts in the debates that people can debunk or prove true. Religion brings in a bunch of claims which can't truely be proven and asks people to take a leap of faith and believe. That and not everyone agrees on what the same religion is. Would you like it if there was a majority of a religion that was completely the opposite of yours and it began legislating its morals on you?

Also, because nobody is psychic, abortion based on projected inability to provide for the child is an act of distrust of God's Providence - a failure to trust that "God will provide."
I honestly usually don't know which way to go on this, as well....I mean, it's "safe" to assume that if somebody can't afford the hospital bills for a birth or the adoption and lawyer fees, they won't be able to afford to raise and properly rear the child. However, there is always the chance that it will work out -- and that makes it completely tricky.

Amazingly, my priest is on my side of the abortion debate....creates quite a unique discussion when members of the congregation bring it up to him :D

But that is secondary to personal salvation and understanding of the religion, right? You have dedicated yourself to Christ, not to your church.

And if you do not first form your opinion, how will you be sure if the church is right or wrong?

My Church claims to be the voice and presence of Christ on Earth. And I believe it. Therefore I see no distinction except when personal opinion challenges Church teaching.

If my Church is "wrong" in my eyes, then I am claiming to be the voice of Christ instead. I'm not that vain.

On a side note, sola fide is held to be heretical because it effectively claims all Catholic teaching which isn't explicitly Biblical to be false. If it's false, then the Church isn't the voice of Christ. This solves the question of why divine intervention is so rare nowadays comared to the times of Israel. Why does God need to do miracles all willy-nilly if His Mystical Body (and His True Presence in the Eucharist) is already present on Earth? If Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter, then the Church has the authority in every age until the Second Coming.

I cant agree with that. Politics will always have people presenting facts in the debates that people can debunk or prove true. Religion brings in a bunch of claims which can't truely be proven and asks people to take a leap of faith and believe. That and not everyone agrees on what the same religion is. Would you like it if there was a majority of a religion that was completely the opposite of yours and it began legislating its morals on you?

I believe the term for something that can be truly proven is "science." There's a reason that there are different religions: nobody's sure they're sure. But they have to choose something. Whether is organized religion, individual spirituality, or slavery to materialism, "you gotta serve somebody."

On a side note, sola fide is held to be heretical because it effectively claims all Catholic teaching which isn't explicitly Biblical to be false. If it's false, then the Church isn't the voice of Christ.
This also addresses, indirectly, the issue of Papal Infallibility. A lot of people mistakenly assume this is related to all matters, that the Church can dictate our life -- not true. However, because the Pope is the closest Earthly link we have to God, and he's God's Greatest Servant, what He says in matters of faith, we accept. There are, of course, various failsafes.....say Benedict, for instance (and I say this merely because I'm still on the wall about him), comes out publically wishing the Church to condemn Harry Potter and other such works (I know, it wouldn't happen in a religious way, but we already know he doesn't like 'em).....personally, I think that's rubbish. That's why the Pope also has to be a great diplomat -- Divine or not, he has to be careful not to turn Catholics away from him, and thereby turn them away from God.

Hey! Since when has any protestant church advocated sex outside of marriage? I'm not protestant (nor am I catholic, I am one of the rare New Testament Christians :D) but that was mean!

What the deuce is a New Testament Christian? It sounds pretty redundant to me, since Christianity was founded by Christ, who is mentioned only in the New Testament books.

I believe the term for something that can be truly proven is "science." There's a reason that there are different religions: nobody's sure they're sure. But they have to choose something. Whether is organized religion, individual spirituality, or slavery to materialism, "you gotta serve somebody."

Really well I'm agnostic so I dont choose to serve anyone. How do you explain that?

My Church claims to be the voice and presence of Christ on Earth. And I believe it. Therefore I see no distinction except when personal opinion challenges Church teaching.

If my Church is "wrong" in my eyes, then I am claiming to be the voice of Christ instead. I'm not that vain.

On a side note, sola fide is held to be heretical because it effectively claims all Catholic teaching which isn't explicitly Biblical to be false. If it's false, then the Church isn't the voice of Christ. This solves the question of why divine intervention is so rare nowadays comared to the times of Israel. Why does God need to do miracles all willy-nilly if His Mystical Body (and His True Presence in the Eucharist) is already present on Earth? If Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter, then the Church has the authority,
That was then. Today there are a million different types of churches. It is therefore important today that you hold a view of yourself - and then ask for opinion, from your church, from other Christians whatever.

If you're Catholic, then I get you. I have been assuming you are Prostestant...

But remember that Church people are also human. You can't listen to the "Church", because a "Church" is a physically nonexistent concept. You listen to your church leaders, and church leaders are as prone to sin as you and I. It's better to question than to believe like *click* that.

I believe the term for somthing that can be truly proven is "science."

Heh, Science has alot of theories to it as well... what they can treat us for now days could be proven to have shorten our live span in 20 years from now. When it comes to the past, the human mind\body and medicine... it's all theories.

Simonist']This also addresses, indirectly, the issue of Papal Infallibility. A lot of people mistakenly assume this is related to all matters, that the Church can dictate our life -- not true. However, because the Pope is the closest Earthly link we have to God, and he's God's Greatest Servant, what He says in matters of faith, we accept. There are, of course, various failsafes.....say Benedict, for instance (and I say this merely because I'm still on the wall about him), comes out publically wishing the Church to condemn Harry Potter and other such works (I know, it wouldn't happen in a religious way, but we already know he doesn't like 'em).....personally, I think that's rubbish. That's why the Pope also has to be a great diplomat -- Divine or not, he has to be careful not to turn Catholics away from him, and thereby turn them away from God.

This is also why they make it very clear when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra (as the head of the Church on an official matter of faith), and when he's just expressing the opinions that he holds like the rest of us do.

Heh, Science has alot of theories to it as well... what they can treat us for now days could be proven to have shorten our live span in 20 years from now. When it comes to the past, the human mind\body and medicine... it's all theories.

A scientific theory is different than a laymans theory. When we say we have a theory on something, we actually have a hypothesis. A scientific theory has already gone through the Scientific Method.

What the deuce is a New Testament Christian? It sounds pretty redundant to me, since Christianity was founded by Christ, who is mentioned only in the New Testament books.


One who follows the example of the Christian churches in the New Testament, prior to Catholicism.

This is also why they make it very clear when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra (as the head of the Church on an official matter of faith), and when he's just expressing the opinions that he holds like the rest of us do.
Thanks, forgot to mention that. I tend to assume what people do and don't know, and didn't realize until I saw your post that it might not be common knowledge.

One who follows the example of the Christian churches in the New Testament, prior to Catholicism.
Wait -- Catholicism was the first. Hence the other churches being Protestants. Wha.....I'm so baffled.

That was then. Today there are a million different types of churches. It is therefore important today that you hold a view of yourself - and then ask for opinion, from your church, from other Christians whatever.

If you're Catholic, then I get you. I have been assuming you are Prostestant...

But remember that Church people are also human. You can't listen to the "Church", because a "Church" is a physically nonexistent concept. You listen to your church leaders, and church leaders are as prone to sin as you and I. It's better to question than to believe like *click* that.

It's true that the Church is an abstract concept, and that it is made up of fallible people, but it is still the Bride of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit. If the Church says it's so, I'm more inclined to believe than to doubt.

Well, if it weren't for that doofus named Martin Luther, Christianity wouldn't have been torn to shreds and factions that give Christians a bad rep.

I myself am Catholic, and I believe that Catholicism is supreme amonst Christian divisions by the following reasons:

1) Catholicism leads the league in faithful with over 1 billion Catholics world-wide.
2) Catholics are morally sound as they are taught only to have sex in marriage, unlike those Protestant whores. Abstinence would prevent STD's and we're much happier.
3) The Catholic church is the most stable, with a well-structured hierarchy of elders who serve to guide the congregation down the path to righteousness. Divisions like Congregationalism and Unitarianism have no sense of direction and nearly an anarchical structure, with all of its followers having no sense of direction in life, often following paths to darkness and evil.

