NationStates Jolt Archive

No. Since July 18, 1870.

Source?

Birth control, gay marriage...

I can continue.So differing from your personal views means wrong?

Source?None in particular. But there are many. Papal infallibility as a church dogma is one result of the first Vatican council held in 1870. There may have been some implicit infallibility attributed to the pope due to his authority as leader of the church before, but only then did it become official church doctrine.

Szanth,
You admitted that you knew you were using wrong terminology regarding the middle ages/dark ages... but apparently you were using it just to look cool? Or get laughs? You may want to avoid intentionally using the wrong terminology in a discussion, it is discrediting to yourself. Those might be good tactics when you know that your audience is mostly a knee-jerk emotional type of crowd, but you discredit the rest of us to use them here.

My reference to multiple droughts and rapid population growth that you didn't understand referenced our earlier discussion. I had stated my opinion that such factors as birthrates and weather were more important to wars than popes (or other individuals) but you seemed to disagree very strongly with that. I'm suprised that you weren't able to follow the conversation without the use of verbatim text quotes. That doesn't look too good either, next time you might want to try re-reading an ongoing conversation if you are confused by a reference such as that one. If this often happens to you in verbal discussions as well, I cannot off much helpful advice, other than to carry an audio recording device, or ask people to repeat themselves a lot.

I do stand by my belief that weather patterns, birthrates, economic tides (which are tied directly to weather in an agricultural world) and so forth impact history in huge ways, and the individual declaring war or making other major historical impacts is part of that bigger picture.

You appear to go about this whole discussion in a hostile manner. For instance, the first thing you wrote about me was an ad hominem attack, extrapolating from my position about European history that I was a "lost cause" without backing up why these beliefs led you to such a position, or even what exactly you meant by that very vague and rather negative phrase. You also may want to avoid such things in the future, as it made it very difficult for me to take any of your posts seriously.

Szanth,
You admitted that you knew you were using wrong terminology regarding the middle ages/dark ages... but apparently you were using it just to look cool? Or get laughs? You may want to avoid intentionally using the wrong terminology in a discussion, it is discrediting to yourself. Those might be good tactics when you know that your audience is mostly a knee-jerk emotional type of crowd, but you discredit the rest of us to use them here.

My reference to multiple droughts and rapid population growth that you didn't understand referenced our earlier discussion. I had stated my opinion that such factors as birthrates and weather were more important to wars than popes (or other individuals) but you seemed to disagree very strongly with that. I'm suprised that you weren't able to follow the conversation without the use of verbatim text quotes. That doesn't look too good either, next time you might want to try re-reading an ongoing conversation if you are confused by a reference such as that one. If this often happens to you in verbal discussions as well, I cannot off much helpful advice, other than to carry an audio recording device, or ask people to repeat themselves a lot.

I do stand by my belief that weather patterns, birthrates, economic tides (which are tied directly to weather in an agricultural world) and so forth impact history in huge ways, and the individual declaring war or making other major historical impacts is part of that bigger picture.

You appear to go about this whole discussion in a hostile manner. For instance, the first thing you wrote about me was an ad hominem attack, extrapolating from my position about European history that I was a "lost cause" without backing up why these beliefs led you to such a position, or even what exactly you meant by that very vague and rather negative phrase. You also may want to avoid such things in the future, as it made it very difficult for me to take any of your posts seriously.

Mate; Firstly, none of the above is particularly original. Secondly, if you don't like it, get off NSG, or, in the honoured footsteps of countless other milksops, run to Moderation and report him.

Well, you sure know how to pick the tough questions. First I would like to state that I am a committed Christian. Second I have a unique perspective, being raised Protestant and then being recieved into the Church last year and studying it from within (i.e. Not a cradle Catholic and indoctrinated from birth, I still have the capacity to think freely). There are things that I will never be reconciled with morally and spiritually, and why I cannot in good conscience remain a Catholic.

First, I do not believe that the Pope has or should have "infallibility" and yes I know the Catholic definition. The doctrine of infallibility was established in the late 1800's as a last ditch effort to preserve Papal power while the Papal states in Italy were being dissolved and the church was losing most of its political power. That being said, it should also be noted that no pope can be deposed or otherwise forced from office. He has to resign or DIE, no matter how bad he becomes. All it would take is one Pope to plunge the church back into the dark ages. A pope can be all shades of corrupt and there is NOTHING anyone can do about it as long as he is in office. One man should never have authority over the lives of all believers, that is a dictatorship, not a shepherd leading his flock.

