NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, Catholics, what do you disagree with about the church you profess to be a member of? I want to know who thinks what of the views of the church. Also, I politely ask for an super anti catholics to avoid posting attacks, I want this to be a discussioin of the chruch between its members, I dont want it to be a Chastisement of all the churchs beliefs.
So lets start this debate and see what teh average catholic doesnt like about his/her faith.

I'm so Catholic, I'd get off on Catholic Dogma if it weren't for the paradox involved ;)


Basically, there is nothing that the Church teaches that I do not agree with/defend.

I'm so Catholic, I'd get off on Catholic Dogma if it weren't for the paradox involved ;)

Why would you want to get off Dogma? It's an awesome film.

I'm agnostic from a Catholic background, and i'd say that from what I've seen, most of the percieved rifts between Catholics and the Catholic faith are issues that are only worried about on higher levels. Often I've seen things that are forbidden by the Vatican become frowned upon by bishops and merely left alone by priests. The further you get from the ultimate authority, the less it becomes about rules and the more it becomes about love, decency and above all community.

Liasia']Why would you want to get off Dogma? It's an awesome film.

You missed an important, two letter word that changes the entire meaning of the statement :p

You missed an important, two letter word that changes the entire meaning of the statement :p

Yeh, i was ignoring it. Never mind.

All the kiddie-fiddling puts me off the Catholic Church.

I really dislike the bad rap we've got, but what I hate even more than that are people who still believe everything the Church did wrong in the middle ages is still going on. We've fixed a lot of the problems since then. Yes, there are still a few issues, but a lot of that is human error and not the fault of the entire body of the Church.

Also, I politely ask for an super anti catholics to avoid posting attacks,
It's NS General, deal with it.
I really dislike the bad rap we've got, but what I hate even more than that are people who still believe everything the Church did wrong in the middle ages is still going on. We've fixed a lot of the problems since then. Yes, there are still a few issues, but a lot of that is human error and not the fault of the entire body of the Church.
If the things that went on during the Middle Ages were really wrong, then that means the Pope and the rest of the church isn’t infallible. Denying that gets you at least Limbo in your imaginary world, right?

I really dislike the bad rap we've got, but what I hate even more than that are people who still believe everything the Church did wrong in the middle ages is still going on. We've fixed a lot of the problems since then. Yes, there are still a few issues, but a lot of that is human error and not the fault of the entire body of the Church.


Awesome, good to see someone who can see that it is human error and that the middle ages was hundreds of years ago.

Thanks, I just wish there were many others.

It's NS General, deal with it.

If the things that went on during the Middle Ages were really wrong, then that means the Pope and the rest of the church isn’t infallible. Denying that gets you at least Limbo in your imaginary world, right?



Ok, you fail to understand Papal Infallibility, let me tell you ITS ONLY BEEN USED TWICE, ever its not all the time. We all know that popes can and have made mistakes, human error, the church is infallible, its core doctrine has not changed and the point of love, faith, and service to gods message is still the smae absolute truth


And yes I know its in general, Im not gonna retaliate agaisnt those who ignore my request. But it would be nice to have an intellegent discussion among people who actually care about the church and its teachings.

Awesome, good to see someone who can see that it is human error and that the middle ages was hundreds of years ago.

'Human error'. Jeez, what an excuse. 'Yes, it was ok to kill and torture thousands of people without justification. Human error, y'know.'

The same motivation and hatred which existed then still exists now. Religion is dangerous- it gives people an excuse.

then that means the Pope and the rest of the church isn’t infallible.

The "rest of the church" has never been claimed to be infallible. I recommend you do some research on infallibility and what happened in the middle ages...

Ok, you fail to understand Papal Infallibility, let me tell you ITS ONLY BEEN USED TWICE, ever its not all the time. We all know that popes can and have made mistakes, human error, the church is infallible, its core doctrine has not changed and the point of love, faith, and service to gods message is still the smae absolute truth
All I’m saying is at one time you could buy your way into heaven and then all of a sudden you need good works? What? Both are inconsistent with Biblical teachings, but then no Christian sect is consistent with the Bible anyway, so that doesn’t matter.

An organization the once sentenced people to death is now against capital punishment. Sorry, but you can’t claim infallibility when you change your mind so rapidly. You can say you’re a better organization, but infallibility is long gone.

Ok, you fail to understand Papal Infallibility, let me tell you ITS ONLY BEEN USED TWICE, ever its not all the time. We all know that popes can and have made mistakes, human error, the church is infallible, its core doctrine has not changed and the point of love, faith, and service to gods message is still the smae absolute truth

You are correct. I fail to understand it. You say Papal Infallibility has "only been used twice." I don't get it...how can someone be infallible only part of the time? Doesn't that defy the definition of the word? Or do you mean only two popes in history have been infallible? In that case, why those particular two? And who decides whether or nopt a pope is infallible?

Liasia']'Human error'. Jeez, what an excuse. 'Yes, it was ok to kill and torture thousands of people without justification. Human error, y'know.'

The same motivation and hatred which existed then still exists now. Religion is dangerous- it gives people an excuse.

Just to point out an apparent contradiction in your post...

You said "without justification" in your first paragraph, and then, in your second paragraph, you said that religion "gives people an excuse".

It is my understanding that an excuse and justification essentially mean the same thing. So, did they have an excuse/justification, or didn't they?

The "rest of the church" has never been claimed to be infallible. I recommend you do some research on infallibility and what happened in the middle ages...
I’ve done enough I assure you, and it’s a shame Napoleon didn’t massacre the lot of your religious leaders when he wanted to and had the chance. Would have done the world a lot of good.

And isn’t the church’s infallibility in that little chant you do when you get confirmed?

All I’m saying is at one time you could buy your way into heaven and then all of a sudden you need good works? What? Both are inconsistent with Biblical teachings, but then no Christian sect is consistent with the Bible anyway, so that doesn’t matter.

An organization the once sentenced people to death is now against capital punishment. Sorry, but you can’t claim infallibility when you change your mind so rapidly. You can say you’re a better organization, but infallibility is long gone.



Well that didnt take long, Indulgences brought up in 10 minutes, not bad. And again you missread infallibilty, the corrupt members of the church claimed you needed to buy salvation the truth has always been faith through good works.

You are correct. I fail to understand it. You say Papal Infallibility has "only been used twice." I don't get it...how can someone be infallible only part of the time? Doesn't that defy the definition of the word? Or do you mean only two popes in history have been infallible? In that case, why those particular two? And who decides whether or nopt a pope is infallible?
Why, the infallible Pope decides of course. He’s infallible. You have to believe him.

Just to point out an apparent contradiction in your post...

You said "without justification" in your first paragraph, and then, in your second paragraph, you said that religion "gives people an excuse".

It is my understanding that an excuse and justification essentially mean the same thing. So, did they have an excuse/justification, or didn't they?

I was speaking from my point of view in the first paragraph. I don't believe the inquistion had a justification, but im sure those carrying it out did. *shrugs* All i know is, atheism is alot less work.

Well that didnt take long, Indulgences brought up in 10 minutes, not bad. And again you missread infallibilty, the corrupt members of the church claimed you needed to buy salvation the truth has always been faith through good works.
Indulgences were supported by the Vatican, which for centuries was controlled by rich Italian families who took turns on which would have a son to be Pope.

All I’m saying is at one time you could buy your way into heaven and then all of a sudden you need good works? What? Both are inconsistent with Biblical teachings, but then no Christian sect is consistent with the Bible anyway, so that doesn’t matter.

An organization the once sentenced people to death is now against capital punishment. Sorry, but you can’t claim infallibility when you change your mind so rapidly. You can say you’re a better organization, but infallibility is long gone.

Nobody claims infallibility. I'm not perfect, I don't expect everyone in my church to be perfect. That's why we have confession. JPII went to confession EVERYDAY. Sometimes more than once.

Yes, one time priests sold forgiveness, but we've since realized that is wrong. But the Catholic church does not preach that now loads of good works will get you into Heaven. In fact, there's a quote I can't remember exactly, but the gist is good works alone will not get you into Heaven. They are helpful, but only if you do them for the love of others, not the love of yourself.

As for Christian sects not being the same: yes they're not the same, they've broken off. But this topic is about the Catholic Church, not everybody that's changed it and broken away.

An organization the once sentenced people to death is now against capital punishment. Sorry, but you can’t claim infallibility when you change your mind so rapidly. You can say you’re a better organization, but infallibility is long gone.

Show me the document in which the Church, using the power of infallibility, claimed that people should be sentenced to death. Then, show me the document in which the Church, using the power of infallibility, claimed that people should never be sentenced to death.

If you can do this, it will disprove infallibility. As it is, you are, at best, proving a degree of hypocrisy which has been admitted to and remedied.


Also, the Church's stance on capital punishment, if I remember correctly, is that it is acceptable if it is apparent that the person will [nsert serious crime here] again if given the chance, and there is no effective way of preventing them from doing so.

But in most modern countries (the US, for example), there are effective ways of preventing people from repeating serious crimes...

Well that didnt take long, Indulgences brought up in 10 minutes, not bad. And again you missread infallibilty, the corrupt members of the church claimed you needed to buy salvation the truth has always been faith through good works.

People don't seem to understand: Indulgences, kissing relics, etc.= good works! In a Catholic church context, good works does not mean the modern "be nice to people" ethic, it means rituals designed to get you in/reduce purgatory time. That's why various Protestant groups don't believe in good works.

Why, the infallible Pope decides of course. He’s infallible. You have to believe him.


Haha, nice try. The concept of infallibility is apparently difficult to grasp for some. The infallibility can onyl be used on matters of great importance(such as the whole issue with mary's virginity). The pope has to do a lot of reflection and study for him to be bold enough as to use the infallibility. And go ahead and check, the popes of the middle ages never claimed infallibility for their actions cuz they knew it was wrong.

Indulgences were supported by the Vatican, which for centuries was controlled by rich Italian families who took turns on which would have a son to be Pope.

See this is why I said a page ago that the higher up the ladder you get, the less relevant to the faithful it becomes. Your average Catholic is still there on Sunday because of something he believes is right, and that's just fine. I think a lot of Catholics see even the papacy quite backwards from what it's shown as. Instead of being the almighty head of the church, he's more like a representative that the common folk hope will exemplify strong faith and good deeds.

Nobody claims infallibility.

No person claims infallibility, but the doctrine is still in effect. It does not mean that the Pope is free from sin, it means that he will not (cannot) lead the Church astray, provided certain circumstances are met.

People don't seem to understand: Indulgences, kissing relics, etc.= good works! In a Catholic church context, good works does not mean the modern "be nice to people" ethic, it means rituals designed to get you in/reduce purgatory time. That's why various Protestant groups don't believe in good works.


Just to clear it up, indulgences is the sale of confession and the purchasing of entrance to heaven, which is entirely wrong and was only created by Pope Leo X out of greed, Good works is the absolute affirmation and truth oof faith.

People don't seem to understand: Indulgences, kissing relics, etc.= good works! In a Catholic church context, good works does not mean the modern "be nice to people" ethic, it means rituals designed to get you in/reduce purgatory time. That's why various Protestant groups don't believe in good works.

I don't know which church YOU'VE been going to.

Show me the document in which the Church, using the power of infallibility, claimed that people should be sentenced to death. Then, show me the document in which the Church, using the power of infallibility, claimed that people should never be sentenced to death.
Wait. So you’re denying that the Catholics burned supposed witches, pagans, Jews and those who attempted to read and interpret the Bible in their own way? That needs to be proven to you? You’re beyond help.

Liasia']All i know is, atheism is alot less work.

lol, if you're looking for a low-maintenance religion, try agnosticism ;)



Seriously, when was the last time you heard an agnostic being told to defend his beliefs?!

Wait. So you’re denying that the Catholics burned supposed witches, pagans, Jews and those who attempted to read and interpret the Bible in their own way? That needs to be proven to you? You’re beyond help.

I believe the post you're replying to said "using the rule of Infaliblity". It happend, but nobody who was at the time Infalible condoned it.

Wait. So you’re denying that the Catholics burned supposed witches, pagans, Jews and those who attempted to read and interpret the Bible in their own way? That needs to be proven to you? You’re beyond help.


No, Im pretty sure that he/she means that the pope never used the doctrine of infallibility to say that those activities were correct. We all know they happened. The pope never said they were absolute truths of correctness.

Wait. So you’re denying that the Catholics burned supposed witches, pagans, Jews and those who attempted to read and interpret the Bible in their own way? That needs to be proven to you? You’re beyond help.

I'm denying that they were infallibly claimed to be just (as in, morally upright) actions.

I don't know which church YOU'VE been going to.
He’s probably witnessed whatever ritual it is where you pay the church to light candles so your dead can get into the fairy tale that is heaven.

He’s probably heard about how the Catholic church had an episode of South Park pulled that mocked a statue of Marry and the idolatry of the Catholic church in lieu of one of the many other episodes that mock Jesus and even God.
Seems like they care more about tricking the masses into huddling around shrines than they do about any non-existent God.

lol, if you're looking for a low-maintenance religion, try agnosticism ;)



Seriously, when was the last time you heard an agnostic being told to defend his beliefs?!

Defending your beliefs is fun. Not on NS, admittedly, but in real life there's nothing like a good argument.

Seriously, when was the last time you heard an agnostic being told to defend his beliefs?!
Today.

No, Im pretty sure that he/she means that the pope never used the doctrine of infallibility to say that those activities were correct. We all know they happened. The pope never said they were absolute truths of correctness.


Exactly. It may sound a bit screwy, but infallibility only applies when the Pope says that he is speaking "ex cathedra" (from the chair, i.e. infallibly).

He must also be speaking to a large audience (not just a friend or two), and the matter must be a serious matter involving religion/morals.

He’s probably witnessed whatever ritual it is where you pay the church to light candles so your dead can get into the fairy tale that is heaven.

He’s probably heard about how the Catholic church had an episode of South Park pulled that mocked a statue of Marry and the idolatry of the Catholic church in lieu of one of the many other episodes that mock Jesus and even God.
Seems like they care more about tricking the masses into huddling around shrines than they do about any non-existent God.


HEY, if you dont even believe, why do you care what we think of our religion. Just stay out of it if you cant eve agree with teh basis of it.

Liasia']All the kiddie-fiddling puts me off the Catholic Church.
Then I expect you to be put off from all the "kiddie-fiddlers" within the Protestant churches, the Orthadox churches, Judiasm, Islam, every other existant religion, and not to mention all the agnostic and athiestic child molesters. Just because it's more high profile doesn't mean it happens more within a certain branch of the Faith.

It's NS General, deal with it.
It's a shame you're seemingly too petty to respect the poster's thread and requests.

As for the subject of following Dogma... Well, I'm not a Catholic. I've always considered becomming one, however the idea of Confession turned me off. Same reason my Great-Grandfather (an Irishman) left the Church.

i dont like 2 things about the current church

1) the insistance on a male celebate priesthood sealed with lifelong vows is screwing the church in the united states. it means that churches have to be closed,parishes consolidated or served by priest from other countries. if the church would take any one of 3 solutions, it would change completely. they could have women priests, they could have married priests, or they could have a temporary priesthood so that a man could serve 10 or 20 years then marry and have a family.

2) they still dont take sexual abuse by priests seriously. there is only ONE response that a bishop should have when he is told that there is an allegation that a child has been molested by a priest--he turns it over to the police. its a freaking CRIME and when you are told of a crime you report it and let the authorities determine guilt.

if it were for the shortage of priests there wouldnt be such a problem with removing one for sexual misconduct.

I don't know which church YOU'VE been going to.

It's not a matter of the modern church, it's a matter of historical vocabulary. The doctrine of good works vs. no good works debate was about whether, for example, going on a pilgrimage would get you anything in terms of heavenness. While charity/moral actions might be included under good works, it also included the various semi-idolatrous things the church did. Indulgences were certainly an example, though it was later decided they did not constitute a good work.