Take that you Reformationist bastards. Have fun in hell.

lets not forget why martin luther started the reformation, the catholic church was selling people entry into heaven, telling people that the more gold you gave, the less time youd have to spend in purgatory, the catholic church was messed up along time ago, and due to the few pedofile priests still has somewhat of a bad name. Also every church ive been too has never told people they can have sex outside of marriage.

I just wish people would stop crying and arguing over what denomination they are and worry about their relationship with god, if the church is structured around the bible, then why cant people just read the bible and do what it says , now i know their are a few hundred versions of the bible but they all have the same central message, Jesus christ died for your sins so you could get reconnected with god.

also just as something else, You christians who tell someone they're going to hell, dont get pissed off when people hate you, Jesus preached on how to connect with god, and all you are doing is making people hate god, it sounds weird but you can tell someone about jesus without making them feel angry or guilty. IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO BECOME CHRISTIANS, START ACTING LIKE ONE. For the record i am christian and practice it regularily.

Simonist']Dante's work was actually regarded as politically geared at the time; every level of Hell that he detailed, and the sins that lead to that, was geared at a member of what he viewed as his opposition. The Catholic Church does not recognize Dante's Divine Comedy as dogma, and no respectable Church leader would ever point to it and say "Yup, that's how it goes". That would be as foolish as saying that The Da Vinci Code would be accepted as fact by the Church.

While it is true that Dante had some alterior motives, and that he took some degree of poetic liscence, it is nevertheless also true that his work was based firmly on Catholic teaching, and his work was accepted as useful for teaching the laity by the Catholic Church. The comparison to the Da Vinci code is completely out of line. It is a shade less exaggerated than comparing Malleus Malefecarum to Harry Potter when talking about Church teaching on witchcraft.

That was then. Today there are a million different types of churches. It is therefore important today that you hold a view of yourself - and then ask for opinion, from your church, from other Christians whatever.

If you're Catholic, then I get you. I have been assuming you are Prostestant...

But remember that Church people are also human. You can't listen to the "Church", because a "Church" is a physically nonexistent concept. You listen to your church leaders, and church leaders are as prone to sin as you and I. It's better to question than to believe like *click* that.

I agree, with you. To be Christian it is our job to educate ourselves and read the bible. We shouldn't rely on other men to teach us what we should know when it comes to things biblical. We the people of Christ are the church / (temple). When it comes to our judgement, we will have to carry our sins and if the church is doing something wrong we must point it out or we will be brought down by its (our churches) sins...

lets not forget why martin luther started the reformation, the catholic church was selling people entry into heaven

Whoa, I don't think the Church ever tried to perpetrate such a monstrosity. You cannot bribe your way into Heaven, and I don't think the Church would be brazen enough to pretend that you could.

Simonist']Wait -- Catholicism was the first. Hence the other churches being Protestants. Wha.....I'm so baffled.

Catholicism CLAIMS to be the first. Those in power write the history books.

Simonist']Wait -- Catholicism was the first. Hence the other churches being Protestants. Wha.....I'm so baffled.



Actually, Catholicism evolved out of the original church.

Whoa, I don't think the Church ever tried to perpetrate such a monstrosity. You cannot bribe your way into Heaven, and I don't think the Church would be brazen enough to pretend that you could.

But they did. They 'sold' people 'entrance into Heaven'. All they actually did was take the peoples money, but they claimed you would go to Heaven because of it.

Simonist']This also addresses, indirectly, the issue of Papal Infallibility. A lot of people mistakenly assume this is related to all matters, that the Church can dictate our life -- not true. However, because the Pope is the closest Earthly link we have to God, and he's God's Greatest Servant, what He says in matters of faith, we accept. There are, of course, various failsafes.....say Benedict, for instance (and I say this merely because I'm still on the wall about him), comes out publically wishing the Church to condemn Harry Potter and other such works (I know, it wouldn't happen in a religious way, but we already know he doesn't like 'em).....personally, I think that's rubbish. That's why the Pope also has to be a great diplomat -- Divine or not, he has to be careful not to turn Catholics away from him, and thereby turn them away from God.

You are absolutely right, the Pope must be so much more than just a theologian (although it doesn't hurt). The main thing is to not just say, "the Church is against this, how dumb!" but to actually look at WHY they're against it. I took a look at the Harry Potter issue actually, and I have all 5 books. The argument actually makes a lot of sense. I know it's way off-thread, but here's how I understand it:

Harry Potter has a dichotomy between good and evil. It's based on the real-world dichotomy, but it's simplified and distorted. Specifically, it passes off Harry and his friends as good by contrasting them with a one-dimensional, absolute, and irredeemable evil: Voldemort. I've often wondered why he isn't more nuanced, and now I think I have a better idea: if he wasn't totally evil, Harry & co. would end up looking rather tarnished themselves: after all, the 'heroes' have no qualms about breaking rules right and left and generally showing deep disrespect for authority. The 'good' teachers let this slide, partly because Harry is a kind of Jesus figure as well as a sort of talisman against Voldemort. More importantly (and this is the part I don't get as much), achievement in Harry's world of wizardry isn't measured by service or values or spiritual maturity, but by arcane and occult knowledge and the power it provides. So Harry Potter is essentially Gnostic. It isn't book-burning material, but the moral landscape it paints is skewed several degrees off center. (Hopefully this wasn't too preachy.)

Harry Potter has a dichotomy between good and evil. It's based on the real-world dichotomy, but it's simplified and distorted. Specifically, it passes off Harry and his friends as good by contrasting them with a one-dimensional, absolute, and irredeemable evil: Voldemort. I've often wondered why he isn't more nuanced, and now I think I have a better idea: if he wasn't totally evil, Harry & co. would end up looking rather tarnished themselves: after all, the 'heroes' have no qualms about breaking rules right and left and generally showing deep disrespect for authority. The 'good' teachers let this slide, partly because Harry is a kind of Jesus figure as well as a sort of talisman against Voldemort. More importantly (and this is the part I don't get as much), achievement in Harry's world of wizardry isn't measured by service or values or spiritual maturity, but by arcane and occult knowledge and the power it provides. So Harry Potter is essentially Gnostic. It isn't book-burning material, but the moral landscape it paints is skewed several degrees off center. (Hopefully this wasn't too preachy.)
You do realize Pope John Paul II gave Harry Potter a clean bill of health so to say? Nice try at explaining bullshit though

Really well I'm agnostic so I dont choose to serve anyone. How do you explain that?

I don't know, you haven't given any info as to what's important in you life. That's usually your God.

That was then. Today there are a million different types of churches. It is therefore important today that you hold a view of yourself - and then ask for opinion, from your church, from other Christians whatever.

If you're Catholic, then I get you. I have been assuming you are Prostestant...

But remember that Church people are also human. You can't listen to the "Church", because a "Church" is a physically nonexistent concept. You listen to your church leaders, and church leaders are as prone to sin as you and I. It's better to question than to believe like *click* that.

Church leaders are sinful, as we all are. But we Catholics have this neat thing called ex cathedra which says that sometimes the Pope isn't.

Please quote me a Catholic article of dogma which is independent from reason.

Since you asked, let's talk for a moment about church teaching on the relationship between marriage, sex, and procreation.

Now, according to Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic tradition teaches that the natural function of sex is procreation; sex's purpose is to create children. Therefore, according to Aquinas' reasoning, all sexual activity that does not result in procreation is not just immoral, but unnatural as well; hence the Vatican's condemnation of the evils of masturbation.

Furthering that line of thought, Church teaching today is that families are the best means of raising the product of that procreative act. Hence, sex should only be engaged in within the contexts of marriage.

Ah, but wait a minute. There are many marriages in which sex seems to have a purpose, but not one of procreation. Infertile couples marry and have sex, for instance, even have what certainly seems to be "purposeful" sex, in the sense that it serves to cement a loving relationship. But according to what Aquinas laid down, this sex is nonetheless unnatural and a contravention of natural law (otherwise known as what people would naturally do on their own absent the existance of evil in the world).