About birth control, I believe it lies within each Catholic's conscience to decide how many children they are mentally, financially or otherwise able to care for. If you can't feed em, don't breed em! Of course the church views women as nothing more than baby factories and would be happy with every catholic woman having more children that their body is able to bear or that the couple can support and love. Pope Paul banned contraception despite an entire panel of doctors, priests, sociologists, theologians, and other experts informing him that it should be left to conscience. This split the church and continues to do so today, also it should be noted that 80-90 percent od catholics continue to practice their faith and use contraception, as it is their personal decision. the church allows natural family planning and LIES about its effectiveness, saying it is as effective as the pill. Medical science shows that it is only 75% effective at best and this comes after getting 6 months of baseline readings to determine the fertile periods, which can be thrown off by a cold! In addition, there is NO SUCH THING as an infertile period. A woman can get pregnant at ANY TIME in her cycle, some even on their period. Women's bodies are all different and there is no one standard for all women like the rhythm method used to say, and that nfp espouses to a lesser degree. The church says that contraception is a mortal sin (i.e. YOU WILL GO TO HELL).This is NONSENSE! I fail to see how salvation can be GUARANTEED BY TEMPERATURE and FORFEITED by A PIECE OF RUBBER! This is BALONEY!

In addition, the cover up of sexual abuse and the moving of pedophile priests from parish to parish is sick and deplorable. I cannot think of a worse crime perpetrated in the name of God. These priests should not only have been fired, but reported to civil authorities and BEEN THROWN IN JAIL! Instead, they were harbored and protected by a church trying po preserve its own image rather than to do what IS morally right. THEY WERE ALLOWED TO MOLEST AGAIN AND AGAIN! The bishops knew, the cardinals knew, and THE POPE KNEW! NOTHING WAS DONE until it was too late. And im supposed to feel bad when the church has to sell property to pay lawsuits! No amount of money could undo the harm to ONE child, let alone THOUSANDS!!!! Also, it makes the priests who are good priests and love and serve their parishoners faithfully look bad!

Priestly celibacy is a JOKE. Man and woman are meant to express their sexuality in a Christ centered, faithful marriage. The deepest, most basic need for humanity is companionship. Priests are denied their right to marry, marriage being viewed as a "lesser state". This is a burden God never intended anyone to bear. Celibacy for the kingdom should be a free choice, not compulsory for ALL priests. Those who desire to take a wife should be free to do so! Read St. Paul a little closer!

Those are my main disagreements, and I could go on and on and on, but I tire of typing. I will finish up by saying that the church's misogynistic, archaic, and oppressive policies are not working! The church cannot exist in the future if it continues to oppress and repress its people, rather that SERVE them. The church needs ACCOUNTABILITY and should be given to the people, rather than being ruled by a bunch of old eunuchs who wouldnt know a thing about being a husband, a father, and surviving in the real world.

I trust in a God who loves all people who seek Him in spirit and in truth, not just those of the Christian faith.

I believe in a God who judges each person according to their own heart, motivations, and circumstances on which they make their decisions and live their lives according to the voice of God within themselves that is their conscience.

I believe in Jesus and his message of LOVE. Jesus preached compassion, peace, and a sincere love for your neighbor that was not preached about but rather LIVED OUT in day to day existence.

The two great commandments, Love God and Love your neighbor are the basis of Christianity and all noble religious traditions. Dogma and man made rules and regulations only obscure a God who loves all and forgives all who ask, and a God who walked among us and came to free us.

I have left out several key points, like the appointment of a Mafia cheftian to head the Vatican bank, the secret agreements with Hitler and Mussolini, the harboring of Nazi war criminals, the silence while 6 million of God's chozen people were murdered, the murder of innocents in the Crusades and the Inquisition, and a litany of other crimes against humanity done in the name of the Catholic Church.

It has and will always be an agent of Satan himself, certainly not the church Jesus and His Apostles founded. To those who truly love the one true God and His Son Jesus Christ, READ HISTORY and examine your conscience, and allow yourself to experience the freedom Jesus sacrificed His life to give.

I have taken the red pill, and I am as free as a bird flying on the four winds...
ARE YOU?