HEY, if you dont even believe, why do you care what we think of our religion. Just stay out of it if you cant eve agree with teh basis of it.
I loathe ignorance and confront it whenever possible.
It's a shame you're seemingly too petty to respect the poster's thread and requests.
Sorry, but no religion should ever be exempt from the harshest criticism anywhere.
They must be cured of their delusions that we are all in need of saving, that all people are inherently spiritual.
They must be made aware of the fact that there are those of us who hate tier ideas and would rather die than embrace them, even if forced.

the insistance on a male celebate priesthood sealed with lifelong vows is screwing the church in the united states. it means that churches have to be closed,parishes consolidated or served by priest from other countries. if the church would take any one of 3 solutions, it would change completely. they could have women priests, they could have married priests, or they could have a temporary priesthood so that a man could serve 10 or 20 years then marry and have a family.

Think about it from the Church's point of view. They aren't not allowing women priests, or married priests, just because they want to be difficult. They aren't allowing them because they think that they shouldn't be allowed.

Also, the view is that God will provide the Church with enough priests, the Church sees the problem as too many Catholics don't consider the priesthood an option, and so even if they are called to the priesthood, they end up ignoring that call.

I loathe ignorance and confront it whenever possible.

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. What you are exposing is more along the lines of a lack of tolerance- your own. Tell me, why should Catholics not be allowed to believe what they wish to believe?

Then I expect you to be put off from all the "kiddie-fiddlers" within the Protestant churches, the Orthadox churches, Judiasm, Islam, every other existant religion, and not to mention all the agnostic and athiestic child molesters. Just because it's more high profile doesn't mean it happens more within a certain branch of the Faith.


It's a shame you're seemingly too petty to respect the poster's thread and requests.

As for the subject of following Dogma... Well, I'm not a Catholic. I've always considered becomming one, however the idea of Confession turned me off. Same reason my Great-Grandfather (an Irishman) left the Church.


Allow me to explain Confession(And yes I know Im not infallible, but this is what was taught to me in my many years of catholic theology education so Im pretty damn sure thats what they want their members to know) Anyways, confession is self explanatory. You most likely disagree with the fact that you have to tell a priest or that you have to do penance. Well when the priest hears your confession, he is acting in persona christi which means he is standing in a personal christ for the purpose of confessing your sin. In the bible Jesus says to his disciples, "What you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" This essentailly is christ telling the disciples that he s giving them authority to tell those who have sinned and confessed them that they are forgiven. It also means they have the authority to tell them that they are not forgiven should they not acutally be sorry. It is most basically a method of God opening a very personal realtionship with his people through the priest. As for penance, Im gonna take simple logic, it wont hurt to say a few prayers will it? Also the penance is you taking an actual action to demonstrate your rebuking of your sins and your intent of avoiding them later on.

He’s probably witnessed whatever ritual it is where you pay the church to light candles so your dead can get into the fairy tale that is heaven.

He’s probably heard about how the Catholic church had an episode of South Park pulled that mocked a statue of Marry and the idolatry of the Catholic church in lieu of one of the many other episodes that mock Jesus and even God.
Seems like they care more about tricking the masses into huddling around shrines than they do about any non-existent God.

I'm just going to put this as gently as possible.

I acknowledge that no one can be absolutely certain of the existence of an afterlife or a god. That's why I'm agnostic. It should also be acknowledged that there is no absolute proof against the existence of such an afterlife or god. What you call a fairy tale is quite real to others. I couldn't say for sure who's right.

Yes, most churches have crosses, and statues here and there. In every church I've been in over the course of my life, however, these have been points of inspiration and reflection rather than idols to praise. A focus for the acknowledgement of something intangible. The wood carving of Christ on the wall in the lobby of my parents' parish isn't there to be worshipped, but to convey the artists love for what he believes, and to inspire the congregation coming through the doors. The priests know just as well that that's not god on the wall or the tapestry. It's something to think about when you're running faith through your mind.

The people in there aren't planning crusades or inquisitions. They just want to feel loved, useful, and welcome. There are still some issues being hammered out, but a lot has changed in our lifetimes and a lot will probably change before we're done on Earth.

I often wonder if I'm the only former Catholic who looks back on the place he came from with no venom to spit.

True Being, don't forget the part (James 5:16) where it says "confess your sins to one another".

Megaloria, you have inspired me to update my sig.

Allow me to explain Confession(And yes I know Im not infallible, but this is what was taught to me in my many years of catholic theology education so Im pretty damn sure thats what they want their members to know) Anyways, confession is self explanatory. You most likely disagree with the fact that you have to tell a priest or that you have to do penance. Well when the priest hears your confession, he is acting in persona christi which means he is standing in a personal christ for the purpose of confessing your sin. In the bible Jesus says to his disciples, "What you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" This essentailly is christ telling the disciples that he s giving them authority to tell those who have sinned and confessed them that they are forgiven. It also means they have the authority to tell them that they are not forgiven should they not acutally be sorry. It is most basically a method of God opening a very personal realtionship with his people through the priest. As for penance, Im gonna take simple logic, it wont hurt to say a few prayers will it? Also the penance is you taking an actual action to demonstrate your rebuking of your sins and your intent of avoiding them later on.
Protestants handle confession just fine without priests. Don’t get me wrong, they’re just as deluded, they only seem to be trying to gain less direct control over their followers' lives.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. What you are exposing is more along the lines of a lack of tolerance- your own. Tell me, why should Catholics not be allowed to believe what they wish to believe?Oh, everyone should be allowed to believe what they want, but then I should be able to tell them what fools they are for believing in millennia old superstitions.

I'm just going to put this as gently as possible.

I acknowledge that no one can be absolutely certain of the existence of an afterlife or a god. That's why I'm agnostic. It should also be acknowledged that there is no absolute proof against the existence of such an afterlife or god. What you call a fairy tale is quite real to others. I couldn't say for sure who's right.

Yes, most churches have crosses, and statues here and there. In every church I've been in over the course of my life, however, these have been points of inspiration and reflection rather than idols to praise. A focus for the acknowledgement of something intangible. The wood carving of Christ on the wall in the lobby of my parents' parish isn't there to be worshipped, but to convey the artists love for what he believes, and to inspire the congregation coming through the doors. The priests know just as well that that's not god on the wall or the tapestry. It's something to think about when you're running faith through your mind.

The people in there aren't planning crusades or inquisitions. They just want to feel loved, useful, and welcome. There are still some issues being hammered out, but a lot has changed in our lifetimes and a lot will probably change before we're done on Earth.

I often wonder if I'm the only former Catholic who looks back on the place he came from with no venom to spit.


Wow, you understand alot about the point of statues and crosses. But you really should reconsider agnosticism. Im gonna ask you to just take a risk and pray to the God your not sure is there. It is indeed possible for someone to absolutley know that there is a God, What kind of god he is, and that there is an afterlife. God has, on numerous occasions, made himself know and reealed himself such that we can truely KNOW his existence. So please for your sake, pray for God to show you the way, because he wants you to know him, love him, and serve him.

Wow, you understand alot about the point of statues and crosses. But you really should reconsider agnosticism. Im gonna ask you to just take a risk and pray to the God your not sure is there. It is indeed possible for someone to absolutley know that there is a God, What kind of god he is, and that there is an afterlife. God has, on numerous occasions, made himself know and reealed himself such that we can truely KNOW his existence. So please for your sake, pray for God to show you the way, because he wants you to know him, love him, and serve him.
You, stop peddling that nonsense. You aren’t going to convert anybody. Not here, not now, not ever. Give up already. There are enough of your kind poisoning the ballot box as it is.

Think about it from the Church's point of view. They aren't not allowing women priests, or married priests, just because they want to be difficult. They aren't allowing them because they think that they shouldn't be allowed.

Also, the view is that God will provide the Church with enough priests, the Church sees the problem as too many Catholics don't consider the priesthood an option, and so even if they are called to the priesthood, they end up ignoring that call.


which is why the church could go with the 3rd option. letting priest out of the contract, no questions asked, after 10 years (if they want) so that a man could be a priest from age 25 to 35 then get married and have a family. there would be no lack of priests if the church did this

no matter what the reason they are doing it, its screwing the church in the US.

Protestants handle confession just fine without priests. Don’t get me wrong, they’re just as deluded, they only seem to be trying to gain less direct control over their followers' lives.
Oh, everyone should be allowed to believe what they want, but then I should be able to tell them what fools they are for believing in millennia old superstitions.


Ok, its pretty obvious that you won't even listen to what is said here. You have come here already set to disagree with any and all belief in God. So do yourself a favor and leave, your wasting precious brain power on a fight you shouldn'd even care about. The protestants have no way of knowing that their sins are actually forgiven. And with a priest, there is someone to physiclally respond to you with advice on why you sin, how to stop, and what makes it wrong. You really are stuck on conspiraccy theory so just leave.

Wow, you understand alot about the point of statues and crosses. But you really should reconsider agnosticism. Im gonna ask you to just take a risk and pray to the God your not sure is there. It is indeed possible for someone to absolutley know that there is a God, What kind of god he is, and that there is an afterlife. God has, on numerous occasions, made himself know and reealed himself such that we can truely KNOW his existence. So please for your sake, pray for God to show you the way, because he wants you to know him, love him, and serve him.

About six years ago I made a promise to myself that I would know myself before I tried to know faith. God's just going to have to be very patient. i hear he's good at that.

no matter what the reason they are doing it, its screwing the church in the US.
Which is why I hope that those who still cling to the church also stubbornly cling to their old traditions of priesthood. Nothing would be more glorious than to see the US’s largest religion fall.

You, stop peddling that nonsense. You aren’t going to convert anybody. Not here, not now, not ever. Give up already. There are enough of your kind poisoning the ballot box as it is.

If I were to choose between the two right now, based on the attitudes of the two sides involved, I'd probably go back to church.

You really, really aren't making your cause very appealing by treating believers like imbeciles.

And with a priest, there is someone to physiclally respond to you with advice on why you sin, how to stop, and what makes it wrong.
Just listen to your priest boys and girls. He’ll always tell you to do what’s right,

which is why the church could go with the 3rd option. letting priest out of the contract, no questions asked, after 10 years (if they want) so that a man could be a priest from age 25 to 35 then get married and have a family. there would be no lack of priests if the church did this

no matter what the reason they are doing it, its screwing the church in the US.


The priesthood is fine. The US is screwein the church because it the country is so full of values so far departed from that of religion that almost none of its citizens consider a career(such as priethood) that has no material reward. But the Church will not fall, do not think yourself so omniptent that you can say that the church will die out. Things change, and God will watch over his people and his Church.

Just listen to your priest boys and girls. He’ll always tell you to do what’s right,

And you even ignore a sexual innuendo in favor of an incredibly generic "nyah-nyah" post. Are you trying to drive Megaloria back to the Enemy?

If I were to choose between the two right now, based on the attitudes of the two sides involved, I'd probably go back to church.
Then you lack basic logic.
You really, really aren't making your cause very appealing by treating believers like imbeciles.
The truth hurts.
Although, certainly don’t believe all believers are mentally incompetent. Some of their leaders are right up with the Bush administration as the most cunning people on the planet. Too bad their goals are so contrary to the good of humanity, society and me personally.

which is why the church could go with the 3rd option. letting priest out of the contract, no questions asked, after 10 years (if they want) so that a man could be a priest from age 25 to 35 then get married and have a family. there would be no lack of priests if the church did this

no matter what the reason they are doing it, its screwing the church in the US.

The thing is, the priesthood is a vocation, just like marriage. It isn't just a job.

No one can retire from marriage, and in the same way, no one can retire from the priesthood.

You can't stop your vocation, the Church doesn't allow people to stop their marriage (technically, an annullment means that your marriage never happened). Thus the Church doesn't allow people to stop being priests. They can retire, in the sense that they will no longer have to work as priest, but they will still be priests.

Then you lack basic logic.

The basic logic you are referring to is the idea that Undelia is right and everyone should believe as Undelia does, isn't it?

Just listen to your priest boys and girls. He’ll always tell you to do what’s right,


Who told you sarcasm wins an arguement, it merely sets you up to look like a jerk. Obviously, we have men who are not fo the good standing that they should be as priests. There is human error that can interfere with the truths of the Church. The point still remains that that is why the church professes that confessino should be don before a priest. Also if your even trying to hint at the child molestation, your being silly. First of all, only 2% of priests have done such things. Also they have done so becase thay joined the priesthood with exactyl that intention. The pedophiles saw the priesthood as the perfect cover to do such things sinve for a while no one even questioned the moral character of priests. Since then, the pre-examiantion for entering priesthood has become hugely more scrutinous to avoid such people doing this in the future.

The thing is, the priesthood is a vocation, just like marriage. It isn't just a job.

No one can retire from marriage, and in the same way, no one can retire from the priesthood.

You can't stop your vocation, the Church doesn't allow people to stop their marriage (technically, an annullment means that your marriage never happened). Thus the Church doesn't allow people to stop being priests. They can retire, in the sense that they will no longer have to work as priest, but they will still be priests.

I'm pretty sure (though I might be wrong) that the Catholic Church has some sort of divorce mechanic, albeit a difficult one.

The priesthood is fine. The US is screwein the church because it the country is so full of values so far departed from that of religion that almost none of its citizens consider a career(such as priethood) that has no material reward.
Materialism. Its there. People can actually feel, taste smell, hear and see what they buy with their money. It will destroy meaningful religion completely someday. Spirits and vague promises are no match for pleasure.
But the Church will not fall, do not think yourself so omniptent that you can say that the church will die out. Things change, and God will watch over his people and his Church.
Nothing lasts forever. Nothing, even the belief in you God will fail someday.

I'm pretty sure (though I might be wrong) that the Catholic Church has some sort of divorce mechanic, albeit a difficult one.

That is the annulment thing I referred to. It means that your marriage wasn't a valid one in the first place.


There is a comparable process for leaving the priesthood, but its name escapes me at the moment...

Who told you sarcasm wins an arguement, it merely sets you up to look like a jerk. Obviously, we have men who are not fo the good standing that they should be as priests. There is human error that can interfere with the truths of the Church. The point still remains that that is why the church professes that confessino should be don before a priest. Also if your even trying to hint at the child molestation, your being silly. First of all, only 2% of priests have done such things. Also they have done so becase thay joined the priesthood with exactyl that intention. The pedophiles saw the priesthood as the perfect cover to do such things sinve for a while no one even questioned the moral character of priests. Since then, the pre-examiantion for entering priesthood has become hugely more scrutinous to avoid such people doing this in the future.

2% of priests enter to more actively pedophilize? I find that statistic hard to believe. It's very likely that many of these people simply had difficulty repressing their sexuality and began to express it on those they had the most contact with.

The priesthood is fine. The US is screwein the church because it the country is so full of values so far departed from that of religion that almost none of its citizens consider a career(such as priethood) that has no material reward. But the Church will not fall, do not think yourself so omniptent that you can say that the church will die out. Things change, and God will watch over his people and his Church.

so the church will continue to keep bad priests and close parishes leaving the US catholics screwed.

and please dont lump me in with undelia's catholic hating.

That is the annulment thing I referred to. It means that your marriage wasn't a valid one in the first place.


There is a comparable process for leaving the priesthood, but its name escapes me at the moment...

There's annullment, but I'm pretty sure there's also divorce. They're two different things.

Yes, the sale of indulgences was idiotic, so was the persecution of "heretics" (including scientists, Protestants, witches, Jews and many other groups) and the Crusades. But those things are all old news. I'd like to say where I think the Church is off base today.

For one, the whole thing on gay preists. Gays have contributed significantly to the ranks of the priesthood (which are currently being depleted as it is). I think the Pope has, as many conservatives are prone to do, confusingly associated homosexuality with pedophaelia. The fact that about half of pedophile cases involve a man and a younger boy does not mean that gays are disproportionately more likely to be involved with pedophaelia. The mistake here is that sexual attraction to children is entirely unrelated to sexual attraction to either adult gender. A person who is attracted to children, in fact, is usually attracted to each gender of children equally because they are mostly androgenous. They then tend to molest whichever gender is more available. Therefore, a molester of young boys cannot accurately be labeled as a gay child molester any more accurately than he might be labeled as a straight child molester. The priest at my church spoke about this issue in a sermon recently. He said that the local archdiocese will interpret the Pope's mandate against gay priests as merely suggesting that a man must display a certain level of sexual maturity to be considered for priesthood regardless of his sexual preferance.