Now, for most people, myself included, this might well constitute a good logical counterexample for Aquinas' proposition, because it creates an inconsistent triangle:

1) The purpose of sex is procreation.
2) Procreation should only happen in the contexts of marriage.
3) People have purposeful sex in marriage that does not involve procreation.

One of those things, from a rational perspective, has to go. But Catholic tradition does not allow for mere observation to intercede with its teachings. Thus, dogma seems to trump reason in this instance, because while Aquinas had a good argument, that argument rests on observations of the world (The purpose of sex is procreation) that just doesn't seem to be true.

You are absolutely right, the Pope must be so much more than just a theologian (although it doesn't hurt). The main thing is to not just say, "the Church is against this, how dumb!" but to actually look at WHY they're against it. I took a look at the Harry Potter issue actually, and I have all 5 books. The argument actually makes a lot of sense. I know it's way off-thread, but here's how I understand it:

Harry Potter has a dichotomy between good and evil. It's based on the real-world dichotomy, but it's simplified and distorted. Specifically, it passes off Harry and his friends as good by contrasting them with a one-dimensional, absolute, and irredeemable evil: Voldemort. I've often wondered why he isn't more nuanced, and now I think I have a better idea: if he wasn't totally evil, Harry & co. would end up looking rather tarnished themselves: after all, the 'heroes' have no qualms about breaking rules right and left and generally showing deep disrespect for authority. The 'good' teachers let this slide, partly because Harry is a kind of Jesus figure as well as a sort of talisman against Voldemort. More importantly (and this is the part I don't get as much), achievement in Harry's world of wizardry isn't measured by service or values or spiritual maturity, but by arcane and occult knowledge and the power it provides. So Harry Potter is essentially Gnostic. It isn't book-burning material, but the moral landscape it paints is skewed several degrees off center. (Hopefully this wasn't too preachy.)

You know, maybe it's 'off center of your moral landscape', but that doesn't mean it's evil. It's fiction, and if you don't realize that, go back to first grade. I mean if you have a mental handicap, I'd understand, but at the reading level Harry potter is at, you should know the difference beween "real" and "Fake".

Catholicism CLAIMS to be the first. Those in power write the history books.

Aww... looks like you've been reading a little too much Dan Brown.

Aww... looks like you've been reading a little too much Dan Brown.
Looks like you have been doing a little too much excusing

Ihatevacations']You do realize Pope John Paul II gave Harry Potter a clean bill of health so to say? Nice try at explaining bullshit though
You're entitled to your own opinion. and so am I.

Harry Potter has a dichotomy between good and evil. It's based on the real-world dichotomy, but it's simplified and distorted. Specifically, it passes off Harry and his friends as good by contrasting them with a one-dimensional, absolute, and irredeemable evil: Voldemort. I've often wondered why he isn't more nuanced, and now I think I have a better idea: if he wasn't totally evil, Harry & co. would end up looking rather tarnished themselves: after all, the 'heroes' have no qualms about breaking rules right and left and generally showing deep disrespect for authority. The 'good' teachers let this slide, partly because Harry is a kind of Jesus figure as well as a sort of talisman against Voldemort. More importantly (and this is the part I don't get as much), achievement in Harry's world of wizardry isn't measured by service or values or spiritual maturity, but by arcane and occult knowledge and the power it provides. So Harry Potter is essentially Gnostic. It isn't book-burning material, but the moral landscape it paints is skewed several degrees off center. (Hopefully this wasn't too preachy.)
Agreed. I did my senior research paper in high school comparing/contrasting the religious imagery between Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia (which was a specifically guided Christian work). I found that not only was the rift of good and evil totally skewed, but also that there are a lot of psychos out there that believe that Harry is representative of evil and that Lucius Malfoy is representative of Gabriel, Biblically speaking.......weird.

Vacations - just because a previous Pope said something unofficially, doesn't mean that not only all Catholics believe this, but also that the new Pope believes or endorses it. It's actually a pretty major topic in my circles right now.

Xenophobia - all I was pointing out was that the Church doesn't acknowledge Dante's work as dogmatic. Sorry to offend you or what-not with a comparison I figured most UNINFORMED people would understand -- furthermore, just because they instructed the laity on Hell with it does not make it a true Catholic representation of Hell. Especially not with all the changes Vatican II has made since the 50's.

Aww... looks like you've been reading a little too much Dan Brown.

Awwww. To bad I've never even read the back cover of a Dan Brown book, or even touched one.

You're entitled to your own opinion. and so am I.
What opinion? You were trying to explain away the bullshit of Pope Catholic bulldog condemning Harry Potter, all I do is counter with the FACT that John Paul II gave Harry Potter his blessing and suggested it promoted good values

just because a previous Pope said something unofficially, doesn't mean that not only all Catholics believe this, but also that the new Pope believes or endorses it.
Did this jsut not make sense to anyone but me

You are absolutely right, the Pope must be so much more than just a theologian (although it doesn't hurt). The main thing is to not just say, "the Church is against this, how dumb!" but to actually look at WHY they're against it. I took a look at the Harry Potter issue actually, and I have all 5 books. The argument actually makes a lot of sense. I know it's way off-thread, but here's how I understand it:

Harry Potter has a dichotomy between good and evil. It's based on the real-world dichotomy, but it's simplified and distorted. Specifically, it passes off Harry and his friends as good by contrasting them with a one-dimensional, absolute, and irredeemable evil: Voldemort. I've often wondered why he isn't more nuanced, and now I think I have a better idea: if he wasn't totally evil, Harry & co. would end up looking rather tarnished themselves: after all, the 'heroes' have no qualms about breaking rules right and left and generally showing deep disrespect for authority. The 'good' teachers let this slide, partly because Harry is a kind of Jesus figure as well as a sort of talisman against Voldemort. More importantly (and this is the part I don't get as much), achievement in Harry's world of wizardry isn't measured by service or values or spiritual maturity, but by arcane and occult knowledge and the power it provides. So Harry Potter is essentially Gnostic. It isn't book-burning material, but the moral landscape it paints is skewed several degrees off center. (Hopefully this wasn't too preachy.)

That isn't entirely, or even partly, correct. While Harry does break rules, he does so always out of an overriding quest for what is right. He broke the rules concerning the actual practice of anti-dark arts spells in Book V because he wanted his friends trained against Voldemort, while the rule was put in place because of a political battle between the leader of the witches and Albus Dumbledore (said leader was concerned about Dumbledore's creating of an army of spellcasters to oppose him personally rather than what was actually good for those spellcasters). This to me seems perfectly in line with Augustine's maxim: "An unjust law is no law."

Whoa, I don't think the Church ever tried to perpetrate such a monstrosity. You cannot bribe your way into Heaven, and I don't think the Church would be brazen enough to pretend that you could.

you may not think that, but the church way back in feudal times was pulled around by kings, countries, and their own bishops. why was the vatican moved to france, because the frech people wanted it there, why did monks, and bishops go to war, because they had to obey their lords, who somtimes were not of the church, the church was just as corrupt as most governments are today, maybe not anymore because people can read the bible and know what it says, but back then, people may have been catholic but to them all it was, was a name, a label, just like Liberal and Conservative are today. the catholic church was like the law back then, do you honestly think they got the money to build everything they did by tithes and offerings, no they taxed the land their monasteries were on, and they convinced people tithing would lessen your "term" in purgatory.

Since you asked, let's talk for a moment about church teaching on the relationship between marriage, sex, and procreation.

Now, according to Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic tradition teaches that the natural function of sex is procreation; sex's purpose is to create children. Therefore, according to Aquinas' reasoning, all sexual activity that does not result in procreation is not just immoral, but unnatural as well; hence the Vatican's condemnation of the evils of masturbation.

Furthering that line of thought, Church teaching today is that families are the best means of raising the product of that procreative act. Hence, sex should only be engaged in within the contexts of marriage.

Ah, but wait a minute. There are many marriages in which sex seems to have a purpose, but not one of procreation. Infertile couples marry and have sex, for instance, even have what certainly seems to be "purposeful" sex, in the sense that it serves to cement a loving relationship. But according to what Aquinas laid down, this sex is nonetheless unnatural and a contravention of natural law (otherwise known as what people would naturally do on their own absent the existance of evil in the world).