So differing from your personal views means wrong?

I think it is stupid to oppose both birth control and abortion. Birth control reduces abortion, so if you oppose abortion why wouldn't you support it?

As for opposing gay marriage, it is no different from opposing white people marrying black people, mexicans marrying white people, asians marrying black people, etc.

I think it is stupid to oppose both birth control and abortion. Birth control reduces abortion, so if you oppose abortion why wouldn't you support it?The best birth control measure is to not have sex. And if you do not produce children which you do not really want, then you need no abortion. The church's position is that bodily intimacy is for people who have joined their lives and reached mental intimacy already. And it's true: if folks don't fuck everyone they meet then most of the time there is no problem with unwanted pregnancies.

As for opposing gay marriage, it is no different from opposing white people marrying black people, mexicans marrying white people, asians marrying black people, etc.No, it's not. White people marrying black people can have children. Mexicans marrying white people can have children. Asians marrying black people can have children. Gay couples cannot. It is the creation of new human life that is the focus of church doctrine when it comes to marriage. You may disagree, but then nobody forces you to be a church member, and not just in catholicism.

I was told that you can enjoy sex, but you shouldn't think about it. I was also told that I was sinning by using birth control. Also, I was sinning when I was.....nevermind, that's graphic, let's just say it doesn't make babies.

you know some stupid catholics

you are certainly allowed and even encouraged to enjoy sex with your husband.

you are NOT allowed to use any artificial contraceptive. you CAN use any form of "natural" contraception (the more sophisticated version of the rhythm method) because it does not artificially interfere with the process of conception. conception is up to god, not you. (they are also not fond of artifically creating conception)

im not sure about sexual practices that cannot ever result on conception but i expect that you are not supposed to limit yourself to using those only. since married couples do have sex when conception is impossible (infertile days, post-menopause, with an infertile spouse) i dont see how the exact act matters as long as it isnt otherwise a sin. (none come to mind but that means nothing)

the vast majority of catholics in the US listen to the teachings of the church and do whatever fits their lives the best. the only thing that the church wont forgive you for is abortion.

Source?

HEY

dont make me support NB in a religion thread

the doctrine of infallibility is indeed that young. and furthermore the pope is infallible in very limited circumstances. it amounts to situations where there is no clear biblical proof of a doctrine but he declares it to be true. a good example is the virgin mary being bodily assumed into heaven.

these are bits of dogma that are only important on a thoroughly relgious level.

No. Since July 18, 1870.

You are correct about when it was officially declared by the Church. My statement was that he was considered infallible since the Schism, not that it was official. Just as the Immaculate Conception has been considered true for centuries, even though it was not solemnly declared by the Church until the last century. As for the source, I do not have a web link, but it was officially declared in the First Vatican Council (1870).

Good God, I had no idea that the Crazy Catholics were just as bad as the Crazy Baptists.

So glad I'm Lutheran.

you know some stupid catholics

you are NOT allowed to use any artificial contraceptive. you CAN use any form of "natural" contraception (the more sophisticated version of the rhythm method) because it does not artificially interfere with the process of conception. conception is up to god, not you. (they are also not fond of artifically creating conception)

So condoms and the pill are the work of the Devil?

So condoms and the pill are the work of the Devil?

Nah, the Devil isn't the source of all evil, just a seriously evil dude :p Actually, you could say there is no evil, because evil is actually a lack of good, not something made up of "evilness." Either way, while its possible the Devil may tempt people, all sins are most likely not directly his work.

HEY

dont make me support NB in a religion thread

the doctrine of infallibility is indeed that young. and furthermore the pope is infallible in very limited circumstances. it amounts to situations where there is no clear biblical proof of a doctrine but he declares it to be true. a good example is the virgin mary being bodily assumed into heaven.

these are bits of dogma that are only important on a thoroughly relgious level.

I was legitimately curious. I hadn't heard it before.

Former Hindu, remember?

I have taken the red pill, and I am as free as a bird flying on the four winds...
ARE YOU? I have taken the blue pill, and I am as horny as a easter rabbit on the four winds...
DONT touch me!!

No, it’s not. White people marrying black people can have children. Mexicans marrying white people can have children. Asians marrying black people can have children. Gay couples cannot. It is the creation of new human life that is the focus of church doctrine when it comes to marriage.
But the Church supports couples adopting babies, and presumably supports marriage between people unable to have children. Unless, to the Church, marriage is only about procreation?