Secondly, the issue of the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa. I'm not asking that the Church change its policy on contraception in general. But, as the Church itself recognizes, morality, to a great extent, depends on the motive of the actor. For example, a woman in America or Europe may get a uterectomy if she is found to have cancer of the uterus. This will eliminate her ability to have children, which makes it generally wrong according to Catholic morality. Since the surgery is only being undertaken to destroy her cancer, however, it is taken as an exception to the rule. Furthermore, she may continue to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband despite the fact that it is impossible for them to have children. Applying this same concept to reducing the spread of AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa, we can see that if an African man uses a condom merely for the purpose of preventing his partner from contracting AIDS, it ought to be allowed by the Church.

No one can retire from marriage,
Well, you see, in civilized society, we have this thing called divorce. It’s when a married couple realizes that you really can’t love somebody forever, and instead of living the rest of their lives miserably like the Catholic church seems to want to do, they move on.

By the way, I know of plenty of Catholics who got divorced and remarried and the church did nothing about it. Of course, they don’t attend church except on Easter, and they certainly don’t do “good works.” They are the symbols of your dieing belief system.

You, stop peddling that nonsense. You aren’t going to convert anybody. Not here, not now, not ever. Give up already. There are enough of your kind poisoning the ballot box as it is.


Undelia, listen to yourself, you base all your opinions on some self-centered theory that you know whats right. You really think that no-one, ever, at any time or in any possible way will change their minds because of what I say. That is blatant ignorance. Many have converted and many will do so in hte future. I will continue to "peddle my nonsense" as I feel is right. I dont know about anyone else, but I feel as though my faith is strong and as such I feel called to bring it to others. (Go ahead have a field day with attacking my calling)

and please dont lump me in with undelia's catholic hating.
I’m not a Catholic hater, I’m a religion hater.

Well, you see, in civilized society, we have this thing called divorce. It’s when a married couple realizes that you really can’t love somebody forever, and instead of living the rest of their lives miserably like the Catholic church seems to want to do, they move on.

By the way, I know of plenty of Catholics who got divorced and remarried and the church did nothing about it. Of course, they don’t attend church except on Easter, and they certainly don’t do “good works.” They are the symbols of your dieing belief system.



Divorce is a terrible develpment in society. Those who participate in this act are not ones to look to for example of the chruch.

Then you lack basic logic.

Now who's believing something without real proof?


The truth hurts.
Although, certainly don’t believe all believers are mentally incompetent. Some of their leaders are right up with the Bush administration as the most cunning people on the planet. Too bad their goals are so contrary to the good of humanity, society and me personally.

The Pope could be Satan himself for all I care. The heirarchy has nothing to do with my defense of Catholics. To be honest I don't *think* there's a god, or anything at all for that matter. What does matter, though, is that these people who congregate in church do so because of ideas based on love and community. Your average Catholic is no crusader. They just hope that this isn't "it", and that they can learn to be better people through an example (which may or may not have been set, that's not even relevant to me) from someone who was supposed to be a good person.

Am I right to presume that you're hoping for a united world with secular peace? Because I am too. I don't think it can happen right away though. If you're going to tear down a faith because you think it will eventually be detrimental to this peace, you're looking at the wrong religion. The hood ornament in the Vatican isn't the whole car.

so the church will continue to keep bad priests and close parishes leaving the US catholics screwed.

and please dont lump me in with undelia's catholic hating.

As long as very few Catholics even consider the priesthood, yes, there will be shortages. The problem is, most people consider celibacy as some insanely difficult sacrifice...

Undelia, listen to yourself, you base all your opinions on some self-centered theory that you know whats right.
No, it’s you people who seem to think you know what’s right for everybody. Only your church doesn’t just use words, you all use the government to control women’s bodies, oppress homosexuals and keep God on our currency and in our pledge.
You really think that no-one, ever, at any time or in any possible way will change their minds because of what I say. That is blatant ignorance. Many have converted and many will do so in hte future.
And just as many leave.

The thing is, the priesthood is a vocation, just like marriage. It isn't just a job.

No one can retire from marriage, and in the same way, no one can retire from the priesthood.

You can't stop your vocation, the Church doesn't allow people to stop their marriage (technically, an annullment means that your marriage never happened). Thus the Church doesn't allow people to stop being priests. They can retire, in the sense that they will no longer have to work as priest, but they will still be priests.
and in the meantime the faithful are underserved with too many inferior priests. sad isnt it.

Well, you see, in civilized society, we have this thing called divorce. It’s when a married couple realizes that you really can’t love somebody forever, and instead of living the rest of their lives miserably like the Catholic church seems to want to do, they move on.

You must not have been paying attention when I defined an annulment...

They are the symbols of your dieing belief system.

Actually, there have been and always will be those who don't practice the faith/fall away from it, so the Church is no more dying than usual, in that sense.

I’m not a Catholic hater, I’m a religion hater.


Then leave alrady, I am tired of hearing your "Im right beacuse I am arguement" its not your problem so leave. I only pray that you wake up to God and change your ways. Maybe one day you will.

As long as very few Catholics even consider the priesthood, yes, there will be shortages. The problem is, most people consider celibacy as some insanely difficult sacrifice...
its not going to change.

only the church hierarchy can fix it. that they dont do it says to me that the church in the US isnt particularly important to them

Then leave alrady, I am tired of hearing your "Im right beacuse I am arguement" its not your problem so leave. I only pray that you wake up to God and change your ways. Maybe one day you will.

Ye Gods, you'd want Undelia in your religion? I thought attempted suicide was considered a sin by Catholics!

and in the meantime the faithful are underserved with too many inferior priests. sad isnt it.

What is even more sad is that young Catholic men aren't, as a whole, noticing the dire need and discerning their vocation. Many of them are of the opinion that you can't be attracted to people in a sexual way and be a priest.

What would be very sad indeed would be if the Church took the situation lightly, which it fortunately does not. I'm not opposed to women priests and married priests if that is the course that the Church decides to take, but I certainly wouldn't want it to be something that they rush into just to relieve a little pressure.

As long as very few Catholics even consider the priesthood, yes, there will be shortages. The problem is, most people consider celibacy as some insanely difficult sacrifice...
It is.
Am I right to presume that you're hoping for a united world with secular peace? Because I am too. I don't think it can happen right away though. If you're going to tear down a faith because you think it will eventually be detrimental to this peace, you're looking at the wrong religion. The hood ornament in the Vatican isn't the whole car.
You underestimate the hierarchy’s power. Did you see all those people morning the death of that terrible man, Karol Wojtyła? I have no doubt in my mind that many assemble at the Vatican would have fought and died at that man’s command.
This world is “it.” It is detrimental to one’s own life when they deny themselves pleasure and detrimental to mine when they deny me those pleasures though the government.
Divorce is a terrible develpment in society. Those who participate in this act are not ones to look to for example of the chruch.
I suppose you think that women should just “turn the other check” when their husbands beat them then, eh?

its not going to change.

only the church hierarchy can fix it. that they dont do it says to me that the church in the US isnt particularly important to them

Well, we've just recently seen the Church acknowledge evolution. Maybe married priests is next. The heirarchy may be motivated by nothing but a craving for attention, but the power will ultimately lie with the people who seem to be learning to think freely while also believe in the key tenets of their faith. No doubt this is angering hard-line religious and athiests alike.

Ye Gods, you'd want Undelia in your religion? I thought attempted suicide was considered a sin by Catholics!


Well yea its crazy I know, but ideally, everyone should belong to the church, if undelia does ever decide to join my faith, then it means he is that much closer to being in Union with God's plan, which is the goal of the Church, and Undelia will no doubltedly attacc that statement with somthing liek the Chruchs goal is control. Whatever Undelia.

its not going to change.

If it changed before, why can't it change anymore? There weren't priest-shortages centuries ago, but there are now. Circumstances change.

only the church hierarchy can fix it. that they dont do it says to me that the church in the US isnt particularly important to them

Well, in all fairness, the Church in the US shouldn't be particularly important to them. They have hundereds of other countries that deserve their attention as much as the USA does...

I suppose you think that women should just “turn the other check” when their husbands beat them then, eh?


Well, acknowledge that even happening and there is such a thing as seperation, which is the physical avoidane of someone while still holding true the promise made. And more often than not, one who beats his wife never really understood his marraige and therefore probably didnt actually marry in the sense fo the unbreakable bond.

Well, we've just recently seen the Church acknowledge evolution. Maybe married priests is next. The heirarchy may be motivated by nothing but a craving for attention, but the power will ultimately lie with the people who seem to be learning to think freely while also believe in the key tenets of their faith. No doubt this is angering hard-line religious and athiests alike.

Married priests would be different. That's a distinctly Protestant thing, and it's one of the most obvious, visible divisions. They wouldn't risk their image that much.

O yes, and an all celebate priesthood. Theologically, it isn't neceassary, therefore the only way to measure its value is in practical terms. I think it is rather cleat that, in the modern Church, an all celebate priesthood is entirely impractical. Obviously, a married priest will be less dedicated than an unmarried one, but having a relatively low number of very dedicated priests is only one way to go about the problem. We could have a relatively high number of less dedicated priests. I think that would be a better solution in the modern Church.

And more often than not, one who beats his wife never really understood his marraige and therefore probably didnt actually marry in the sense fo the unbreakable bond.

Which, of course, is where annulments come into play :)

What is even more sad is that young Catholic men aren't, as a whole, noticing the dire need and discerning their vocation. Many of them are of the opinion that you can't be attracted to people in a sexual way and be a priest.
Which is why I praise catholic women and girls who dress proactively. They know not what they do, but they’re destroying your church. The easy availability of condoms and the societal attitudes towards sex do wonders as well.
Who’s a young man going to believe, the stuffy old man who tells them the church needs priests, or the rapper who tells him that it’s okay to fuck that chick in the short skirt raw?
Then leave alrady, I am tired of hearing your "Im right beacuse I am arguement" its not your problem so leave. I only pray that you wake up to God and change your ways. Maybe one day you will.
How dare you!
I'm arrogant? I'm arrogant huh? The nerve!

Well yea its crazy I know, but ideally, everyone should belong to the church, if undelia does ever decide to join my faith, then it means he is that much closer to being in Union with God's plan, which is the goal of the Church, and Undelia will no doubltedly attacc that statement with somthing liek the Chruchs goal is control. Whatever Undelia.

Or he could warp God's plan and turn it to his own image. Do you want to take that risk?

O yes, and an all celebate priesthood. Theologically, it isn't neceassary, therefore the only way to measure its value is in practical terms. I think it is rather cleat that, in the modern Church, an all celebate priesthood is entirely impractical. Obviously, a married priest will be less dedicated than an unmarried one, but having a relatively low number of very dedicated priests is only one way to go about the problem. We could have a relatively high number of less dedicated priests. I think that would be a better solution in the modern Church.

Definitely. There are enough devout men in a given parish who, though married, would probably have no problem sharing duties with a handful of others as priest-brothers at the same parish. Just pick a night that's good for you!

Married priests would be different. That's a distinctly Protestant thing, and it's one of the most obvious, visible divisions. They wouldn't risk their image that much.

Actually, priests in the Orthodox Catholic Church (the main Catholic Church in Russia) can marry, although it is uncommon. And, through a series of circumstances, Catholic priests can be married.

Well, we've just recently seen the Church acknowledge evolution. Maybe married priests is next. The heirarchy may be motivated by nothing but a craving for attention, but the power will ultimately lie with the people who seem to be learning to think freely while also believe in the key tenets of their faith. No doubt this is angering hard-line religious and athiests alike.


Well that is a nice leap of logic. But as far as I can see the circumsatnces are a little different. The reasoning behind the Churchs original dissapproval of the evolution is that previously, the hierarchy read the creation story too literally, in recent in recnet times, the hierarchy has competely based itself upon the real intention of the scripture rather thatn a literal interpretation. And married prieshood would do more harm then good. At first numbers would jump. But as time moved along the church would find the overwhelming difficuly of dealing with the conflict between duty to gods people and duty to wife and family. Then numbers would drop and quality of priests and chruch effectiveness would drop.

And to those who say celibacy is an impossible sacrifice... it's a sacrifice I'm planning to make.




IMHO, the biggest reason that the Church isn't allowing priests to marry is that it is something that they will not be able to undo if/when the shortages of priests end.

Definitely. There are enough devout men in a given parish who, though married, would probably have no problem sharing duties with a handful of others as priest-brothers at the same parish. Just pick a night that's good for you!
That is precisely my vision for the Church in modern times. Also, I think it is important to note that celebacy has not always been a requirement in the priesthood. It is a matter that the Church can change (and has changed) from time to time as the situation demands.

And to those who say celibacy is an impossible sacrifice... it's a sacrifice I'm planning to make.
Then you forfeit one of the foundations of human existence.
Well that is a nice leap of logic. But as far as I can see the circumsatnces are a little different. The reasoning behind the Churchs original dissapproval of the evolution is that previously, the hierarchy read the creation story too literally, in recent in recnet times, the hierarchy has competely based itself upon the real intention of the scripture rather thatn a literal interpretation. And married prieshood would do more harm then good. At first numbers would jump. But as time moved along the church would find the overwhelming difficuly of dealing with the conflict between duty to gods people and duty to wife and family. Then numbers would drop and quality of priests and chruch effectiveness would drop.
So you're doomed either way!:D

And to those who say celibacy is an impossible sacrifice... it's a sacrifice I'm planning to make.

It's only impossible if you place too much importance on sex and its trappings. Sometimes the reason people have for not worshipping one thing is because they're busy worshipping another.

Actually, priests in the Orthodox Catholic Church (the main Catholic Church in Russia) can marry, although it is uncommon. And, through a series of circumstances, Catholic priests can be married.

Orthodox isn't Catholic. Roman Catholicism has a reputation as "the celibate denomination", and it's going to be difficult for it to lose that without losing it's individuality.

That is precisely my vision for the Church in modern times. Also, I think it is important to note that celebacy has not always been a requirement in the priesthood. It is a matter that the Church can change (and has changed) from time to time as the situation demands.

If I remember correctly, it hasn't changed in the last 1600 years or so, and it only changed once, going from "you can marry, but almost no one does" (a la the Eastern Orthodox Church) to "you can't marry".

Orthodox isn't Catholic. Roman Catholicism has a reputation as "the celibate denomination", and it's going to be difficult for it to lose that without losing it's individuality.

While I agree with your second statement, I disagree with your first. The Orthodox Catholic Church is in communion with the Roman Catholic Church (the big distinction being that Roman Catholics can go to Orthodox Catholic masses and recieve communion, and vice versa).

Which is why I praise catholic women and girls who dress proactively. They know not what they do, but they’re destroying your church. The easy availability of condoms and the societal attitudes towards sex do wonders as well.
Who’s a young man going to believe, the stuffy old man who tells them the church needs priests, or the rapper who tells him that it’s okay to fuck that chick in the short skirt raw?
Well you see, thats the probllem, there are no longer any morals in US society. The entirety of our social structure is based on selfish competition as opposed to common good. The US sociey will repeat the Roman societies mistakes if morals arent brought into focus. And by the way, I am no old man, I find the rappers message pretty retarded.



How dare you!
I'm arrogant? I"m arrogant huh? The nerve!

How dare I? Man just leave, your fighting with a bunch of people who know the importance of god and religion. If you believe your whole "your not gonan convert anyone" arguemaent then you are completely denying your own point in trying to convince me. And yes I still hold true that it is very possible for me to convert people to my faith

That is precisely my vision for the Church in modern times. Also, I think it is important to note that celebacy has not always been a requirement in the priesthood. It is a matter that the Church can change (and has changed) from time to time as the situation demands.