Now, for most people, myself included, this might well constitute a good logical counterexample for Aquinas' proposition, because it creates an inconsistent triangle:

1) The purpose of sex is procreation.
2) Procreation should only happen in the contexts of marriage.
3) People have purposeful sex in marriage that does not involve procreation.

One of those things, from a rational perspective, has to go. But Catholic tradition does not allow for mere observation to intercede with its teachings. Thus, dogma seems to trump reason in this instance, because while Aquinas had a good argument, that argument rests on observations of the world (The purpose of sex is procreation) that just doesn't seem to be true.

Now my question is why you've stopped at Aquinas. Even then, I can go all medieval on you and say that yes, a marriage without possibility of procreation is technically invalid; have you ever heard of "annulment due to non-consummation"? Seriously though, if sex isn't for procreation what is it for? It's pleasurable because the outcome (CHILDREN) is desirable from a genetic viewpoint. We are earthly beings and God has built this hardware into us, praise and thanks to Him. Pleasure/companionship is secondary. Infertility is evil, though a natural and not a personal evil. Personally I have never heard any contemporary Church doctrine saying that infertile couples are completely ineligible for marriage; you'd have to ask someone wiser that I.

Ihatevacations']What opinion? You were trying to explain away the bullshit of Pope Catholic bulldog condemning Harry Potter, all I do is counter with the FACT that John Paul II gave Harry Potter his blessing and suggested it promoted good values


Did this jsut not make sense to anyone but me
Okay, let me explain. The LATE Pope said Harry Potter's cool. He didn't say it in terms of officially passing Dogmatic Law -- he just suggested, off the record, that it promoted good values. The NEW Pope, who everybody knows HATES Harry Potter, may very well come out with a statement to the contrary. Already, many Catholics disagree with John Paul II's stance on the book.

Does it make sense now?

You know, maybe it's 'off center of your moral landscape', but that doesn't mean it's evil. It's fiction, and if you don't realize that, go back to first grade. I mean if you have a mental handicap, I'd understand, but at the reading level Harry potter is at, you should know the difference beween "real" and "Fake".


As long as harry doesn't follow a particular god, I have no problems with it... it's just a simple children’s book... but it may lead them into the interest of the occult :/, argh now I am unsure of my position.

Since you asked, let's talk for a moment about church teaching on the relationship between marriage, sex, and procreation.

Now, according to Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic tradition teaches that the natural function of sex is procreation; sex's purpose is to create children. Therefore, according to Aquinas' reasoning, all sexual activity that does not result in procreation is not just immoral, but unnatural as well; hence the Vatican's condemnation of the evils of masturbation.

Furthering that line of thought, Church teaching today is that families are the best means of raising the product of that procreative act. Hence, sex should only be engaged in within the contexts of marriage.

Ah, but wait a minute. There are many marriages in which sex seems to have a purpose, but not one of procreation. Infertile couples marry and have sex, for instance, even have what certainly seems to be "purposeful" sex, in the sense that it serves to cement a loving relationship. But according to what Aquinas laid down, this sex is nonetheless unnatural and a contravention of natural law (otherwise known as what people would naturally do on their own absent the existance of evil in the world).

Now, for most people, myself included, this might well constitute a good logical counterexample for Aquinas' proposition, because it creates an inconsistent triangle:

1) The purpose of sex is procreation.
2) Procreation should only happen in the contexts of marriage.
3) People have purposeful sex in marriage that does not involve procreation.

One of those things, from a rational perspective, has to go. But Catholic tradition does not allow for mere observation to intercede with its teachings. Thus, dogma seems to trump reason in this instance, because while Aquinas had a good argument, that argument rests on observations of the world (The purpose of sex is procreation) that just doesn't seem to be true.

Now my question is why you've stopped at Aquinas. Even then, I can go all medieval on you and say that yes, a marriage without possibility of procreation is technically invalid; have you ever heard of "annulment due to non-consummation"? Seriously though, if sex isn't for procreation what is it for? It's pleasurable because the outcome (CHILDREN) is desirable from a genetic viewpoint. We are earthly beings and God has built this hardware into us, praise and thanks to Him. Pleasure/companionship is secondary. Infertility is evil, though a natural and not a personal evil. Personally I have never heard any contemporary Church doctrine saying that infertile couples are completely ineligible for marriage; you'd have to ask someone wiser than I.

Simonist']Okay, let me explain. The LATE Pope said Harry Potter's cool. He didn't say it in terms of officially passing Dogmatic Law -- he just suggested, off the record, that it promoted good values. The NEW Pope, who everybody knows HATES Harry Potter, may very well come out with a statement to the contrary. Already, many Catholics disagree with John Paul II's stance on the book.

Does it make sense now?
The catholic bulldog will end up undonig years of catholic ideals and dogma. I don't see how he got appointed, he was a controversial nut as a cardinal

Ihatevacations']The catholic bulldog will end up undonig years of catholic ideals and dogma. I don't see how he got appointed, he was a controversial nut as a cardinal
That has nothing to do with our discussion. Right now I'm only concerned if I adequately explained this to you, so please answer me.

Simonist']
Xenophobia - all I was pointing out was that the Church doesn't acknowledge Dante's work as dogmatic. Sorry to offend you or what-not with a comparison I figured most UNINFORMED people would understand -- furthermore, just because they instructed the laity on Hell with it does not make it a true Catholic representation of Hell. Especially not with all the changes Vatican II has made since the 50's.

Sorry if I came across as offended. I get a little strident sometimes.

I would agree that the Church doesn't and never has taken Dante to be Gospel, in the sense of "Oh yeah, Bishop of Venice, well let's see what Purgatorio has to say about your argument", nor would I argue that Vatican II hasn't dramatically changed things. But it is overreaching quite a bit to say that it doesn't stay pretty accurate to both Church teaching of the time, and what remained Church teaching for the next several hundred years afterwards. The fact that they not only failed to condemn it during the Inquisition, when they were banning books for stating that triangles have three sides, but actually used it in their universities for literary study, in my mind speaks for itself as to how accurate it is.

Now my question is why you've stopped at Aquinas. Even then, I can go all medieval on you and say that yes, a marriage without possibility of procreation is technically invalid; have you ever heard of "annulment due to non-consummation"? Seriously though, if sex isn't for procreation what is it for? It's pleasurable because the outcome (CHILDREN) is desirable from a genetic viewpoint. We are earthly beings and God has built this hardware into us, praise and thanks to Him. Pleasure/companionship is secondary. Infertility is evil, though a natural and not a personal evil. Personally I have never heard any contemporary Church doctrine saying that infertile couples are completely ineligible for marriage; you'd have to ask someone wiser than I.

Wait, we can only do things because of why we naturally do them, or it's evil? I guess people taking showers everyday are evil, since we don't naturally take showers. And deodorent is evil because it masks smells that are naturally used to attract the opposite sex.

Sorry if I came across as offended. I get a little strident sometimes.

I would agree that the Church doesn't and never has taken Dante to be Gospel, in the sense of "Oh yeah, Bishop of Venice, well let's see what Purgatorio has to say about your argument", nor would I argue that Vatican II hasn't dramatically changed things. But it is overreaching quite a bit to say that it doesn't stay pretty accurate to both Church teaching of the time, and what remained Church teaching for the next several hundred years afterwards. The fact that they not only failed to condemn it during the Inquisition, when they were banning books for stating that triangles have three sides, but actually used it in their universities for literary study, in my mind speaks for itself as to how accurate it is.
I agree, it is accurate, and I understand why they didn't want it taught in our public schools here, but I'm just tired of people treating it like another book of the Bible, y'know? :D

Ihatevacations']The catholic bulldog will end up undonig years of catholic ideals and dogma. I don't see how he got appointed, he was a controversial nut as a cardinal


Hmm, I consider us to be in the stages of the end time... so undoing a few years isn't going to effect our down slope in the world... Isn't this suppose to be our last pope, or close to our last pope? someone did a line of all the popes who were to be selected and I believe we are close to the end. not that I follow that type of things.. But by looking around I don't see things lasting for to long.. I give the earth another 120 years or something lol :P

Hmm, I consider us to be in the stages of the end time... so undoing a few years isn't going to effect our down slope in the world... Isn't this suppose to be our last pope, or close to our last pope? someone did a line of all the popes who were to be selected and I believe we are close to the end. not that I follow that type of things.. But by looking around I don't see things lasting for to long.. I give the earth another 120 years or something lol :P
At least we won't have to wait long for Judgement after we die..... :p

Wait, we can only do things because of why we naturally do them, or it's evil? I guess people taking showers everyday are evil, since we don't naturally take showers. And deodorent is evil because it masks smells that are naturally used to attract the opposite sex.