If not, then your (the Church’s) objections to homosexual marriage seems void.

But the Church supports couples adopting babies, and presumably supports marriage between people unable to have children. Unless, to the Church, marriage is only about procreation?

If not, then your (the Church’s) objections to homosexual marriage seems void.

Marriage between two members of the same sex does not meet the requirements for the Sacrament of Matrimony. This is because the elements of the Sacrament are the couple themselves, a man and a woman. Sterility or fertility has nothing to do with it, two men or women do not meet the requirements of the Sacramental elements, just as women do not meet the requirement of the Sacramental elements of Holy Orders. Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is immoral, it does not meet the requirements for a Catholic marriage, and the Catholic Church has the right to decide who they will marry, even non-homosexual couples can be turned down by the Church.

Some people argue that if the Pope is infallible, then he could just say that homosexual marriages and women ordinations would be acceptable. This doesn't work though, because just because the Pope says something doesn't make it true (he can't make a false statement true), his infallible statements are only restatements of already held beliefs, or those which are already considered to be true.

Edit: To the Church, the primary goal of marriage is procreation, happiness and love are only secondary goals. This means that marriages that do not meet the first goal generally must receive dispensation from the bishop, and if one partner in a marriage is found to be sterile, and it was not already known at the time of the marriage, that is normally sufficient grounds for an annulment.

Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is immoral, it does not meet the requirements for a Catholic marriage, and the Catholic Church has the right to decide who they will marry, even non-homosexual couples can be turned down by the Church.

Fully agreed (did that surprise you ;) ?)
However, that does not give the Church the right to stop such marriages under non-Catholic rules (e.g. by another denomination, religion or a religionfree state marriage) - but that is in fact exactly what it tries to do.

Of all the mainstream Christian sects, I think the Catholic Church is the worst.

So condoms and the pill are the work of the Devil?


Surely the ribbed ones are a gift from God.... no?

Edit: And yes, all people should be regarded as equal, women are regarded as equal by the Church, they just can't become priests, not because they are less equal, but because Jesus chose it that way.
Darling, if women are denied the option to become priests simply because they are female, then BY DEFINITION all people are not being treated equally.

OK, I have no idea where you get this from, but after having spent 30 odd years as a Catholic, and attending countless religion classes, this is news to me.

Read up on what your Church is doing throughout the developing world. The WHO has plenty of information to start you off.


Again, this is not a total truth either. The Church argues, and has been arguing since Pope John Paul, that abstinence is the only true way to prevent AIDS and HIV, and is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

And that's a lie. See, in the areas where the Church is most aggressively pushing their anti-choice agenda, female human beings don't get to choose when they have sex or when they get married. And the Church SUPPORTS this. They support enforcing female submission to male authority. Which means that abstinence simply doesn't do squat to prevent STD transmission or unwanted pregnancy, because abstinence itself IS NOT AN OPTION. Preaching abstinence does not work at all when you simultaneously insist that women should not have the right to choose their own sexual futures.

Futhermore, the fastest growing population of new HIV infectees is MARRIED, MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN. The very women that the Church orders to procreate. The very women who are ordered to submit to their husbands' rule. They are told, in no uncertain terms, that Hubby is the boss. And Hubby wants to fuck.


Again, after 30 odd years, this is news to me.

That's very sad. That you could belong to an organization for 30 years and know less about it than a person who has never belonged to it is pretty lame.


Heck, I was certain that the Church preaches to revere women, it holds Mary in high regard and I know many women that would utterly disagree with you on this.

There are plenty of women who insist that it's "empowering" for a woman to be a sex slave. Women are just as capable of being wrong as men are.

Catholicism is anti-woman, over all. There's some lip service paid to how great women are, but you'll notice that it's always the same old sexism.

"Oooh, women are so moral and pure and such angels! Of course, they can't be priests, and Eve caused original sin, and we certainly can't trust women to be independent moral agents who make their own choices...but women are so great!"

Meh. Catholicism teaches sexist bullshit that was old back when the Roman Empire was thriving.


They are called nuns, and tend to perform good work in the name of the Church.
Sorry, but when your organization continues to declare that femaleness automatically disqualifies a person from ever being their leader, you're going to have a hard time getting me excited about the fact that you let women hold some low-level positions.