Then there's definitely still hope for ongoing progression. With every new generation things get a little different, as here and there different ideas make their way into the tapestry. With any luck, one day, people will look around and see that on so many levels, what they believe is not so different from their neighbour. Peace shouldn't come though reluctant uniformity, but through welcomed diversity.

It's only impossible if you place too much importance on sex and its trappings. Sometimes the reason people have for not worshipping one thing is because they're busy worshipping another.
Sex ain’t got nothing on any fairy tale.

It's only impossible if you place too much importance on sex and its trappings. Sometimes the reason people have for not worshipping one thing is because they're busy worshipping another.

Well put!

Then you forfeit one of the foundations of human existence.

So you're doomed either way!:D


Ugh. Sacrifcie man you have no understanding because you see the world as a battleground, I see it as a community striving for the ultimate good (at least its supposed to be)


And no we have maintained jsut fine and will continue to do so despite apparent failing numbers in the US. Not everyhig can be simplified.

Sex ain’t got nothing on any fairy tale.

I've had some sex in my time that was like a fairy tale.
I've also had some that could be called nothing short of Biblical.

Maybe I'm just lucky?

I've had some sex in my time that was like a fairy tale.
I've also had some that could be called nothing short of Biblical.

Maybe I'm just lucky?


Well then I have to ask, Are you married?

Well you see, thats the probllem, there are no longer any morals in US society. The entirety of our social structure is based on selfish competition as opposed to common good.
Which is why we flourish and have flourished these past two hundred years, damn it! You can go on and on about “the common good” all you want but ultimately it doesn’t matter. All that matters is yourself and the real pleasures you can obtain.
The US sociey will repeat the Roman societies mistakes if morals arent brought into focus.
The only mistake the Romans made was creating a large, permanent welfare class that need to be constantly placated. This hindered them in their ability to fight the various barbarians.
Fortunately, we have no such outside threats and will be fine in the modern world.

Well then I have to ask, Are you married?
Well, I have to ask, do you live in the fucking Middle Ages?

You, stop peddling that nonsense. You aren’t going to convert anybody. Not here, not now, not ever. Give up already. There are enough of your kind poisoning the ballot box as it is.

For a first post this will be fun! :D

Undelia - I wholeheartedly agree with you. The post that resulted in that comment was arguably the one thing i DESPISE about all religions. I don't know if the following theory was behind it, but it's the only excuse i'd contemplate accepting, and that's they want your life to improve. That's it. Admittedly the reasoning is bull, and the way they've gone about it is wrong, i.e FORCING BELIEFS AND IDEALS.

*Officially*, i'm an Anglican (Church of England), as I've been confirmed. That was when I was 12, and had the mind span of, well, a 12 year old. I'm now 21 and think i'm in a much better place to judge what I believe.
My gran is a devout Christian, less so my parents, but I cannot accept it. If nothing else, Religion is the cause of 99.9% of wars, because of the determination in refusing to accept others.

As for not being able to leave the church? Bunkum. Course you can. It's called "changing your beliefs" - surprisingly something you are actually allowed to do. Try it sometime. Similarly, can't resign from marriage? :headbang: It's been said before but i'll be slower - D - I - V - O - R - C - E. It's legal you know.

As for Catholicism as a whole (the above has been merely directed at a couple of points that have arisen) - it is seen as an evil religion in todays world. Mainly as a result of the selfishness of the past - at my Grandad's place of work, back in the 30's, one Catholic a week would take it in turns to be *absent* when the Father came round collecting. That was Catholics themselves. And you wonder why people are anti-Catholic? I hasten to add I do know a few Catholics, none of whom attempt to preach, or belittle me in anyway - they allow me to live MY life - indeed, a couple don't follow Catholicism unless they are at home (they are College students), when they attend Church.

This is a long opening post, and I now intend to get a good nights rest!

Well then I have to ask, Are you married?

Heh, nope. But the sex was never casual. I do make the point of loving the girl before we involve ourselves downstairs.

If I remember correctly, it hasn't changed in the last 1600 years or so, and it only changed once, going from "you can marry, but almost no one does" (a la the Eastern Orthodox Church) to "you can't marry".
Actually, it has only been around 1200 years (still a long time admittedly.) Secondly, marraige among priests was not completely out of the mainstream at some points in Church history. St. Peter and other later Popes were even married and had children.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy#Celibacy_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Church)

Which is why we flourish and have flourished these past two hundred years, damn it! You can go on and on about “the common good” all you want but ultimately it doesn’t matter. All that matters is yourself and the real pleasures you can obtain..

Man I was right, you just admitted you are selfish, again, if your the only one that matters, THEN WHY ARE YOU WASTING TIME ARGUEING WITH ME!?!?!
You keep doing that Undelia, you are making mistakes and contradictions.

The only mistake the Romans made was creating a large, permanent welfare class that need to be constantly placated. This hindered them in their ability to fight the various barbarians.
Fortunately, we have no such outside threats and will be fine in the modern world.


Whoa, really, constant welfare class? Wait a second, we got one too. And if you dont call terrorism, national debt to God only knows who, and all those nations who arent so fond of us not a threat then your blind.

Heh, nope. But the sex was never casual. I do make the point of loving the girl before we involve ourselves downstairs.


Well if you really had any understanding of True Love, then perhaps you wuold have seen that marraige is tho only circumstance in which sex attains its true and most beneficial form. But alas, No one understande True Lvoe anymore. Look for thread on true love soon. well see who turns up there.

Actually, it has only been around 1200 years (still a long time admittedly.) Secondly, marraige among priests was not completely out of the mainstream at some points in Church history. St. Peter and other later Popes were even married and had children.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy#Celibacy_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Church)

Good point. I suppose the biggest thing to remember is that celibacy is a tradition, not a doctrine...

Actually, it has only been around 1200 years (still a long time admittedly.) Secondly, marraige among priests was not completely out of the mainstream at some points in Church history. St. Peter and other later Popes were even married and had children.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy#Celibacy_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Church)


Yes Peter was married, the circumstances were a little different my friend. The actuall debae is long and difficult, but ultimately, marrigae phased out of priesthood becasue the priests decided it through their actions, it was not suddenyl made a rule by the hierarchy, it was done because people saw that it was the best way.

Man I was right, you just admitted you are selfish, again,
You don't seem to understand that I don't care that I'm selfish.
THEN WHY ARE YOU WASTING TIME ARGUEING WITH ME!?!?!
I'm enjoying myself. You must be made aware that people hate what you beleive and I am more than happy to be the messenger.
Whoa, really, constant welfare class? Wait a second, we got one too.
Yes, but I think it will sort itself out in the next two decades. The Romans sustained there's for near on two centuries.
And if you dont call terrorism
Most the of the terror threat is amnufactured by the government.
national debt
Will fix itself over the course of the next century. Americans won't put up with it forever.
to God only knows who, and all those nations who arent so fond of us not a threat then your blind.
Seems to me that the only country that declares war lately is the US.

Well if you really had any understanding of True Love, then perhaps you wuold have seen that marraige is tho only circumstance in which sex attains its true and most beneficial form. But alas, No one understande True Lvoe anymore. Look for thread on true love soon. well see who turns up there.

Well, I don't think love is something that can be an absolute. You can love someone absolutely, but there can't possibly be one absolute standard. Everyone has different ways. My last love could be summed up as "french toast when none was expected". Perhaps we're about to start disagreeing.

Well, I have to ask, do you live in the fucking Middle Ages?


Finally, there it is. Anger and frustration with me. If I had lived in the middle ages, wouldn't it be quite a feat that i could argue back and forth with you right now. Dang im sorry if that was sarcastic but it still holds a good point.
Try to keep your arguements pointed at the issue and dont aim this at me. The issus is that the rampant promiscuity is killing people, literaly, pyscologicaly, and spiritually, the act of sex, just as a smile is the universal symbol for happy, sex is in its very essence, the ultimate pledge of ones entire self to that person. To do this several times to many different people poses an obvious sonflict. how can you give yourself to someone if you already gave it someone else.

You don't seem to understand that I don't care that I'm selfish.

I'm enjoying myself. You must be made aware that people hate what you beleive and I am more than happy to be the messenger.

Yes, but I think it will sort itself out in the next two decades. The Romans sustained there's for near on two centuries.

Most the of the terror threat is amnufactured by the government.

Will fix itself over the course of the next century. Americans won't put up with it forever.

Seems to me that the only country that declares war lately is the US.

I know that you dont care

Whatever.

Yea you think it will sort itself out.

Again with the quick conspiracy theory. The two towers was the government making it up?!.... Hmm.

Again you think it will ifx itself, maybe a economic collapse will fix it. Maybe your just hiding instead of defending your point.

Man you must hate your country as much as you hate religion.

If it's true that Undelia is essentially trolling, then just move on.

Yes Peter was married, the circumstances were a little different my friend. The actuall debae is long and difficult, but ultimately, marrigae phased out of priesthood becasue the priests decided it through their actions, it was not suddenyl made a rule by the hierarchy, it was done because people saw that it was the best way.
Exactly, it was a different situation in Peter's time. It's also a different situation today. The church should adapt to these changes. I think that in modern times, this adaptation demands that the priests be allowed to marry. A relative surplus of somewhat less dedicated priests is a preferable solution, not least because we're running out of people to administer the sacraments. Also, it will reaffirm the connection between the priesthood and the layity as many of these priests will be more thuroughly integrated into the community. Finally, because this is merely a matter of tradition and not infallible doctrine, the magisterium should make this decision based on what is best for the modern Church without regarding what decisions were made on this issue 1200 or 2000 years ago.

Also, it will reaffirm the connection between the priesthood and the layity as many of these priests will be more thuroughly integrated into the community.

???

Well, I don't think love is something that can be an absolute. You can love someone absolutely, but there can't possibly be one absolute standard. Everyone has different ways. My last love could be summed up as "french toast when none was expected". Perhaps we're about to start disagreeing.


Wait, you just compared Love to Frech Toast? Love is an absolute as is presnt, and was created by God the eteranl being of Love, his son of Love Incarnate. You think that you have more authority over such a power as Love that what God made? There is such a thing as an absolute and True Love is one of them. maybe you should show yourself at the Tur love thread and delve into further duscussion, because, if you cant tell, I like to debate and discuss. And love is one of my favorite topics.

Finally, there it is. Anger and frustration with me. If I had lived in the middle ages, wouldn't it be quite a feat that i could argue back and forth with you right now. Dang im sorry if that was sarcastic but it still holds a good point.
Try to keep your arguements pointed at the issue and dont aim this at me. The issus is that the rampant promiscuity is killing people, literaly, pyscologicaly, and spiritually, the act of sex, just as a smile is the universal symbol for happy, sex is in its very essence, the ultimate pledge of ones entire self to that person. To do this several times to many different people poses an obvious sonflict. how can you give yourself to someone if you already gave it someone else.
Wait, what? Sexual intercourse is the biological process by which mammals, avians, reptiles, amphibians, and most insects reproduce.
Mammals developed extra sensitive nerve endings in their reproductive organs which caused sex to occur more frequently, establishing mammals as the dominant phylum on earth, after insects which have their own means of mass production.

Primates along with dolphins developed shorter and shorter cycles eventually allowing females to accept sex all year round.
Hominids evolved from these primates already having sex for pleasure, not because of an instinctive need to reproduce.

Sex purely for pleasure has been in the family a looooong time.

You think that you have more authority over such a power as Love that what God made?

Well, God also made French Toast :p

Either way, I'm going to bed. I'll see you all tomorrow.

True Being, try not to lose your head ;)

Again with the quick conspiracy theory. The two towers was the government making it up?!.... Hmm.
Unlikely, the government just blew it out of proportion.
Man you must hate your country as much as you hate religion.
Yep.

Exactly, it was a different situation in Peter's time. It's also a different situation today. The church should adapt to these changes. I think that in modern times, this adaptation demands that the priests be allowed to marry. A relative surplus of somewhat less dedicated priests is a preferable solution, not least because we're running out of people to administer the sacraments. Also, it will reaffirm the connection between the priesthood and the layity as many of these priests will be more thuroughly integrated into the community. Finally, because this is merely a matter of tradition and not infallible doctrine, the magisterium should make this decision based on what is best for the modern Church without regarding what decisions were made on this issue 1200 or 2000 years ago.


Well seems we have found a bit of a gray area. marriage in priesthood. Well, no a surplus of less effective priests wouldn't do any good at all, it really wouldn't reaffirm any connection. Marriage was rooted out of priesthood because it casued problems with the function of a priest. At the time of the Church's creation was a circumstance never to be repeated. Christ chose Peter, a married man, to lead his church because it was as he saw fit. And no matter what, married priests would lead to more distress in the priesthood. The competing demands of Wife and Chruch can simply not be afforded by the Church.

Wait, what? Sexual intercourse is the biological process by which mammals, avians, reptiles, amphibians, and most insects reproduce.
Mammals developed extra sensitive nerve endings in their reproductive organs which caused sex to occur more frequently, establishing mammals as the dominant phylum on earth, after insects which have their own means of mass production.

Primates along with dolphins developed shorter and shorter cycles eventually allowing females to accept sex all year round.
Hominids evolved from these primates already having sex for pleasure, not because of an instinctive need to reproduce.

Sex purely for pleasure has been in the family a looooong time.


Well you wont believe me. But we arent animals. The fact that sex is different for humans than it is for animals only reaffirms that. God didn't design dolphins to be his ultimate creation of purpose and love. God did have a plan for Humans and he made them different. Maybe, just maybe, on a completely non-theological basis you could say evolutionaryily speaking what you say is true. But then again, evolution still doesn't have an answer for the "missing link" between monkeys and people, it also cant explain why we have free will and everything else is set to run purely on instinct and stimuli. Aslo this thread was started on the basis of theological logic so the fact that you bring it up here shows that you are now reaching for your evidence.

???
As it is now, priests don't necessarily have the time to spend hanging out with their neighbors. They're too busy administering sacraments and fulfilling their other priestly obligations. With three or four preists per congregation (or even more) being an everyday member of the neighborhood would become more commonplace among priests. I see this as a good thing because it brings the priests and the layity in closer communion with each other.

Well, God also made French Toast :p

Either way, I'm going to bed. I'll see you all tomorrow.

True Being, try not to lose your head ;)


Well, technically no, God didtn make french toast, we did with what he gave us. French toast doesn't really have any effect on the outcome of god's plan either, God doesn't think too much about french toast. But I dont think thats what you were implying. You so far have made some good sense.
Have a good night Grand Maritol, and I am trying not to lose my head.

Oh the ignorance.
]But then again, evolution still doesn't have an answer for the "missing link" between monkeys and people,
There is no “missing link,” evolutionary biologists can trace human ancestry back to the first pseudo-amphibians to walk on land and some claim to know what fish that came from.
it also cant explain why we have free will and everything else is set to run purely on instinct and stimuli.
Other primates have "free will," as do dolphins, as do some avian species and lesser mammals, to an extent. Our brains devloped to the point where instinct was no longer needed to survive because we could solve problems, so hominids without strong instincts were able to pass on their genes.
Aslo this thread was started on the basis of theological logic so the fact that you bring it up here shows that you are now reaching for your evidence.
Stuff changes. Welcome to NS General.

Well seems we have found a bit of a gray area. marriage in priesthood. Well, no a surplus of less effective priests wouldn't do any good at all, it really wouldn't reaffirm any connection. Marriage was rooted out of priesthood because it casued problems with the function of a priest. At the time of the Church's creation was a circumstance never to be repeated. Christ chose Peter, a married man, to lead his church because it was as he saw fit. And no matter what, married priests would lead to more distress in the priesthood. The competing demands of Wife and Chruch can simply not be afforded by the Church.
My idea here is that, if you have enough priests, they don't need to be as dedicated because they can separate responsibilities. The reason they got rid of marriage in the priesthood was because of their vision for what the priesthood should be. I'm proposing an entirely different vision. My vision of the priesthood emphasizes participation among many rather than dedication of a few. I believe this will be more effective given the unique circumstances of the modern Church.