From my understanding of the bible, God made sex pleasurable for a reason. Any sex between a husband and a wife, wither it is for procreation or keeping the relationship interesting is deemed "Holy".

That's why God didn't want man to be alone, we were made to be with a mate.

Codex Da Vinci cloaca est :p

<3

Now my question is why you've stopped at Aquinas. Even then, I can go all medieval on you and say that yes, a marriage without possibility of procreation is technically invalid; have you ever heard of "annulment due to non-consummation"? Seriously though, if sex isn't for procreation what is it for? It's pleasurable because the outcome (CHILDREN) is desirable from a genetic viewpoint. We are earthly beings and God has built this hardware into us, praise and thanks to Him. Pleasure/companionship is secondary. Infertility is evil, though a natural and not a personal evil. Personally I have never heard any contemporary Church doctrine saying that infertile couples are completely ineligible for marriage; you'd have to ask someone wiser than I.

They don't, but it falls out of what they do say and what Aquinas argued for. If it is true that the purpose of sexual behavior is procreation, then it must follow that non-procreative sexual behavior is unnatural. Sex between two infertile people is non-procreative sexual behavior. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that sex between two infertile people is unnatural. The fact that the Church doesn't specifically talk about this is probably because they recognize that this is a problem, but the Popes have already been on record about what they think of other non-procreative sexual behavior, and don't want to give the appearance of fallibility (forgetting of course that this is the supreme instance of fallibility).

Yes, I have heard of non-consummation, but it has to do with not having sex, not about whether or not you have children. Hence the fact that Henry VIII was unable to get a divorce from Catherine of Aragon for non-consummation despite about 20 miscarriages after giving birth to one girl who eventually became Bloody Mary, while he was able to get an annulment for non-consummation from Ann of Long Cleeve because he didn't want to have sex with the woman he called "The Mare of Flanders" (keep in mind that he was technically Anglican when he married Ann, but he had not changed marriage practices over from the conversion to Anglicanism, so the same rules apply).

As a side note, I talk about Aquinas primarily because that is where most Church teaching on the subject of sex comes from, and not without reason: Aquinas was probably the finest Christian theologian ever. You wouldn't think on the face of it that Jewish and Christian thinking could ever merge with Aristotelian paripatetics, but Aquinas managed it pretty well.

If you read your history like every one should... before the the Martin Luther Discrepancy, there was only one view... and it was only after Martin Luther broke that all these new branches seemed to come out of the woodwork... hrm... think on it hard.... ;)

If you read your history like every one should... before the the Martin Luther Discrepancy, there was only one view... and it was only after Martin Luther broke that all these new branches seemed to come out of the woodwork... hrm... think on it hard.... ;)

There needed to be a changed in the church. Some of Martin's words were off I think, but it got the job done. As Christians we should be more liberal and be a way to help our brothers. The old church was selling peoples lives and bring them down. But Also I do not think it was right for a total rebellion, peaceful out brings and slow change would have been best.

If you read your history like every one should... before the the Martin Luther Discrepancy, there was only one view... and it was only after Martin Luther broke that all these new branches seemed to come out of the woodwork... hrm... think on it hard.... ;)
Read some history. When Constantine converted, there were already more denominations, sects and cults of Christianity than you could poke a stick at.

There needed to be a changed in the church. Some of Martin's words were off I think, but it got the job done. As Christians we should be more liberal and be a way to help our brothers. The old church was selling peoples lives and bring them down. But Also I do not think it was right for a total rebellion, peaceful out brings and slow change would have been best.
Martin Luther didn't try a rebellion. He posted his theses on the door of a church, and the Catholic church hunted him down. He had to hide under an asumed name so he wouldn't be caught and killed.

And by the way.... those two schisms...the Orthodox branch of the church is still ACCEPTED by the church... they still have all the rites and valid sacraments in the church... if a Catholic wanted to he could attend an Orthodox mass and fulfill his religious obligations without penalty of sin.

Second, the pedophiles... I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, or i'll be labeled a conspiracy theorist or whatever, but many of the people who were allowed into the seminaries were homosexual to start with, it is a willfull breach of security, pried open by negative forces and persons who wish to see the Church crumble.

Third, About it's crumbling... let's do the math, if most of the people who have wanted to see the chruch crumble have been trying for over two thousand years, (staring with the 300 persecution by the Roman Emperors) then with various internal attacks and splits that have always healed themselves, I think your just saying that it will undo itself, is... farfetched to say the least. After two thousand years... NO ONE NOTHING? Has been able to destroy it, through physical or philosophical persecution? I think that perhaps, your hopes for it's eventual demise, are perhaps... ungrounded.

Third, About it's crumbling... let's do the math, if most of the people who have wanted to see the chruch crumble have been trying for over two thousand years, (staring with the 300 persecution by the Roman Emperors) then with various internal attacks and splits that have always healed themselves, I think your just saying that it will undo itself, is... farfetched to say the least. After two thousand years... NO ONE NOTHING? Has been able to destroy it, through physical or philosophical persecution? I think that perhaps, your hopes for it's eventual demise, are perhaps... ungrounded.
I partially agree with parts of this. Many people will point to the fact that, by and large, my generation and the one below us will turn away from religion -- however, history has proven that nearly every time society turns from the Church, something will happen to bring the loyal back.

I'm not concerned about the state of things, at least for the duration of my days.

You may be right about Pagan off shoots and doctrinal misunderstandings, but as for branching out of Christianity and causing a major religious shift, those pagan and doctrinal issues were condemned at the Council of Nicea. Martin Luther was the very first to have a discrepancy that would greatly effect the Church. The offshoots you refer to were seperate religions entirely, based on or leaving out severall key points of doctrine. Which, as I said before, were wiped out by the condemnation of the Council of Nicea.

Simonist']I partially agree with parts of this. Many people will point to the fact that, by and large, my generation and the one below us will turn away from religion -- however, history has proven that nearly every time society turns from the Church, something will happen to bring the loyal back.

I'm not concerned about the state of things, at least for the duration of my days.

I concur

It's true that the Church is an abstract concept, and that it is made up of fallible people, but it is still the Bride of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit. If the Church says it's so, I'm more inclined to believe than to doubt.

Yes, I'm sure that applies to my church as well. But there are many many churches out there who claim to be Christian, but actually deviate from the teachings of Christ. Loads of them in Mainland China, looking for a quick buck. When faced with these challenges, you must have your own opinion first, or seek help from other churches or people, right?

There needed to be a changed in the church. Some of Martin's words were off I think, but it got the job done. As Christians we should be more liberal and be a way to help our brothers. The old church was selling peoples lives and bring them down. But Also I do not think it was right for a total rebellion, peaceful out brings and slow change would have been best.

I only partially agree, you make a good point, but, selling people's lives seemed to stand out... when i read about the Martin Luther break, I read that he was angry at the Chruch for selling indulgences... a completely different thing. It was on a spiritual level that Martin Luther had the discrepancy. Induglences are thought to "lessen" the amount of "time" one had to suffer in purgatory. If you donated money to the church you could obtain an indulgence for your generosity, but many times that option was only available to the wealthy. Which, to Martin Luther, constituted selling spiritual "favors" if you will.

Yes, I'm sure that applies to my church as well. But there are many many churches out there who claim to be Christian, but actually deviate from the teachings of Christ. Loads of them in Mainland China, looking for a quick buck. When faced with these challenges, you must have your own opinion first, or seek help from other churches or people, right?

The churches in mainland China, are run by the Communists, they are no more than an elaborate fascade of religion to show the outside world that everything is just fine, while, (from Chinese people i know who lived there and escaped here) that the real Church in China is persecuted daily and it's members imprisoned or put to death. If it sounds a little dramatic, I'm sorry, but try telling that to my friends.

Martin Luther didn't try a rebellion. He posted his theses on the door of a church, and the Catholic church hunted him down. He had to hide under an asumed name so he wouldn't be caught and killed.

The act of posting his theses on the door of a Church was like running a billboard on a major highway, it was a major route of traffic and there for a public statement against the chruch, it wasn't a small thing to do in those days. Churches being a major traffic area many people would see it in a short amount of time, whether Luther was intending a rebellion or not, he got one, by making a public statement.

Not really, only hardcore traditionalists use that idea (the Latin name evades me) and I personally feel that one gets to heaven by works, not faith. However, I feel that faith encourages good works, and so I interpret the idea of salvation through faith as meaning through works that demonstrate faith regardless of actual belief. James and the Jewish Christians believed this quite strongly because it is a Jewish belief and so I think Jesus would feel the same way.

That is actually a good illustration of the Reformed view vs. the Baptist view:

Baptists generally think alont the lines of:
"Saved by faith alone; and it doesn't matter what you do...."
Reformed, on the other hand:
"Saved by faith alone; and it does matter what you do...."

There are generally two great divides in the idea of the faith-works relationship:

Antinomians generally divorce "works" from "faith"....
Legalists generally divorce "faith" from "works"....

Most real Christians will realize the two are related.... (And I think Paul summed it up well in Phillipians 2:13.... "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure...."

Faith may be what saves.... But real faith is also accompanied by fruits (works) as its sign (You can tell a tree by its fruit).....

Simonist']Our Church encouraged us to learn the Athanasian and Chalcedoanian Creeds in addition to the Nicean. Perhaps we are unusual in that.

Our is:

The Apostle's Creed
The Nicene Creed
The Athanasian Creed
The Chalcedonian Creed
The Heidelberg Catechism
The Westminster Confession
And the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms

On a side note, sola fide is held to be heretical because it effectively claims all Catholic teaching which isn't explicitly Biblical to be false. If it's false, then the Church isn't the voice of Christ. This solves the question of why divine intervention is so rare nowadays comared to the times of Israel. Why does God need to do miracles all willy-nilly if His Mystical Body (and His True Presence in the Eucharist) is already present on Earth? If Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter, then the Church has the authority in every age until the Second Coming.

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone) not Sola Fide (Faith alone)....

As I see it, none of the patriarchal religions have added anything positive to the world. Their contributions seem to include things like war, pollution and destruction - and little else.

Christianity is very very screwed imho


Jesus Christ:


A dead son of god on a stick.

Blatant but true.

and the so called god has commited many of the sins he does not let us mere humans commit, i mean...wtf....


Honestly from experience most hardcore christians are hippocrites

Simonist']Wait -- Catholicism was the first. Hence the other churches being Protestants. Wha.....I'm so baffled.

Technically the "Catholic"/"Protestant" division is not a correct application. There are technically more divisions...

Protestants = Lutherans only, in historical reality.

Real divisions exist along:
Catholic
Orthodox
Protestant/Lutheran
Reformed
Anabaptist
Anglican
Dispensational

Catholic is self explantatory, as is Orthodox and Protestant/Lutheran

Reformed makes up the descent of the Swiss Reformation (Seperately by Calvin in Geneva and Zwingli in Zurich) [Continental Reformed and Scottish Presbyterianism)

Anabaptists make up much of the pre-reformation movement brought around by Menno Simmons and similars accross Denmark, Belgium and the Neatherlands (Mennonites and Amish)

Anglican is a unique system created more from politics, than actual religious divisions (The King of England taking over the place of the Pope). (Church of England, Epliscopalians, and loosely Methodists)

And the various Dispensationals mostly came from early meshing of Quakers with Anabaptist influence, and are seperate from the rest of the groups.. [Baptists (except Reformed Baptists), Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, etc.)

As I see it, none of the patriarchal religions have added anything positive to the world. Their contributions seem to include things like war, pollution and destruction - and little else.

Pollution has existed time out of mind.

For example, when the settlers first came to the Connecticut coast, they found huge mountains (like 15m tall!) of clam and muscle shellfish. The local Native Americans had been dropping them in the same spot for generations.

Likewise, ancient peoples learned early to always drink from the river ABOVE where the washing was done. ;)

Pollution has existed time out of mind.

For example, when the settlers first came to the Connecticut coast, they found huge mountains (like 15m tall!) of clam and muscle shellfish. The local Native Americans had been dropping them in the same spot for generations.

Likewise, ancient peoples learned early to always drink from the river ABOVE where the washing was done. ;)

And this compares to acid rain, smog and oil spills...how?

Okay, maybe last night I should've realized what I said was poorly put (which happens a lot these days, I guess). I didn't mean that Catholicism was the original sprig of Christianity, I meant that of the modern organized sects, Catholicism was first. And if I was wrong, I apologize, but based on what I learned, that had always been my basic understanding.

And this compares to acid rain, smog and oil spills...how?
Pollution developed as civilization developed, advanced as the people advanced.

If you read your history like every one should... before the the Martin Luther Discrepancy, there was only one view... and it was only after Martin Luther broke that all these new branches seemed to come out of the woodwork... hrm... think on it hard.... ;)

Wrong....

Anabaptists movement in the Netherlands coincided with Luther in Germany

The Hussites of Prague predate Luther's Thesis by more than a century...
The Waldesians (of France) predate Luther's Thesis by 300 years...

And the "Great Schism" which divided the Catholic and Orthodox Church occured almost 500 years prior to Luther's Thesis...

Sorry, but the idea that Luther started the divisions is historically and factually incorrect...

In reality all of the divisions through history are:
The Great Schism: 1054AD (Created the Eastern Orthodox Church in the old Byzantinian Empire....)
The Waldesian Revolution: 1170AD (Waldesians of Lyons, France)
The Hussite Wars:1357AD (of Prague)
Lutterwrth Reformation:1380AD (Wycliffe's Parish of Lutterworth England)
The Anabaptist Movement:1500AD (In the Neatherlands)
Luther's Thesis:1517AD (of Wittenburg, Germany)
Swiss Reformation:1560AD (of independantly Ulricht Zwingli in Zurich Switzerland; and Jean Chauvin [John Calvin] of Geneva, Switzerland)
Anglican:1600AD (Henry VIII of England, pretty much poltical...)

And this compares to acid rain, smog and oil spills...how?

Acid rain, smog and oil spills are resultants of the TECHNOLOGY of the age, not the faith.

While it us understandable that some Catholics might resent the reformation, it is worth remembering that it lead to a number of important reforms within the Church. The Council of Trent, first meeting in 1545, did much to clean up Roman Catholicism, banning the following practices:

Simony - selling of positions
Pluralism - Holding many posts at the same time
Absenteeism - Having a job and not doing it. Some pluralists hired a Friar or 'Vicarius' (hence the english word 'vicar') to cover for them.
Concubinage - Celibacy was then interpreted as remaining unmarried. The Council reinforced clerical celibacy (and ordered that Priests' housekeepers had to be respectable and preferably married older women.)
Indulgences- Buying forgiveness for a sin, a practice originally used to acquire funds for the Crusades. By the Reformation, they would roll out newer and better indulgences every time the Church needed cash.

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone) not Sola Fide (Faith alone)....