About six years ago I made a promise to myself that I would know myself before I tried to know faith. God's just going to have to be very patient. i hear he's good at that.

yes, that he is, that he is. I suggest a quasi walkabout. It is how I went from blind faith to one founded on a personal experience with Christ.

i am going to preface my statement:
i was born and raised Catholic.. even went to catholic school. i will never dog the school i went to, because for being a catholic school they were pretty lax with me and the teachers there were awesome (they let me read a book on demons and satanism on school grounds!!! and i never got in trouble for it) but i'm not big into organized religion on the whole.. thru my own studies.. nothing that the church has done to me personally.
HOWEVER a couple things bother me.. judgmentalism... i found that they were slightly hypocritical in this area... they want to follow the tennants of the big list of 10 bad things not to do (ie 10 commandments) yet they like to forget about "thou shalt not judge" a whole lot.. i don't need to point in anything in particular.. its patently obvious (at least to me) and the other thing that kind of irks me and its small.. anyone know who Tomas de Torquemada is?? if you don't remember your history, he was the Grand Inquisitor .. responsible for a LOT of very bad things.. like burning people at the stake.. because some neighbor said so... and torturing people.
NOW go look at a page funded by catholics about this man
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14783a.htm

not at all painted in the horrible light it truely deserves.. even tho he SPECIFICALLY BURNED JEWS (hitler anyone?) yet the church still reads his life as a good man and highly esteemed by the church.

i see a problem with this.. does anyone else?

Oh the ignorance.

There is no “missing link,” evolutionary biologists can trace human ancestry back to the first pseudo-amphibians to walk on land and some claim to know what fish that came from.

Other primates have "free will," as do dolphins, as do some avian species and lesser mammals, to an extent. Our brains devloped to the point where instinct was no longer needed to survive because we could solve problems, so hominids without strong instincts were able to pass on their genes.

Stuff changes. Welcome to NS General.


Uh yeah there is a Missing link, there is an unexplicibly large gap between primates and humans. And no other primates do not have free will. What they have is a complex set of instincts which can appear to making choice to the uninformed.
Yea I know stuff changes. But the point still remains the same.

i am going to preface my statement:
i was born and raised Catholic.. even went to catholic school. i will never dog the school i went to, because for being a catholic school they were pretty lax with me and the teachers there were awesome (they let me read a book on demons and satanism on school grounds!!! and i never got in trouble for it) but i'm not big into organized religion on the whole.. thru my own studies.. nothing that the church has done to me personally.
HOWEVER a couple things bother me.. judgmentalism... i found that they were slightly hypocritical in this area... they want to follow the tennants of the big list of 10 bad things not to do (ie 10 commandments) yet they like to forget about "thou shalt not judge" a whole lot.. i don't need to point in anything in particular.. its patently obvious (at least to me) and the other thing that kind of irks me and its small.. anyone know who Tomas de Torquemada is?? if you don't remember your history, he was the Grand Inquisitor .. responsible for a LOT of very bad things.. like burning people at the stake.. because some neighbor said so... and torturing people.
NOW go look at a page funded by catholics about this man
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14783a.htm

not at all painted in the horrible light it truely deserves.. even tho he SPECIFICALLY BURNED JEWS (hitler anyone?) yet the church still reads his life as a good man and highly esteemed by the church.

i see a problem with this.. does anyone else?


Hey Torquemada, whaddaya say?
I just got back from the auto-da-fe
Auto-da-fe? what's an auto-da-fe?
It's what you oughtn't to do, but you do anyway!

Uh yeah there is a Missing link, there is an unexplicibly large gap between primates and humans. And no other primates do not have free will. What they have is a complex set of instincts which can appear to making choice to the uninformed.
Yea I know stuff changes. But the point still remains the same.

be careful when talking about what's set in stone about free will. I'd contest that my cat has free will, to whatever extent that means.

As long as very few Catholics even consider the priesthood, yes, there will be shortages. The problem is, most people consider celibacy as some insanely difficult sacrifice...

I don't, I have decided on abstinence till marriage, and I will then stay celebate in the matrimoanial version, a.k.a. not committing adultery

Uh yeah there is a Missing link, there is an unexplicibly large gap between primates and humans. And no other primates do not have free will. What they have is a complex set of instincts which can appear to making choice to the uninformed.
Yea I know stuff changes. But the point still remains the same.

Curious that you don't follow Church dogma re evolution.

Uh yeah there is a Missing link, there is an unexplicibly large gap between primates and humans.
No, there really isn't. I've studdied this, and by the way, humans and all precedent hominids are primates.
And no other primates do not have free will. What they have is a complex set of instincts which can appear to making choice to the uninformed.
You actually think I'm the uninformed one when you sound like you come out of the 1920's? What with talk of a "missing link." Don't make me laugh.

i am going to preface my statement:
i was born and raised Catholic.. even went to catholic school. i will never dog the school i went to, because for being a catholic school they were pretty lax with me and the teachers there were awesome (they let me read a book on demons and satanism on school grounds!!! and i never got in trouble for it) but i'm not big into organized religion on the whole.. thru my own studies.. nothing that the church has done to me personally.
HOWEVER a couple things bother me.. judgmentalism... i found that they were slightly hypocritical in this area... they want to follow the tennants of the big list of 10 bad things not to do (ie 10 commandments) yet they like to forget about "thou shalt not judge" a whole lot.. i don't need to point in anything in particular.. its patently obvious (at least to me) and the other thing that kind of irks me and its small.. anyone know who Tomas de Torquemada is?? if you don't remember your history, he was the Grand Inquisitor .. responsible for a LOT of very bad things.. like burning people at the stake.. because some neighbor said so... and torturing people.
NOW go look at a page funded by catholics about this man
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14783a.htm

not at all painted in the horrible light it truely deserves.. even tho he SPECIFICALLY BURNED JEWS (hitler anyone?) yet the church still reads his life as a good man and highly esteemed by the church.

i see a problem with this.. does anyone else?

Ok read a few pages up and catch the whole thing on human error int he church not error in the churches doctrine.
If you read more closely in the link youd see that the website really kinda goes unbiased on the subjuect. It merely lists a source that sees him a esteemed. It offers no condonement or honor to him from the Church. And yes Torquemada was a bad man. I know that. Read that website more closely next time.

I guess I have a few problems with the church. I think the church needs to "get with the times" I guess. Some of the beliefs and teachings seem a bit outdated.
It seems pretty unrealistic to ban contraceptives....I mean sure it would be nice if people actually waited to have sex until marriage, but not many really do. Even if you do wait until marriage, who the hell wants to have 16 kids because they never used a condom???
Also, I dislike the intolerant views some Catholics have about homosexuals. My best friend of 8 years is gay, and I tend to believe homosexuality is not so much a choice you make, but something you are born with....and to chastise these people for something they cannot really control seems a bit cruel.

My main problem with the Catholic Church is its dictatorial structure- you are told to never once question the Pope or any of his decisions. Catholicism may not go as far as actually supress dissent, but it indoctrinates the idea that it is perfect, preventing anyone from creating the kind of dialogue that would allow it to grow and thrive. I don't believe God created the Church simply to order people around.

The only mistake the Romans made was creating a large, permanent welfare class that need to be constantly placated. This hindered them in their ability to fight the various barbarians.
Fortunately, we have no such outside threats and will be fine in the modern world.

The Romans created no such class- the Plebeians were always a part of Roman society. Furthermore, the "placated" Romans were in Rome itself, not anywhere else in the Empire, and they were *not* the Plebeians.

I'd also say that the Western Roman Empire was broke and saddled with incompetent leaders in the 100 years before it fell, such as Honorius (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorius) and Valentinan III (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinan_III). The problem was much larger than a couple of lazy Romans.

Well if you really had any understanding of True Love, then perhaps you wuold have seen that marraige is tho only circumstance in which sex attains its true and most beneficial form. But alas, No one understande True Lvoe anymore. Look for thread on true love soon. well see who turns up there.

Riddle me this: can you have love outside of marriage and can you have a marriage without love?

The Romans created no such class- the Plebeians were always a part of Roman society. Furthermore, the "placated" Romans were in Rome itself, not anywhere else in the Empire, and they were *not* the Plebeians.
Rome had very slummy sections.
I'd also say that the Western Roman Empire was broke and saddled with incompetent leaders in the 100 years before it fell, such as Honorius and Valentinan III. The problem was much larger than a couple of lazy Romans.True, but you can't really blame the Romans for whoever happened to seize power.

Actually, priests in the Orthodox Catholic Church (the main Catholic Church in Russia) can marry, although it is uncommon. And, through a series of circumstances, Catholic priests can be married.

Deacons are allowed to be married, and can celebrate most of the sacraments, with the exception of those not allowed to preists, and Communion, and Confession.

No, there really isn't. I've studdied this, and by the way, humans and all precedent hominids are primates.

You actually think I'm the uninformed one when you sound like you come out of the 1920's? What with talk of a "missing link." Don't make me laugh.

Ok maybe your reading to much into the word I used. Regardless of what the 1920s used the phrase for, I use missing link to describe the hug gap between humans and monkeys, and yes there is, the gap between a gorillas behavior and mental state is infeinetly apart from a humans. Again sorry you read too much into wording, but when I said Humans and Primates I meant humans compared to everything not human. Free will is still the huge factor here. I can't believe this turned into a duscussino on the differences between humans and animals. The point of this thread(as i have said again and again) is to discuss theology. Undelia you are making this a personal competition with me. Im sorry you have a vendetta against religion and government but dont take it out on me.

Rome had very slummy sections.

True. Every city does. I don't believe it had anything to do with the Fall of Rome, though.

What is even more sad is that young Catholic men aren't, as a whole, noticing the dire need and discerning their vocation. Many of them are of the opinion that you can't be attracted to people in a sexual way and be a priest.Lol, I was told that I should become one when I was younger - such a nice little kid and all that. I just never have been very interested or felt anything like I was *supposed* to do it.

Undelia you are making this a personal competition with me. Im sorry you have a vendetta against religion and government but dont take it out on me.
I can't let ignorance stand.
and yes there is, the gap between a gorillas behavior and mental state is infeinetly apart from a humans
There’s just one problem with you’re little assertion there. Humans did not evolve from Gorillas or any other primate that still exists today. We evolved alongside them and natural selection “determined” (for lack of a less intelligence suggesting word) that we were to adapt to our environment differently.

Materialism. Its there. People can actually feel, taste smell, hear and see what they buy with their money. It will destroy meaningful religion completely someday. Spirits and vague promises are no match for pleasure.

Yes, corporate mass market capitalism is wearing away at religious fundamentalism.

One of its more positive aspects, definitely.

Uh yeah there is a Missing link, there is an unexplicibly large gap between primates and humans.

There is no "gap." Read a decent book on human evolution. The hominids we have evidence for provide a decent evolutionary path back towards the ancestor species of both the human and the chimpanzee. There are disputes over exactly what course this path took, but the "gap" has been filled.

And no other primates do not have free will. What they have is a complex set of instincts which can appear to making choice to the uninformed.

How do you know they don't have free will? For that matter, how do you know that other humans do have free will?

My main problem with the Catholic Church is its dictatorial structure- you are told to never once question the Pope or any of his decisions. Catholicism may not go as far as actually supress dissent, but it indoctrinates the idea that it is perfect, preventing anyone from creating the kind of dialogue that would allow it to grow and thrive. I don't believe God created the Church simply to order people around.


I'd also say that the Western Roman Empire was broke and saddled with incompetent leaders in the 100 years before it fell, such as Honorius (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorius) and Valentinan III (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinan_III). The problem was much larger than a couple of lazy Romans.



Riddle me this: can you have love outside of marriage and can you have a marriage without love?

Well I will tell you about Faith seeking understanding. You are expected to have faith in god, the church, and its doctrines, and you are expected to have questions. The thing is you arent expected to break off and radically attack the doctrine simply because you do not yet understand it.

And for your riddle: Love often exists outside marriage. But just because its there does not mean its ok to have sex. Marriage is the proper step up from love to consumated and blessed love. And unfortunately, we have many marraiges without love. Because even if you do not have real love you can still intend to honor and hold the purpose of marriage. so marriage without love is agreeing to act like you love thim wihtou actually oving them. Its really matter of hte couples understanding.

True. Every city does. I don't believe it had anything to do with the Fall of Rome, though.
The fires certainly couldn't have helped anything, though.
But yeah, you're right, it was the leaders.

Yes, corporate mass market capitalism is wearing away at religious fundamentalism.

One of its more positive aspects, definitely.



There is no "gap." Read a decent book on human evolution. The hominids we have evidence for provide a decent evolutionary path back towards the ancestor species of both the human and the chimpanzee. There are disputes over exactly what course this path took, but the "gap" has been filled.



How do you know they don't have free will? For that matter, how do you know that other humans do have free will?

Oh great. Now Undelia has a follower
Man you really do things simply because someno asked ou not to. I politley asked for a theological discussion and it quickly was lowered to evolution and the basic human concept of free will.

The fires certainly couldn't have helped anything, though.
But yeah, you're right, it was the leaders.


Where do you think the leaders came from? They were a product of a corrupt, morally lacking social structure, it is a vicious cycle which feeds upon itslef.

Ok maybe your reading to much into the word I used. Regardless of what the 1920s used the phrase for, I use missing link to describe the hug gap between humans and monkeys, and yes there is, the gap between a gorillas behavior and mental state is infeinetly apart from a humans. Again sorry you read too much into wording, but when I said Humans and Primates I meant humans compared to everything not human. Free will is still the huge factor here. I can't believe this turned into a duscussino on the differences between humans and animals. The point of this thread(as i have said again and again) is to discuss theology. Undelia you are making this a personal competition with me. Im sorry you have a vendetta against religion and government but dont take it out on me.

Meh. You ran away from the last thread and it turned into a discussion about animal intelligence as well. Your position -- that primates aren't intelligent -- was thoroughly pwned.


See,e.g., Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10748963&postcount=106),Link (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0401/resources_who.html)

Oh great. Now Undelia has a follower
Man you really do things simply because someno asked ou not to. I politley asked for a theological discussion and it quickly was lowered to evolution and the basic human concept of free will.

Gee, since when are the nature of creation and the concept of free will not theology?

JUst because not everyone agrees with your narrow little parameters of thought doesn't mean they aren't engaged in the discussion.

*snip
It seems pretty unrealistic to ban contraceptives....I mean sure it would be nice if people actually waited to have sex until marriage, but not many really do. Even if you do wait until marriage, who the hell wants to have 16 kids because they never used a condom???
*snip

16, that is unreasonable, but 13, hmmm, maybe, though my wife will proabably want me to adopt most of those so that she doesn't have to push that many kids through her birth canal. Birth, the thing that makes me thank God I was born a man.

Oh great. Now Undelia has a follower
Man you really do things simply because someno asked ou not to. I politley asked for a theological discussion and it quickly was lowered to evolution and the basic human concept of free will.

I do not follow anyone. Undelia and I have our points of agreement, but on, say, ethics we are pretty far apart.

The idea that human free will disproves evolution is beyond absurd, for several reasons:

1. We have no way of knowing that non-human primates lack free will;
2. It is not clear that, on the conscious level at which "free will" takes place, our choices are at all separate from a "complex set of instincts";
3. Even if neither of those were the case, the fact that humans have advanced mentally from their ancestor species millions of years ago does not disprove evolution any more than the fact that they have advanced mentally from bacteria disproves evolution.

Oh great. Now Undelia has a follower
Soheran is hardly my “follower.”

He’s an anarcho-syndicalist, I believe, while I’m an anarcho-individualist.
Totally different.

Edit: Really, I'm not kidding. I realise that could have sounded like sarcasm.

Meh. You ran away from the last thread and it turned into a discussion about animal intelligence as well. Your position -- that primates aren't intelligent -- was thoroughly pwned.


See,e.g., Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10748963&postcount=106),Link (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0401/resources_who.html)

To let you know I havent run form anything. And primates may be intelligent in your sense of the word. I am saying they do not posses the basic structure of human existence, free will.

I do not follow anyone. Undelia and I have our points of agreement, but on, say, ethics we are pretty far apart.