Many pardons, my Latin is not quite "up to date." :rolleyes:

While it us understandable that some Catholics might resent the reformation, it is worth remembering that it lead to a number of important reforms within the Church. The Council of Trent, first meeting in 1545, did much to clean up Roman Catholicism, banning the following practices:

Simony - selling of positions
Pluralism - Holding many posts at the same time
Absenteeism - Having a job and not doing it. Some pluralists hired a Friar or 'Vicarius' (hence the english word 'vicar') to cover for them.
Concubinage - Celibacy was then interpreted as remaining unmarried. The Council reinforced clerical celibacy (and ordered that Priests' housekeepers had to be respectable and preferably married older women.)
Indulgences- Buying forgiveness for a sin, a practice originally used to acquire funds for the Crusades. By the Reformation, they would roll out newer and better indulgences every time the Church needed cash.

i agree that the reformation helped shape up catholicism. also nepotism which was appointing a relative to a church position was also banned. there also were seminaries placed to teach people properly before they bacame priests because many priests before the counter-reformation didn't even know the 'Our Father' let alone how to serve mass properly. also the catechism was sent out to teach the basic beliefs of catholicism

i agree that the reformation helped shape up catholicism. also nepotism which was appointing a relative to a church position was also banned. there also were seminaries placed to teach people properly before they bacame priests because many priests before the counter-reformation didn't even know the 'Our Father' let alone how to serve mass properly. also the catechism was sent out to teach the basic beliefs of catholicism

But the division lasted too long, that it left the fractured churches. They fractured pretty much over the issue of the governmental problems of the Catholic Church (Pre-Counter Reformation)... Many of the Reformers had no desire to "leave" the church; they more or less were forced to...

One of the strongest motivations towards Presbyterian Government was that it is both cohesive (like Epsicopalianism); yet also cross-accountable; making it unlikely for the Church government to corrupt.

Congregations elect Pastors and Ruling Elders; yet the Elders are ordained by the Presbytery (Ruling Elders of a particular Region), as are Pastors (Teaching Elders). The Pastor, and the Ruling Elders of a particular Congregation make up the "Session" (who governs the particular congregation) [Rulling Elders have vote; the Teaching Elder holds Forum order].... They appoint representatives to the Regional Presbytery (Which generally meats quarterly); and variously (depending on the Nation) each National Church is represented Nationally by a Synod or General Assembly; who depending on the nation, is either elected in representation from the Presbytery; or from the Local Sessions (The PCA elects GA representation from the Session)....

So each Session represents a Single Congregation.
Each Presbytery represents all the Congregations in a given region.
And the General Assembly or Synod, represents all congregations or Presbyteries in a given nation.

On top of all that; pretty much all Presbyterian/Reformed churches are members of the WARC (World Alliance of Reformed Churches).. Which acts as an almost Global Synod....

Christianity is very very screwed imho


Jesus Christ:


A dead son of god on a stick.

Blatant but true.

and the so called god has commited many of the sins he does not let us mere humans commit, i mean...wtf....


Honestly from experience most hardcore christians are hippocrites

what sins has god commited? Next time if your going to put something astupid as this at least put an example, or some facts.

Christianity is very very screwed imho


Jesus Christ:


A dead son of god on a stick.

Blatant but true.

and the so called god has commited many of the sins he does not let us mere humans commit, i mean...wtf....


Honestly from experience most hardcore christians are hippocrites

Christians are Hippocrates? They are all Greek Physicians born around 460BC? Or did you mean Hypocrites?

Christians are Hippocrates? They are all Greek Physicians born around 460BC?

Apparently, they also began worshipping Jesus before he was actually born and before the Roman Empire actually conquered Judea!

Simonist']Pollution developed as civilization developed, advanced as the people advanced.

The rape of the earth is not something any follower of a patriarchal religion would be overly worried about - they seem to see it as their duty to subdue the earth and all her inhabitants, regardless of what that might mean to future generations. A matrifocal society would be much more concerned about the earth and her inhabitants, and would be much less likely to pollute the earth so wantonly.

As far is God is concerned from what the Bible seems to say, it doesnt matter who you believe is the pope or if you believe in trans on con substansiation, what matters is your belief in Jesus and who he was. If you believe that he died on the cross for you personally, and try to live your life as close to the one he lays out for you in his teachings then your a Christian. I cant see any examples of God griping with people over trivial issues.

The rape of the earth is not something any follower of a patriarchal religion would be overly worried about - they seem to see it as their duty to subdue the earth and all her inhabitants, regardless of what that might mean to future generations. A matrifocal society would be much more concerned about the earth and her inhabitants, and would be much less likely to pollute the earth so wantonly.

Perhaps, but you'd lack indoor plumbing. I'll take things the way they are, thanks.

Catholics aren't Republicans because they believe in peace rather than war, and work for the benefit of the poor rather than the wealthy.

Oh really? Is that why they spend so much money on big fancy churches just to help the poor? Or is it to make the rich feel good about where they park their fancy cars at on Sunday morning?

Of course that's not just the Catholics. It's unbelievable how much is being spent to build churches these days. They are huge!

Oh really? Is that why they spend so much money on big fancy churches just to help the poor? Or is it to make the rich feel good about where they park their fancy cars at on Sunday morning?

Of course that's not just the Catholics. It's unbelievable how much is being spent to build churches these days. They are huge!

Which was also said of St. Stephen's in Vienna, St. Pauls in London, St. Patrick's in NYC, the Vatican, and a horde of other Churches. The idea is, though, that people *typically* don't like to sit on mud floors. So benches and stone came into the equation... then stained glass, since cheap clear glass was impossible at the time... etc. And here we are today.

Which was also said of St. Stephen's in Vienna, St. Pauls in London, St. Patrick's in NYC, the Vatican, and a horde of other Churches. The idea is, though, that people *typically* don't like to sit on mud floors. So benches and stone came into the equation... then stained glass, since cheap clear glass was impossible at the time... etc. And here we are today.

Cathedrals also attracted pilgrims, who donated money and brought trade and commerce to the location. That money went to the poor, and cathedrals often offered protection and lodging to them. So, the money was initally invested to provided considerably larger benefit for a longer period of time.

They definitely aren't sitting on mud floors anymore.

Well, if it weren't for that doofus named Martin Luther, Christianity wouldn't have been torn to shreds and factions that give Christians a bad rep.

I myself am Catholic, and I believe that Catholicism is supreme amonst Christian divisions by the following reasons:

1) Catholicism leads the league in faithful with over 1 billion Catholics world-wide.
2) Catholics are morally sound as they are taught only to have sex in marriage, unlike those Protestant whores. Abstinence would prevent STD's and we're much happier.
3) The Catholic church is the most stable, with a well-structured hierarchy of elders who serve to guide the congregation down the path to righteousness. Divisions like Congregationalism and Unitarianism have no sense of direction and nearly an anarchical structure, with all of its followers having no sense of direction in life, often following paths to darkness and evil.

Take that you Reformationist bastards. Have fun in hell.
I hope this was a joke, i really do, probably they'll be a few ppl who have already responded 2 this but i'll go ahead anyway. Firstly, i respect the Catholic Church a lot, i have no problem with its theology even if i struggle 2 understand it, and i certainly believe that Cathoclism is a form of christianity. However u blame Martin Luther for the division of the church, however at martin luther's time, the Catholic Church was a complete joke, they were trying 2 make ppl buy their forgiveness which is what got Martin Luther so steamed up and if u look in the bible it does so that forgiveness cannot be bought.If martin luther hadnt stepped in as well as others around him, the church could have lost its reason for being, namely that it is there 2 serve god not men. Then you say that Catholics are so much more morla than prodestants, i know many prodestants and catholics and can tell u, i see no big chasm in their morality, as it should be as all concerned are following God not people. What is the big deal about having a heirachy in the first place, if catholics and prodestants r both branches of christianity, they r serving and following Jesus, the middle men in the way dont matter.Hope i dont sound like an old dry preacher guy but i hate divisions between catholics and prodestants, its done enough damage in N.Ireland alrady

The rape of the earth is not something any follower of a patriarchal religion would be overly worried about - they seem to see it as their duty to subdue the earth and all her inhabitants, regardless of what that might mean to future generations. A matrifocal society would be much more concerned about the earth and her inhabitants, and would be much less likely to pollute the earth so wantonly.
Okay.....I don't know what connection you made between your earth-lovin' ways to think that religion is the main cause, but I think that you probably left a good deal of us behind. Furthermore, that first sentence, I'm absolutely befuddled as to where you get any evidence of this. I'm a Catholic and yet an environmentalist. There are many Christian environmentalists -- as a matter of fact, there are granolas all over a variety of world religions, not just the "matrifocal" pagan crap that seems, in most facets, absolutely un-linked by anything other than the fact that they're sometimes polytheistic. So now polytheism is the answer to pollution?