The idea that human free will disproves evolution is beyond absurd, for several reasons:

1. We have no way of knowing that non-human primates lack free will;
2. It is not clear that, on the conscious level at which "free will" takes place, our choices are at all separate from a "complex set of instincts";
3. Even if neither of those were the case, the fact that humans have advanced mentally from their ancestor species millions of years ago does not disprove evolution any more than the fact that they have advanced mentally from bacteria disproves evolution.


Wait a minute, I never said that evolution is entirely untrue. I said that evolution is no a good basis to argue the finer points love, sex, and God.
I believe that there was a form of evolution. I also believe that God played a quite seriously intefgral role in the process and that when it came to humans, God made us entirely different and unique though we may share certain physical proerties with them, in his image so to quote from the bible.

To let you know I havent run form anything. And primates may be intelligent in your sense of the word. I am saying they do not posses the basic structure of human existence, free will.

And what evidence do you proffer that humans possess free will and other primates do not?

Wait a minute, I never said that evolution is entirely untrue. I said that evolution is no a good basis to argue the finer points love, sex, and God.
I believe that there was a form of evolution. I also believe that God played a quite seriously intefgral role in the process and that when it came to humans, God made us entirely different and unique though we may share certain physical proerties with them, in his image so to quote from the bible.

Nice backtracking.

At least you are now somewhat closer to your own Church's doctrine.

Gee, since when are the nature of creation and the concept of free will not theology?

JUst because not everyone agrees with your narrow little parameters of thought doesn't mean they aren't engaged in the discussion.


There it is again. Can you argue without attacking me? Can you hold your composure? My parameters may seem narrow but you misunderstand. The point of the basic difference between ape and man when speaking on a chemical and biological level are no theology. To speak in a truely theological manner one must assume that humans are more than just organisms spawned by chance. They arent truely engaged in the discussion because the run from my theological veiws by turning to purley scientific evidence. And they treat huamns as if we are nothing special.

Nice backtracking.

At least you are now somewhat closer to your own Church's doctrine.


What was there to backtrack? I never said evolution wasnt there. I never contradicted.

Wait a minute, I never said that evolution is entirely untrue. I said that evolution is no a good basis to argue the finer points love, sex, and God.
I believe that there was a form of evolution. I also believe that God played a quite seriously intefgral role in the process and that when it came to humans, God made us entirely different and unique though we may share certain physical proerties with them, in his image so to quote from the bible.

Okay, I misunderstood your position then.

I think it's reasonable to argue that consciousness, and therefore free will, is an aspect of a soul granted by God, and not the result of a portion of the brain's physical composition.

But then Darwinian evolution is still fully true, as, physically, human beings are entirely its product. It is merely at the spiritual level, which through mind-body dualism is also the mental level, that human beings are different.

Edit: And, I would add, if this formulation is representative of your position, it still proves nothing, it merely saves your position from absurdity. If consciousness is not physical then we have no way of knowing that other primates are not conscious, and thus have no way of demonstrating that human beings are in fact unique in that respect.

First, the Church's view on evolution is not new. It has come up again recently, but the authorities of the Church have not seen a conflict between evolution and Catholicism for a long time. The Church has never required people to take the sequence in Genesis literally. St. Augustine, writing around 400 AD, warned that taking Genesis literally was an embarrassing error.

Second, there are 23 different rites of the Catholic Church. Only one of them, the Latin Rite ("Roman" Catholicism) requires a celibate priesthood. Now, 90% of Catholicism is Roman Catholicism, so celibacy is the dominant rule, however, Marionite, Syriac, Coptic, Byzantine, Ruthenian and all of the other Eastern Rites never adopted the Western Rite rule of celibacy. They are all in union with Rome, and all Catholic Churches.

Third, people do indeed have direct personal revelations from God. There are people walking around this planet who have seen angels, heaven, hell, and spoken with God directly. They don't have faith, they have empirical knowledge. What the do not have is any ability to translate that empirical knowledge to anybody else. Any listener can only have faith in what he hears, and that is where he stood before anyway.

Fourth, there is no divorce whatever in Catholicism. Someone up the thread suggested there was. There isn't.

Fifth, the Church does not endorse condoms in Africa because it is not through condoms that the spread of AIDS is prevented. It is through abstinence and monogamy. Condoms give a false sense of security. They allow for fornication, but do not prevent either AIDS or pregnancy. They somewhat reduce the risk, but only somewhat. The Church is not going to advise sin in order to somewhat reduce the consequences of sin. Rather, the Church is going to advise proper moral behavior, according to its teachings, which Africans are free to ignore at their own peril. I note that the Philippines, which do not as a state encourage condom use, have an extremely low rate of AIDS infection. People avoiding casual sex is a complete preventative to AIDS, pregnancies, and shattered emotional lives from one party being used. That's the Church's teaching. If someone doesn't want to follow that teaching, he doesn't. But it's rich to suggest that the Church stop teaching what it believes to be the truth and the whole truth, and sully itself by advocating sin as a protection against illness.

Sixth, the devout should be careful of making overly grand statements about the spiritual state of animals. The revelations given to men by Jesus and the angels, saints and prophets pertain to the salvation of men. They do not purport to be scientific texts that give anthropology and biology lessons, and they barely refer to the state of animals at all. However, the Noachide laws of the book of Genesis DO suggest moral guilt for animals that kill men, which at least gives a hint that God has His own plan and workings with animals. Rather than blindly assert things that we have no basis for knowing, and claiming knowledge that was not actually revealed to us, it is far better to simply say of animals that God obviously has a purpose for them, as He's been making various animal forms a whole lot longer than men, but whatever the relationship between God and His various animals is simply unknown to us, and not really our business. God has told us our own relationship to Him, and that much we can know. Delving into the souls of animals and other iffy questions is simply going off the reservation of revelation and risks asserting things that we have no authority nor revelation nor even knowledge to assert.
For three-quarters of a billion years God was peopling the world with animals and playing with animals before human beings came on the scene. Evidently God was doing things with animals for their own purpose, or for His own reasons that don't concern us. He didn't reveal anything about the dinosaurs and all of that collossal ancient pre-history in any of the world's sacred text. All of that man discovered on our own through poking around with dinosaur bones and fossils. Nothing in the revelations of the Judaeo-Christian faith talks about dinosaurs at all, or what God's purpose with all of this biological diversity that we only just stumble upon is. Tubular worms in deep ocean vents were clearly not made for US, but for their own purpose. We shouldn't hang any weight on what animals are or are not. We don't know anything, other than that God seems to be immensely pleased to make all sorts of different types of them. We need to worry about our own spiritual affairs, and not assert dogmatically things about the spiritual state of dolphins. The truth is we have no idea, and even, it's none of our business. That's between the dolphins and God. Our plate's full enough as it is.

There it is again. Can you argue without attacking me? Can you hold your composure? My parameters may seem narrow but you misunderstand. The point of the basic difference between ape and man when speaking on a chemical and biological level are no theology. To speak in a truely theological manner one must assume that humans are more than just organisms spawned by chance. They arent truely engaged in the discussion because the run from my theological veiws by turning to purley scientific evidence. And they treat huamns as if we are nothing special.

There you go again.

One must assume certain theological viewpoints in order to discuss theology?

And what evidence do you proffer that humans possess free will and other primates do not?


What evidence? Just listen to the example. I as a human can choose to kill myself at any moment enidng my life with full knowledge and intent (and no i wouldn't do such a thing). When have you heard of any animal deliberately killing itself knowing that it was doing so? Animals are driven by the basic need of survival, and though humans have that same basic need, we also posses the ability to ignore it.

Third, people do indeed have direct personal revelations from God. There are people walking around this planet who have seen angels, heaven, hell, and spoken with God directly. They don't have faith, they have empirical knowledge. What the do not have is any ability to translate that empirical knowledge to anybody else. Any listener can only have faith in what he hears, and that is where he stood before anyway.
As Thomas Paine said, “you are under no obligation to believe second hand revelations.”

Now, to be serious

Good Works is defined by the church these days, as following the beattitudes, the Ten Commandments, and being a generally good person. In otherwords, you can believe in Christ and still go to hell if you don't do as he asks us. Rappers who claim to follow Jesus while encouraging young men and women to go at it like dogs, while also supporting the use of drugs and violence to solve problems. Thank the Lord there are Rap groups like Phat Mass and Verb 7 who spread a good message through their rap.

As for the mistakes of the past, Pope John Paul II publicly appologised for all the things that the church had condoned throughout the years, ranging from the inquisition to the crusades, to the slaughtering of heretics.

Infallibility only pretains to the faith. Things like Mary was a virgin her entire life (Which is why I look up to her), Jesus died for our sins and was 100% God and yet, at the same time 100% man, etc. The church's mistakes in the past where not considered Infallable.

As for relics, statues, crucifixes, etc. Relics are the belongings, bones, etc. of those declared to be saints, or people who have been the highest examples of Christ among us. Statues, wether saints, or Mary, or Jesus, are meant to be inspirational, they are ICONS, not IDOLS, there is a massive difference between the two.

An Icon: An image; a representation
An Idol: An image used as an object of worship.

And as for evolution, the church denounces darwinism, but supports Intellegent Design, there are just to many flaws in darwinism, which I will not get into now, just know that I am a Chaotic Intelegent Design supporter.

And yes, I follow Abstinence, because unlike many lesser animals, humans give someof them selves away whenever they have sex. Don't believe me, look around the average High School, the best students and future leaders are generally the most abstinate kids, who most people barely notice, except when ridiculed, while those who party, have sex at will, etc. are more likely to take drugs, fail, etc.

What evidence? Just listen to the example. I as a human can choose to kill myself at any moment enidng my life with full knowledge and intent (and no i wouldn't do such a thing). When have you heard of any animal deliberately killing itself knowing that it was doing so? Animals are driven by the basic need of survival, and though humans have that same basic need, we also posses the ability to ignore it.

Ironic that you have to try to point to a sin as proof of free will.

Regardless, the ability to commit suicide does not equate to free will.

Moreoever, animals kill themselves. Beached whales, lemmings, etc. You have no idea whether they do so intentionally or not.

There you go again.

One must assume certain theological viewpoints in order to discuss theology?

Now is it so much to ask that you assume that you are human? and that as a human you have something animals do not? If thats so much to ask maybe you should reconsider your entire life. Cuz if we arent anything special, if we are just random spawns of genetics, then what is the point to our existence, to question the point of out existence(which is the basis of philosophy and theology) is an utterly futile waste of time. I choose to believe there is somthing more and by doing so I assume that there is so I can begin to discuss it.

Just clearing up a couple of comments.

Eastern Orthodox is NOT Roman Catholic. The two officially separated in 1054, though there were major distinctions for a few centuries leading up to that. The Eastern Orthodox Church does indeed ordain married men. Priest do not marry, but the are usually married prior to ordination. In fact, the vast majority of Orthodox priests are married. While it has been the general practice of the Roman Church to have celibate priests, there were married priests all the way into the 17th century. This practice did not fall off in the East. I am not seeking to enter into the ongoing arguments, so do not expect another post.

Good luck, True Being. I advise ignoring anything from Undelia, as he seems uninterested in the pursuit of logic or truth. Soheran, on the other hand, seems to be quite respectful and reasonable.

Ironic that you have to try to point to a sin as proof of free will.

Regardless, the ability to commit suicide does not equate to free will.

Moreoever, animals kill themselves. Beached whales, lemmings, etc. You have no idea whether they do so intentionally or not.


Ok I knew you'd say something about irony but whatever thats not important. And can you dissprove the ability for a human to choose against its own instinct? Now we have no idea why a whale beaches itself, but I seriously doubt he did it beacus his girlfriend broke up with him.

Cuz if we arent anything special, if we are just random spawns of genetics, then what is the point to our existence,
It has occasional pleasures which are worth striving for.

And yes, I follow Abstinence, because unlike many lesser animals, humans give someof them selves away whenever they have sex. Don't believe me, look around the average High School, the best students and future leaders are generally the most abstinate kids, who most people barely notice, except when ridiculed, while those who party, have sex at will, etc. are more likely to take drugs, fail, etc.

LOL.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=21606

As for the mistakes of the past, Pope John Paul II publicly appologised for all the things that the church had condoned throughout the years, ranging from the inquisition to the crusades, to the slaughtering of heretics.

Infallibility only pretains to the faith. Things like Mary was a virgin her entire life (Which is why I look up to her), Jesus died for our sins and was 100% God and yet, at the same time 100% man, etc. The church's mistakes in the past where not considered Infallable.

But God chooses the Popes, doesn't He? Why would He choose mass murderers? If God is going to choose people who would condone things like the Inquisition and order things like the Crusades as the leaders of His religion, why pay any attention to Him or to it?

Edit: Ignore this post if it offends you. I am asking a serious question, not seeking to enrage or condemn.

Now is it so much to ask that you assume that you are human? and that as a human you have something animals do not? If thats so much to ask maybe you should reconsider your entire life. Cuz if we arent anything special, if we are just random spawns of genetics, then what is the point to our existence, to question the point of out existence(which is the basis of philosophy and theology) is an utterly futile waste of time. I choose to believe there is somthing more and by doing so I assume that there is so I can begin to discuss it.

Calm down. To disagree with you is not necessarily to be a nihilist.

Have you studied Existentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism), for example?

LOL.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=21606
Nice.
But God chooses the Popes, doesn't He? Why would He choose mass murderers? If God is going to choose people who would condone things like the Inquisition and order things like the Crusades as the leaders of His religion, why pay any attention to Him or to it?
I don’t know about you, but if God somehow manifested himself and proved his existence, I’d follow him. I think you would to. As I’ve said before, he is one bad mother fucker. Not only does he damn his children who disagree with him to hell for all eternity, look at the company he keeps!:eek:

Now is it so much to ask that you assume that you are human? and that as a human you have something animals do not? If thats so much to ask maybe you should reconsider your entire life. Cuz if we arent anything special, if we are just random spawns of genetics, then what is the point to our existence, to question the point of out existence(which is the basis of philosophy and theology) is an utterly futile waste of time. I choose to believe there is somthing more and by doing so I assume that there is so I can begin to discuss it.

Read some existentialist works; they deal precisely with this question. Albert Camus's The Myth of Sisyphus, maybe.

Calm down. To disagree with you is not necessarily to be a nihilist.

Have you studied Existentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism), for example?


Alright I respect that, Im not getting hotheaded, it might seem that way but im not. And yes I understnd that disagreeing isnt necesarily being nihilistic, im just making my point clear.

Ok I knew you'd say something about irony but whatever thats not important. And can you dissprove the ability for a human to choose against its own instinct? Now we have no idea why a whale beaches itself, but I seriously doubt he did it beacus his girlfriend broke up with him.

Since when is free will merely the ability to choose against one's instincts?

How do you know animals lack this ability?

But God chooses the Popes, doesn't He? Why would He choose mass murderers? If God is going to choose people who would condone things like the Inquisition and order things like the Crusades as the leaders of His religion, why pay any attention to Him or to it?

Edit: Ignore this post if it offends you. I am asking a serious question, not seeking to enrage or condemn.


Alright a serious answer then. God doesn't Choose his popes. He offers divine inspiration to those who do, and no matter what he offers he gave humnas the ability to refuse him(free will) and sometimes they do. Human error is all to often confused for basic error amongst the Church.

Calm down. To disagree with you is not necessarily to be a nihilist.

Have you studied Existentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism), for example?

Beat me to it.

I don’t know about you, but if God somehow manifested himself and proved his existence, I’d follow him. I think you would to. As I’ve said before, he is one bad mother fucker. Not only does he damn his children who disagree with him to hell for all eternity, look at the company he keeps!

Depends on what sort of God He was. If He really does sentence gays and non-believers to eternal torment, well, I might be a coward and go along, or I might reject Him loudly while having sex with similarly-minded males.

Since when is free will merely the ability to choose against one's instincts?

How do you know animals lack this ability?

The ability to choose against an insticnt is merely an example of free will, and I know that animals lack this ability because I know that God has designed us alone with this ability. Now whether or not you believe me is what we are argueing. Animals have not to date (and never will) displayed evidence of the ability to perform any action outside of instinct.

Depends on what sort of God He was. If He really does sentence gays and non-believers to eternal torment, well, I might be a coward and go along, or I might reject Him loudly while having sex with similarly-minded males.
You're a braver man than I.

Alright a serious answer then. God doesn't Choose his popes. He offers divine inspiration to those who do, and no matter what he offers he gave humnas the ability to refuse him(free will) and sometimes they do. Human error is all to often confused for basic error amongst the Church.

So if Popes can't be trusted to follow God's command to not, say, burn thousands of innocent people at the stake, or lead a murderous and barbaric series of wars of conquest, why trust them at all?

What use is the Church, if it can't meet basic standards of decency?

You're a braver man than I.

No, I'm just nihilistic enough to not be much of an egoist.

And who knows? Like Camus's Sisyphus, I might be happier enduring eternal torment because I held to my freedom than enduring eternal "bliss" through becoming a slave.

Animals have not to date (and never will) displayed evidence of the ability to perform any action outside of instinct.

Nor have humans. Since we don't know what our instincts are, we can hardly know whether or not our actions are driven by them.

Alright a serious answer then. God doesn't Choose his popes. He offers divine inspiration to those who do, and no matter what he offers he gave humnas the ability to refuse him(free will) and sometimes they do. Human error is all to often confused for basic error amongst the Church.

I see. How do we tell human error from correct teaching? Since you admit the Church has erred in the past, how do we know it is not erring now?

No, I'm just nihilistic enough to not be much of an egoist.
See, that's where we differ. I'm the most egotistical person I've ever known in my whole life.
And who knows? Like Camus's Sisyphus, I might be happier enduring eternal torment because I held to my freedom than enduring eternal "bliss" through becoming a slave.
Meh. I just don't have any principles.

Well I will tell you about Faith seeking understanding. You are expected to have faith in god, the church, and its doctrines, and you are expected to have questions. The thing is you arent expected to break off and radically attack the doctrine simply because you do not yet understand it.

I don't believe any of the Church's biggest critics "do not understand" the Church- rather, it's because of their understanding that they question. Martin Luther- an ordained priest and a teacher of theology- broke off with the Church because he didn't agree with the practice of indulgences. This wasn't a rift because of incompetence.

And for your riddle: Love often exists outside marriage. But just because its there does not mean its ok to have sex. Marriage is the proper step up from love to consumated and blessed love. And unfortunately, we have many marraiges without love. Because even if you do not have real love you can still intend to honor and hold the purpose of marriage. so marriage without love is agreeing to act like you love thim wihtou actually oving them. Its really matter of hte couples understanding.

Ah, but it is very possible to be committed and not married. Love- especially the kind that allows you to get married- doesn't have a test to pass- it's a moment that can't be described or predicted. Going through a ceremony and/or signing a contract changes nothing.

Where do you think the leaders came from? They were a product of a corrupt, morally lacking social structure, it is a vicious cycle which feeds upon itslef.

The social structure you're talking about at that point was Catholic. When the Romans were pagan, they were the strongest power on Earth.

EDIT- I will qualify that statement by saying that I don't think Catholicism was the root of the Roman Empire's problems- it was, ultimately, the humans who screwed it up- but I will say that the argument that because the Romans were pagan they failed has absolutely no weight.

The ability to choose against an insticnt is merely an example of free will, and I know that animals lack this ability because I know that God has designed us alone with this ability. Now whether or not you believe me is what we are argueing. Animals have not to date (and never will) displayed evidence of the ability to perform any action outside of instinct.

Meh. To choose against instinct could be pre-determined.

I'm happy you "know" all these things. Care to prove them?

Martin Luther- an ordained priest and a teacher of theology- broke off with the Church because he didn't agree with the practice of indulgences. This wasn't a rift because of incompetence..
“But, but he just wanted to go have affairs.”
A chick I know (friend of a friend) once seriously claimed that her church taught her that. She followed up with, “why couldn’t he just follow the rules.”

I fucking rofled.

I don't believe any of the Church's biggest critics "do not understand" the Church- rather, it's because of their understanding that they question. Martin Luther- an ordained priest and a teacher of theology- broke off with the Church because he didn't agree with the practice of indulgences. This wasn't a rift because of incompetence.

The social structure you're talking about at that point was Catholic. When the Romans were pagan, they were the strongest power on Earth.

EDIT- I will qualify that statement by saying that I don't think Catholicism was the root of the Roman Empire's problems- it was, ultimately, the humans who screwed it up- but I will say that the argument that because the Romans were pagan they failed has absolutely no weight.

Just because the Romans claimed to be catholic does not mean they actually followed it. Despite that the romans still led ridiculously immoral lives and yes it led to the downfall.
Alright, human error again. The sale of indulgences is wrong I know that that whole thing is pope leo X fault along with John Tetzel. But he also broke of because of Faith v Works. So putting indulgences behind us, Martin failed to undestand the concept of works.
I didn't say it was becuase they were pagan, I said it was because they were immoral (though those two often coincide) And even so, the leaders were usually well rounded individuals (or republics) which sought after the good fo the community. Yea it was human error and immorality in a society helps to culture that sort of human error. I want to say that a society which has established itself with proper morals and guidelines will outlast those which do not. In such a community oriented, morally guided society an individual raised there is far more likely (but not garaunteed) to be a proper leader that undersatnds the good of the community.

Despite that the romans still led ridiculously immoral lives and yes it led to the downfall.

What particular "ridiculous" immoralities of the Romans caused their downfall?

“But, but he just wanted to go have affairs.”
A chick I know (friend of a friend) once seriously claimed that her church taught her that. She followed up with, “why couldn’t he just follow the rules.”

I fucking rofled.

Love how they lumped him in there with Henry VIII- it's like they're all the same. :rolleyes:

Meh. To choose against instinct could be pre-determined.

I'm happy you "know" all these things. Care to prove them?


Well I am trying. I never said that I could convince anyone. I will continue to try. Oh and I dont want anyone to get the impression that i think myself the ultimate authority on the Church, I am human after all. But I am basing my opinion on good sources from within the church.

What particular "ridiculous" immoralities of the Romans caused their downfall?
All the sex made the barbarians jealous, of course.
Don’t you see, a pagan culture was the mighty fist of God’s justice? Makes perfect sense.

Never mind that the Roman Empire was pretty much Christian by the time Rome fell and that a great many non-Christians were stoics.

unlike many lesser animals, humans give someof them selves away whenever they have sex.

Thus, in accordance with the principles of selflessness, we should attempt to distribute as much of ourselves as possible to as many consenting individuals as possible.

Love how they lumped him in there with Henry VIII- it's like they're all the same. :rolleyes:
She didn't even know who John Calvin was.

What particular "ridiculous" immoralities of the Romans caused their downfall?


Promiscuity, gluttony, and excessive materialism to name a few. These led to the common roman citizen raised to where the good of the people was less important and over time that mindset increased till leaders lacked the proper moral fiber to hold such a large empire togther.

I believe in the of the centrality Holy Eucharist and the Seven Sacraments, the Saints, the primacy of the Pope and Apostolic Succession, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and many of the basic principles of Catholicism. But I outright reject the infallibility of the Pope, and I don't see use of contraception as sinful. There's a lot I accept, but I do reject certain moral principles of the Church. I'm fairly progressive in my faith and believe that the Church ought to return to the tradition of priests being allowed to marry. All in all, though, I'm a pretty damn faithful, practicing Catholic being that I'm Irish. Moreover, I reject that all non-Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian and Orthodoxed churches are considered "separated brethren" as Vatican II claims. Protestants and Evangelicals are nothing less than wretched infidels.

Promiscuity,

How did promiscuity cause the fall of the Roman Empire?

"Make love, not war", has always seemed a decent moral precept to me, but I guess in some circumstances it can cause problems.

gluttony, and excessive materialism to name a few.

The Roman ruling classes definitely indulged too much at their population's expense, but other very successful powers have done the same thing.

These led to the common roman citizen raised to where the good of the people was less important

I can't comprehend this statement, sorry.

and over time that mindset increased till leaders lacked the proper moral fiber to hold such a large empire togther.

They never had "proper moral fiber"; monarchs rarely do, and imperialists, never. They were a brutal and exploitative force, and the good they caused was merely incidental to their primary aim of greed and plunder. Pagan, Christian - it was the same all through. Rome's moral fiber did not decay, it never existed. If lacking moral fiber is incompatible with having an empire, no empire would ever exist.

How did promiscuity cause the fall of the Roman Empire?

"Make love, not war", has always seemed a decent moral precept to me, but I guess in some circumstances it can cause problems.


The Roman ruling classes definitely indulged too much at their population's expense, but other very successful powers have done the same thing.


I can't comprehend this statement, sorry.


They never had "proper moral fiber"; monarchs rarely do, and imperialists, never. They were a brutal and exploitative force, and the good they caused was merely incidental to their primary aim of greed and plunder. Pagan, Christian - it was the same all through. Rome's moral fiber did not decay, it never existed. If lacking moral fiber is incompatible with having an empire, no empire would ever exist.


Damn we are getting sidetracked in the roman thing. I will edit the rest of what i have to say later. I have to go to bed good night all

I often wonder if I'm the only former Catholic who looks back on the place he came from with no venom to spit.

No, you're not. There's at least one more. *raises hand*

I disagree with the Catholic church on many, many things, but that in no way prevents me from respecting Catholics and their beliefs. I've never heard a remotely good argument as to why women shouldn't be priests, I think blanket opposition to birth control is an incredibly foolish idea, I can't comprehend the morality behind forcing a rape victim to carry her attacker's child, I firmly believe that there is nothing intrinsically immoral about homosexuality, and I have some rather serious philosophical issues with the divinity of Jesus - but you're all entitled to disagree, provided you do so politely. :)

Just because the Romans claimed to be catholic does not mean they actually followed it. Despite that the romans still led ridiculously immoral lives and yes it led to the downfall.

Wrong. You said that because of their social structure the Roman Empire- actually, the Western Roman Empire, because the East survived for another 1,000 years- collapsed, and that social structure was Catholic. If the social structure was the root of the Romans' troubles, and if the West's social structure was Catholic, then that's the root of it, based on your previous logic.

Now, I don't believe that Catholicism destroyed the Roman Empire either- it was, ultimately, human error- but the idea that the Romans' pagan ways destroyed the Empire has absolutely no basis because the "pagan Romans" built a stable Empire for over 500 years, while the "Catholic Romans" barely lasted 100.

Alright, human error again. The sale of indulgences is wrong I know that that whole thing is pope leo X fault along with John Tetzel. But he also broke of because of Faith v Works. So putting indulgences behind us, Martin failed to undestand the concept of works.

I don't understand how Luther failed to understand the concept of Tetzel's work. There's not a whole lot to understand- Tetzel and the Church essentially *sold* forgiveness. There's no other way to look at it.

What evidence? Just listen to the example. I as a human can choose to kill myself at any moment enidng my life with full knowledge and intent (and no i wouldn't do such a thing). When have you heard of any animal deliberately killing itself knowing that it was doing so? Animals are driven by the basic need of survival, and though humans have that same basic need, we also posses the ability to ignore it.

Eh? Suicide is the only requirement of free will? Sorry, but that's not always the case.

Dr. Goodall once noticed a case with a chimp mother dying. Her child was old enough to make it on it's own and he even had an older sister who tried to take care of him. He was listless and stopped eating and eventually died. They couldn't find anything wrong with him to suggest a sickness. Dr. Goodall said there is no way to prove it but she felt he died from a broken heart.

Whale pods? Why do they beach in mass? There is a theory that the alpha is sick and they choose to remain with him till the end. There have been some cases where one of them dies and the others decide to try and swim off.

If animals only responded to insticts (as you keep trying to claim); why would a chimp mother carry her dead child around for 4 days before finally abandoning it?

Cat has mentioned you have to define before you can lay claim to it.

Why else are we on the top of the food chain? We made the charts.....

It's NS General, deal with it.

If the things that went on during the Middle Ages were really wrong, then that means the Pope and the rest of the church isn’t infallible. Denying that gets you at least Limbo in your imaginary world, right?

The Pope is only infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra". He's only done that a couple of times in the past couple of centuries.

Eh? Suicide is the only requirement of free will? Sorry, but that's not always the case.

*snip*

I fogot to mention elephants.

If the alpha female is dying; they stop eating and some have actually died.

Ever notice how captive elephants have mulitple keepers? It's not only because they are large animals; they have found that if a keeper went on vacation; left they zoo or got transfered, the elephant would go into depression and stop eating.

So what "instinct" drives that?

A cookie for your knowledge! :)

If the social structure was the root of the Romans' troubles, and if the West's social structure was Catholic, then that's the root of it, based on your previous logic.

It might have been a case of a lack of "patriotism" if not the social structure helped cause the end. Either I read it or a professor pointed out that at the high point of the empire; it was a privledge and an honor to serve in the legions. You found the aristocratic class in them. By the end of the empire, you could pay someone to take your place.


Now, I don't believe that Catholicism destroyed the Roman Empire either- it was, ultimately, human error-

A major factor! When the rest of the world was moving to mobile combat with mounted archers; the Romans were still using the legions. They tried horses but never really mastered mounted combat.....

A cookie for your knowledge! :)


It might have been a case of a lack of "patriotism" if not the social structure helped cause the end. Either I read it or a professor pointed out that at the high point of the empire; it was a privledge and an honor to serve in the legions. You found the aristocratic class in them. By the end of the empire, you could pay someone to take your place.



A major factor! When the rest of the world was moving to mobile combat with mounted archers; the Romans were still using the legions. They tried horses but never really mastered mounted combat.....
Why thank you *eats cookie*.

I've heard the patriotism argument before- I agree that it could be a factor, but let's not forget why it could be: shortly after the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, it became repressive. No one would want to take pride in that. In fact, you may be able to extend it to Diocletian's era, since it was him that ended the practice of making the Roman Emperor "appear" like a normal citizen, but even then, Constantine after him was a moderate. I personally look at the top and see that as the reason why the Western Roman Empire fell, since it was horribly mismanaged and was horribly in debt- Stilicho was reduced to ripping the golden tiles off the Temple of Jupiter just to pay his army. He was also probably the Romans' greatest tactician in the late stages- after all, he did hold off a massive horde of Germanic tribes from invading Italy several years before his death- yet the Roman leaders, in their jealousy, still schemed against him. Valentinan III was the icing on the cake- raised to Emperor at age 6, there was little he could do to stop the Germans, one by one, from taking the Western Roman provinces. He was also pretty incompetent, plotting against everyone instead of defending the Empire, and as a result, Western Rome had little more than Italy and Dalmatia left after his reign. By that point, there was just nothing left for the later Emperors to do, since, shorn of their power and influence, Rome could only just collapse.

As Thomas Paine said, “you are under no obligation to believe second hand revelations.”

Fair enough.
The Biblical Thomas didn't believe that Jesus was resurrected either, until he saw him.

Here's hoping you'll be one of those who gets a first-hand revelation, then.

I don't understand how Luther failed to understand the concept of Tetzel's work. There's not a whole lot to understand- Tetzel and the Church essentially *sold* forgiveness. There's no other way to look at it.

Well what Im saying is that "The Church" didn't sell forgiveness, the one who sold forgiveness was a human being that was in conflict of church doctrine in his actions. And when I say "works" I mean the question of what gets a person into heaven. Faith or works? Well Luther believed it was purely faith while the church held and still does that works are required since they are in fact the true embodiement of a persons faith. When one truely has faith they will be doing good works. Faith without works is Dead faith. Actual faith and works are hand in hand. Actions without fiath wont get you anywhere, in order for faith to be real it has to be displayed through works.

I fogot to mention elephants.

If the alpha female is dying; they stop eating and some have actually died.

Ever notice how captive elephants have mulitple keepers? It's not only because they are large animals; they have found that if a keeper went on vacation; left they zoo or got transfered, the elephant would go into depression and stop eating.

So what "instinct" drives that?