Yeah, my stretch is about the same stretch as you made, as far as I see it....

Simonist']Okay.....I don't know what connection you made between your earth-lovin' ways to think that religion is the main cause, but I think that you probably left a good deal of us behind. Furthermore, that first sentence, I'm absolutely befuddled as to where you get any evidence of this.

Try this:

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Simonist']I'm a Catholic and yet an environmentalist. There are many Christian environmentalists -- as a matter of fact, there are granolas all over a variety of world religions, not just the "matrifocal" pagan crap that seems, in most facets, absolutely un-linked by anything other than the fact that they're sometimes polytheistic. So now polytheism is the answer to pollution?

Yeah, my stretch is about the same stretch as you made, as far as I see it....


Really? Since when does "matrifocal" equal "polytheistic"?

Really? Since when does "matrifocal" equal "polytheistic"?
Since when does a person who uses teh word "patriarchy" not know what a "matriarchy" and words based on it mean

Ihatevacations'] Really, that is how I feel everytime I stop to consider all of this, in fact it might be a good part of the reason why I stopped being Christian, the whole bloody mess disgusts me.

Well, if it helps, Catholics were the first Christians. All the others split off from us.So you can go with what the original beliefs are or you can go with one of the others who believe everything we do but with small thingsthat they have changed. (for example, the Eucharist is "symbolic". For us, it really IS the body of Christ.)

Which sounds more reliable, the original or the edited?

Well, if it helps, Catholics were the first Christians. All the others split off from us.So you can go with what the original beliefs are or you can go with one of the others who believe everything we do but with small thingsthat they have changed. (for example, the Eucharist is "symbolic". For us, it really IS the body of Christ.)

Which sounds more reliable, the original or the edited?
I was catholic, you lose.

Oh look, it's so cool to bash on Christianity and religion.
Cooler than being wilfully suckered into believing a web of lies, deceit and obvious social control?

See: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430690

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Hmmm but it doesn't say "mess up the whole thing, make the air and water stinky, destroy animals and plants, build giant parking lots."
It just installs us at the top of the food pyramid. :rolleyes:

Catholics were the first Christians......

That's open to debate....

Ihatevacations']*In general* Christians go around trying to convert and convince other people to become Christian.

This is a bit much. Where are you from that you think this is the case?
I'm Christian and I don't go around trying to convert anyone! I also don't know anyone else that does it.

This isn't the first time i've seen this come up on this forum and i'm just wondering why so many of you view christians like this.

Sorry to go off the topic.......

Hmmm but it doesn't say "mess up the whole thing, make the air and water stinky, destroy animals and plants, build giant parking lots."
It just installs us at the top of the food pyramid. :rolleyes:

Irresponsible management of the Earth leads to suffering, which is an evil against your fellow man. Thus, it is wrong. That being said, when the interests of man come in to conflict with nature, if the interest is justifiable the interests of man take precedence over those of nature.

This is a bit much. Where are you from that you think this is the case?
I'm Christian and I don't go around trying to convert anyone! I also don't know anyone else that does it.

This isn't the first time i've seen this come up on this forum and i'm just wondering why so many of you view christians like this.

Sorry to go off the topic.......
I believe one of the reasons they view us like this is similar to why a lot of Christians get just as defensive around atheists -- deep down, we don't want anybody to make us question what we think we're sure of. Furthermore, it's my opinion that if you have one bad experience with a Christian trying to convert you, all the other passive experiences you've had become background to the extreme and utter annoyance felt that one time. That's actually something I can understand about, however; Christians from other denominations have attempted to convert me, rather viciously at times, and sometimes it's hard as hell to just keep saying "no". One really wants to lash out, and that's where the problems between theists and atheists and/or agnostics start.

I think the world would be a much better place if we theists could all be henotheists....that is, someone who believes in one god without denying the existence of others (such as myself)......however, that doesn't mean that all deities are as USEFUL as the others.... :rolleyes:

Hmmm but it doesn't say "mess up the whole thing, make the air and water stinky, destroy animals and plants, build giant parking lots."
It just installs us at the top of the food pyramid. :rolleyes:

Oddly enough, the Hebrew word that was translated to "subdue" is "kabash." :eek: Anyway, here are the meanings given for "kabash" according to the Blue Letter Bible site:

1) to subject, subdue, force, keep under, bring into bondage
a) (Qal)
1) to bring into bondage, make subservient
2) to subdue, force, violate
3) to subdue, dominate, tread down
b) (Niphal) to be subdued
c) (Piel) to subdue
d) (Hiphil) to bring into bondage

Is it really any surprise that since the rise of the Judeo-Christian religions, the world has suddenly become a much more polluted place?

No one knows the day nor hour, but all should be prepared for that glorious day. GOD bless!

No one knows the day nor hour, but all should be prepared for that glorious day. GOD bless!
And you better be prepared to disapointed as well because besides the day and the hour being unknown its coming at all has never been proven

So BE PREPARED FOR THE NON EVENT
Evolution bless!

So BE PREPARED FOR THE NON EVENT
Evolution bless!

Hey. You buy insurance for something that might never happen (and hopefully won't happen). It's not just a Christian thing.

Hey. You buy insurance for something that might never happen (and hopefully won't happen). It's not just a Christian thing.
The problem is with buying insurance analogy you can pick from a hundred different insurances and you will get only a slightly different deal and price but in the end you are covered most likely

If insurance was religion you would have thousands trying to sell you insurance for the a possible non event (one that has never happened before unlike natural disasters … and has no real proof that it could happen) and all the insurance companies tell you that they are the only real insurance company and the rest are fakes

In the real world you have a choice while in the religious realm you not only are gambling on if the event will happen but if you picked the right insurance because if you didn’t you are not covered

If insurance was religion you would have thousands trying to sell you insurance for the a possible non event (one that has never happened before unlike natural disasters … and has no real proof that it could happen) and all the insurance companies tell you that they are the only real insurance company and the rest are fakes
And you don't see the correlation between this and religion....?

Simonist']And you don't see the correlation between this and religion....?
Um yes thats why I made the statement like I did

and SPECIFICALY put "if insuarance was religion" as the begining of the statement :p

Ha ha. You let it get to you!

Is it really any surprise that since the rise of the Judeo-Christian religions, the world has suddenly become a much more polluted place?

It is to easy to blame the corruptions of the world on religion. The type of people that have used the concept of god to cause detriment would find another excuse to cause the problems if they had too.

Is it really any surprise that since the rise of the Judeo-Christian religions, the world has suddenly become a much more polluted place?

Silly me! I'd blame that on the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. :rolleyes:

BTW: China is currently the most polluted nation on Earth, with 16 of the 20 top polluted cities. Yet it's not a Judeo-Christian country. Hmm.

And by the way.... those two schisms...the Orthodox branch of the church is still ACCEPTED by the church... they still have all the rites and valid sacraments in the church... if a Catholic wanted to he could attend an Orthodox mass and fulfill his religious obligations without penalty of sin.

Not from an Orthodox point of view. Roman Catholics are not allowed to receive communion in an Orthodox liturgy.

Not from an Orthodox point of view. Roman Catholics are not allowed to receive communion in an Orthodox liturgy.

I'm afraid it's even more convoluted than that: SOME Orthodox (read: the Ukrainian ones that acknowledge Rome) are allowed. You might have seen them in the black robes at John Paul II's creation of new Cardinals and later at his burial ceremonies.

Um yes thats why I made the statement like I did

and SPECIFICALY put "if insuarance was religion" as the begining of the statement :p
Oh come now, I was kidding. I just absolutely hate that little smilie :rolleyes:

You of all people should've caught that! You're BETTER than that!

I'm so disappointed.