Well in both those cases of elephants, the elephants know to kill htemselves do so because they are dependent upon specific sources. Without those sources they lose what they rely on and are left helpless. The instinct that drives that is the instint to rely on a constant source of food, when deprived of that the instint tells them to rely on something not there thus they die, though sometimes you can help them to begin to rely on new sources.

Well what Im saying is that "The Church" didn't sell forgiveness, the one who sold forgiveness was a human being that was in conflict of church doctrine in his actions. And when I say "works" I mean the question of what gets a person into heaven. Faith or works? Well Luther believed it was purely faith while the church held and still does that works are required since they are in fact the true embodiement of a persons faith. When one truely has faith they will be doing good works. Faith without works is Dead faith. Actual faith and works are hand in hand. Actions without fiath wont get you anywhere, in order for faith to be real it has to be displayed through works.
I still don't understand how Martin Luther was incompetent.

Well in both those cases of elephants, the elephants know to kill htemselves do so because they are dependent upon specific sources. Without those sources they lose what they rely on and are left helpless. The instinct that drives that is the instint to rely on a constant source of food, when deprived of that the instint tells them to rely on something not there thus they die, though sometimes you can help them to begin to rely on new sources.

My, we are creative in our apologetics.

Now we are imagining suicidal instincts in order to explain suicidal behavior.

I still don't understand how Martin Luther was incompetent.

Because "the Church" is whatever True Being say it is and only what True Being says it is. Anyone that disagrees with True Being must be wrong because they go against "the Church." Simple really.

Well in both those cases of elephants, the elephants know to kill htemselves do so because they are dependent upon specific sources. Without those sources they lose what they rely on and are left helpless. The instinct that drives that is the instint to rely on a constant source of food, when deprived of that the instint tells them to rely on something not there thus they die, though sometimes you can help them to begin to rely on new sources.

Nice try; but you are wrong.

Elephants are rather smart creatures so they are not helpless if the Alpha dies. If that was the case there wouldn't be anymore alphas and for that matter herds.

In the case of Zoos, both wild caught and those born in captivity will do the same thing. You overlook the fact that the food is still getting put into their pens.

Elephants bond with their keepers. If one leaves; they react with sadness. Before it was recognized elephants died because they were attached to a person and that person left. Now multiple people are involved so if one leaves it's not too devastating to them.

Because "the Church" is whatever True Being say it is and only what True Being says it is. Anyone that disagrees with True Being must be wrong because they go against "the Church." Simple really.

Oh damn, you figured me out...
No I am not foolish enough to think I know everyting. On the contrary, I know there is a lot I don't know. I only say these things after being well educated within the church. there are many subjects I have no knowledge in, just becase I know more than the average person when it comes to catholicism doesnt mean I know or define everything. "The Church" is often used to describe what certain erroneous members of the church have done and this is destroying the image of the church. I am trying to get the point across taht you cannot pin human error on the foundation of the catholic church. The church was established by christ, just many people have missrepresented the establishment.

I still don't understand how Martin Luther was incompetent.


Martin was a very competent man, but he still missunderstood things from time to time. Not all his fault, the hierarchy of the church at that time did a pretty bad job of explaining their stance on works. Also the hierarchy was completely wrong about selling graces (indulgences) and martin was competent enough to see that.

Oh damn, you figured me out...
No I am not foolish enough to think I know everyting. On the contrary, I know there is a lot I don't know. I only say these things after being well educated within the church. there are many subjects I have no knowledge in, just becase I know more than the average person when it comes to catholicism doesnt mean I know or define everything. "The Church" is often used to describe what certain erroneous members of the church have done and this is destroying the image of the church. I am trying to get the point across taht you cannot pin human error on the foundation of the catholic church. The church was established by christ, just many people have missrepresented the establishment.

As I've pointed out, its convenient to label anything embarassing as human error and not "the Church."

But how do you tell the difference?

[QUOTE=The Most Holy Dragon]Oh damn, you figured me out...
No I am not foolish enough to think I know everyting. On the contrary, I know there is a lot I don't know. QUOTE]

"The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know"- well, the quote goes something like that.

Sorry that was random.

Martin was a very competent man, but he still missunderstood things from time to time. Not all his fault, the hierarchy of the church at that time did a pretty bad job of explaining their stance on works. Also the hierarchy was completely wrong about selling graces (indulgences) and martin was competent enough to see that.

It was still an action of the Church- the fact they've changed their minds now means nothing. Martin Luther didn't misinterpret anything.

Yea time for some Godwin fun!

"The Nazis" is often used to describe what certain erroneous members of the fascist movement have done and this is destroying the image of fascism. I am trying to get the point across that you cannot pin human error on the foundation of the fascist movement. Fascism was established by Mussolini, just many people have misrepresented the establishment.

Now back to our regularly schedule programing

Nice try; but you are wrong.

Elephants are rather smart creatures so they are not helpless if the Alpha dies. If that was the case there wouldn't be anymore alphas and for that matter herds.

In the case of Zoos, both wild caught and those born in captivity will do the same thing. You overlook the fact that the food is still getting put into their pens.

Elephants bond with their keepers. If one leaves; they react with sadness. Before it was recognized elephants died because they were attached to a person and that person left. Now multiple people are involved so if one leaves it's not too devastating to them.

Alright, Ill accept your definition. Then let me ask you personally, do you believe that animals are capable of Free Will as humans are? Or are you simply shooting down my arguement on elephants because I obviously do not have the same understanding of them as you. I still hold my poit that animals do not have free will and that our free will is one thing that sets us apart form animals, since the majority of this opinion is based on the bible saying thats whats special about humans. Since we seem to look at the free will thing from two different angles me from biblical and you from scientific, its easy to see how we can disagree.

On the whole thing about animals having free will, have you ever seen a vegetarian bear?

Probably not. Animals are definetely intelligent, but they are incapable of making a lot of the choices we are able to.

So... ho did we get into the whole animal talk?

So... ho did we get into the whole animal talk?

The whole egotistical 'God put us above all other animals' thing.

So if Popes can't be trusted to follow God's command to not, say, burn thousands of innocent people at the stake, or lead a murderous and barbaric series of wars of conquest, why trust them at all?

Because we have a gaurantee that God will guide the Church through the Pope, and will safeguard the Church from corruption through the Pope, no matter how sinful of a man the Pope may be.

No, I'm just nihilistic enough to not be much of an egoist.

And who knows? Like Camus's Sisyphus, I might be happier enduring eternal torment

But Sisyphus hated his torment, didn't he?

“But, but he just wanted to go have affairs.”
A chick I know (friend of a friend) once seriously claimed that her church taught her that.

I have some respect for Martin Luther, but absolutely no respect for Henry VIII...

Just because the Romans claimed to be catholic does not mean they actually followed it. [...]

I didn't say it was becuase they were pagan, I said it was because they were immoral (though those two often coincide)

I believe it is my turn to say "wtf?". You first essentially claim that an immoral Catholic isn't a Catholic at all, so they don't count against Catholicism as a whole, then you turn around and say (essentially) that immoral Pagans are still Pagans, and therefore do cound against Paganism as a whole, and therefore Paganism and immorality "often coincide".

That isn't exactly what you said, but it's the hidden undertone I noticed...

But how do you tell the difference?

Basically, when the pope is speaking using Papal Infallability (and the conditions for that have already been pretty well described here) that's the Church speaking. The rest is potentially subject to human error.

Martin Luther didn't misinterpret anything.

That's a pretty bold statement, and if it were undeniably true, then the Church would have collapsed hundereds of years ago as people spread the undeniable truth. But it is deniable. Martin Luther misinterpreted plenty.

Because we have a gaurantee that God will guide the Church through the Pope, and will safeguard the Church from corruption through the Pope, no matter how sinful of a man the Pope may be.

Except during the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch-burnings....

But Sisyphus hated his torment, didn't he?

Camus's Sisyphus, I said.

The Myth of Sisyphus (http://24.62.177.166:8080//sisyphus.htm)

I have some respect for Martin Luther, but absolutely no respect for Henry VIII...
My sentiments exactly.

That's a pretty bold statement, and if it were undeniably true, then the Church would have collapsed hundereds of years ago as people spread the undeniable truth. But it is deniable. Martin Luther misinterpreted plenty.

There's not a lot to interpret- you see someone "selling" forgiveness, you call them out for it. Luther probably understood the Church better than anyone else did at his time. Besides, if the Church erred at the time- which has been claimed here- maybe the Church also didn't understand their own teaching.

There's not a lot to interpret- you see someone "selling" forgiveness, you call them out for it. Luther probably understood the Church better than anyone else did at his time. Besides, if the Church erred at the time- which has been claimed here- maybe the Church also didn't understand their own teaching.

There are many other things that Martin Luther spoke against involving the Church. He was certainly right about selling indulgences, I think we're all in agreement there. But what about his stance that works have nothing to do with salvation? What about his stance that the Eucharist isn't a unique occurance? What about his stance on the confession of sins? Do you believe that Martin Luther could not have misinterpreted any of those things?

Except during the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch-burnings....

Infallability is the gaurantee. The Church will never become fundamentally corrupt, but it can become rather corrupt in a temporary sense. Even as the Church hypocritically sanctioned witch-burnings and the like, the morals of the Church remained intact. Ignored, but nevertheless intact.

Camus's Sisyphus, I said.

The Myth of Sisyphus (http://24.62.177.166:8080//sisyphus.htm)

Oh, I see. Kind of like what I understand to be the Satanic view of Lucifer.

Alright, Ill accept your definition. Then let me ask you personally, do you believe that animals are capable of Free Will as humans are? Or are you simply shooting down my arguement on elephants because I obviously do not have the same understanding of them as you. I still hold my poit that animals do not have free will and that our free will is one thing that sets us apart form animals, since the majority of this opinion is based on the bible saying thats whats special about humans. Since we seem to look at the free will thing from two different angles me from biblical and you from scientific, its easy to see how we can disagree.

As Cat has asked a couple times; you still haven't really defined free will.

Even when you define it; you open the door for anthropomorphism.

Animals are different. Free will is different. There are levels for it.

To say they are void of it? That is wrong.

Infallability is the gaurantee. The Church will never become fundamentally corrupt, but it can become rather corrupt in a temporary sense. Even as the Church hypocritically sanctioned witch-burnings and the like, the morals of the Church remained intact. Ignored, but nevertheless intact.

So you can always trust the morals of the Church, but not the Church itself?

So, for instance, would it be legitimate for me to say, if I were a Catholic, that while I accept the view that same-sex intercourse is a sin, I see the stance of the Catholic Church against legally guaranteeing gay rights as an aspect of its human corruption, and as violating the core moral principle of "love your neighbor as yourself"?

Oh, I see. Kind of like what I understand to be the Satanic view of Lucifer.

It's the Christian view of Lucifer that I can't comprehend.

Here we have a God that according to the official doctrine believes in free will. He accepts that not all humans want to serve Him, and He lets us choose. Isn't this exactly what Lucifer ensures? For that matter, isn't that exactly what Original Sin ensured? Adam and Eve were slaves to God, blindly following Him; they disobeyed God, attained knowledge of good and evil, and thus affirmed their own sovereignty, their own capability of free will. Why is this necessarily a bad thing? Isn't this what God wanted - obedience freely chosen, and not compelled?

But if it is, why must we continually atone for it?

So you can always trust the morals of the Church, but not the Church itself?

So, for instance, would it be legitimate for me to say, if I were a Catholic, that while I accept the view that same-sex intercourse is a sin, I see the stance of the Catholic Church against legally guaranteeing gay rights as an aspect of its human corruption, and as violating the core moral principle of "love your neighbor as yourself"?

EXACTLY!

(Be it known that I am not used to people perfectly understanding what I am saying.)

It's the Christian view of Lucifer that I can't comprehend.

Here we have a God that according to the official doctrine believes in free will. He accepts that not all humans want to serve Him, and He lets us choose. Isn't this exactly what Lucifer ensures? For that matter, isn't that exactly what Original Sin ensured? Adam and Eve were slaves to God, blindly following Him; they disobeyed God, attained knowledge of good and evil, and thus affirmed their own sovereignty, their own capability of free will. Why is this necessarily a bad thing? Isn't this what God wanted - obedience freely chosen, and not compelled?

But if it is, why must we continually atone for it?

I'll think about all that and answer tomorrow. For now, sleep is essential. Good night!

There are many other things that Martin Luther spoke against involving the Church. He was certainly right about selling indulgences, I think we're all in agreement there. But what about his stance that works have nothing to do with salvation? What about his stance that the Eucharist isn't a unique occurance? What about his stance on the confession of sins? Do you believe that Martin Luther could not have misinterpreted any of those things?

Reading up about him, he sure doesn't sound like a guy who didn't "understand" the Church- he sounded like a guy who didn't like the Church's arguments. See, now we're getting into "opinion" territory (Luther's opinion vs. the Church's) and that's subjective. Can't pick between right and wrong there.

Reading up about him, he sure doesn't sound like a guy who didn't "understand" the Church- he sounded like a guy who didn't like the Church's arguments. See, now we're getting into "opinion" territory (Luther's opinion vs. the Church's) and that's subjective. Can't pick between right and wrong there.

Fair enough.

As Cat has asked a couple times; you still haven't really defined free will.

Even when you define it; you open the door for anthropomorphism.

Animals are different. Free will is different. There are levels for it.

To say they are void of it? That is wrong.


Free will is a specific and sungular thing. Humans have it, animals don't. Humans can go to heaven, animals can't. Humans have an eternal soul, animals don't. Animals do not have God given rights, people do, thats why I don't believe in being a vegetarian to save the animals. Thats pretty much the bottom line for the differences of humans and animals. Ok as for the definition of free will. I used suicide as an example, that was a bad call. To explain free will from a scientific point of view proved too difficult for me as my logic soon fell apart. The definition of free will is the ability to make a choice purely based on what you want to choose. Free Will means you technically do anything you want at any time, obviously this can't interfere with physical limitations but the concept of free will is still the same. Free will is a God given gift because he wants us to choose to love him and serve him.

Free will is a specific and sungular thing. Humans have it, animals don't. Humans can go to heaven, animals can't. Humans have an eternal soul, animals don't. Animals do not have God given rights, people do, thats why I don't believe in being a vegetarian to save the animals. Thats pretty much the bottom line for the differences of humans and animals. Ok as for the definition of free will. I used suicide as an example, that was a bad call. To explain free will from a scientific point of view proved too difficult for me as my logic soon fell apart. The definition of free will is the ability to make a choice purely based on what you want to choose. Free Will means you technically do anything you want at any time, obviously this can't interfere with physical limitations but the concept of free will is still the same. Free will is a God given gift because he wants us to choose to love him and serve him.

So you define free will as the difference between humans and other animals?

I guess by definition animals lack it, then. :rolleyes:

It's NS General, deal with it.

If the things that went on during the Middle Ages were really wrong, then that means the Pope and the rest of the church isn’t infallible. Denying that gets you at least Limbo in your imaginary world, right?
The council that issued that decleration, which only aplies in very specific circumstances happened sometime, as in a century or so, after the reformation.

Free will is a specific and sungular thing. Humans have it, animals don't.

No. it is not.


Humans can go to heaven, animals can't. Humans have an eternal soul, animals don't. Animals do not have God given rights, people do, thats why I don't believe in being a vegetarian to save the animals.

Well of course. Men wrote the Bible so guess who has the rights?


Thats pretty much the bottom line for the differences of humans and animals. Ok as for the definition of free will. I used suicide as an example, that was a bad call. To explain free will from a scientific point of view proved too difficult for me as my logic soon fell apart. The definition of free will is the ability to make a choice purely based on what you want to choose. Free Will means you technically do anything you want at any time, obviously this can't interfere with physical limitations but the concept of free will is still the same.

You haven't defined anything that sets us apart from the higher primates. They do what you just described.


Free will is a God given gift because he wants us to choose to love him and serve him.

So if the choice is to love and serve him or go to Hell; then how is that free will?

So you define free will as the difference between humans and other animals?

I guess by definition animals lack it, then. :rolleyes:

We defined the charts so we are on top.....