Some people argue that if the Pope is infallible, then he could just say that homosexual marriages and women ordinations would be acceptable. This doesn't work though, because just because the Pope says something doesn't make it true (he can't make a false statement true), his infallible statements are only restatements of already held beliefs, or those which are already considered to be true.


So the pope is only in fallable ... as long as he does not say anything new or that the mob does not think is true

whats the point:rolleyes:

So the pope is only in fallable ... as long as he does not say anything new or that the mob does not think is true

whats the point:rolleyes:

Ok, pretend that I know everything. (I don't just pretend for the sake of the analogy) Unless I purposefully lie, everything I say will be correct as I can't be mistaken because I know everything. That doesn't mean I can say the sky is green and it will turn green, because that would be a lie, it just means that if I say something so complicated you can't understand it, you know either its correct or I'm lying.

The Pope is similar, he doesn't know everything, but unless he specifically lies, everything he says when using the Magisterium in an official capacity will be correct, and in this case, the Holy Spirit prevents the Pope from leading the Church astray. The Pope is allowed to lie or be wrong about anything except when using the official Magisterium, and then the Holy Spirit prevents him from being incorrect on moral or theological issues. This doesn't mean that he can declare that the sky is green either, because that would be a lie. So, the Pope isn't going to say that women can become priests, or homosexuals can get married in the Church, because that would be a lie.

Edit: For your original post, its not what the "mob" believes is true, but what the Pope believes is true. And the part about it can't be anything new is actually almost correct. The Pope declares things with his infallibility so that people can be sure they are true, he generally does this for things that have been around awhile. They were new ideas when they were first thought up, but they had to go through a sort of process, so it looks like they're all old ideas when the Pope says them because that's just the alst step in the process.

The Pope is similar, he doesn't know everything, but unless he specifically lies, everything he says when using the Magisterium in an official capacity will be correct, and in this case, the Holy Spirit prevents the Pope from leading the Church astray.

No.

He will not be correct, you will simply, incorrectly, assume his rightness. You will be wrong, and deny the possibility of being so. Self-delusion does not a holy spirit make.

No.

He will not be correct, you will simply, incorrectly, assume his rightness. You will be wrong, and deny the possibility of being so. Self-delusion does not a holy spirit make.

You have the right to disagree, I was only trying to explain what the Church teaches, you can say that's incorrect if you want, but what I wrote is in accordance with the Church, and my goal was to explain it.

That being said, yes he will be correct, you simply, incorrectly, assume his wrongness. You will wrong, whether or not you consider yourself to be so. Have a nice day.

you are NOT allowed to use any artificial contraceptive. you CAN use any form of "natural" contraception (the more sophisticated version of the rhythm method) because it does not artificially interfere with the process of conception. conception is up to god, not you. (they are also not fond of artifically creating conception)

Is it just me, or does that sound suspiciously like the kind of legalism which Jesus attacked the Pharisees for?

You have the right to disagree, I was only trying to explain what the Church teaches, you can say that's incorrect if you want, but what I wrote is in accordance with the Church, and my goal was to explain it.

That being said, yes he will be correct, you simply, incorrectly, assume his wrongness. You will wrong, whether or not you consider yourself to be so. Have a nice day.

If he says the sky is green, and it is, in fact, not green, then he is in no way, religiously or theoretically or literally, correct, right, or accurate. Only blind faith and a lack of respect for the simple laws of information and logic could possibly lead you to believe otherwise.

No, there is faith, and then there is public opinion. The Catholic Church does not have to bow to public opion, only its faith, and the faith of its followers. If the Church chooses to have faith that God does not condone homosexuality, then it doesn't have to. If it chooses to argue that having sex with someone you are not married to is adultry, because that person could one day be someone elses spouse, then it has the right to. That is the point.

Reality is not an issue. Faith is.

If you read the post I was quoting:

Ok, I've seen several similar posts on this thread, so I think I'll address this issue a bit. The Catholic Church does not need to become more in line with the modern world, or more aware of reality or whatever. The bottom line is, (whether you personally agree or not), the Catholic Church claims to be correct. Things that contradict them therefore are incorrect, regardless of public opinion.

I hate to say this, because I do believe in evolution; however, he is partially right on that. As the Theory of Evolution stands today, it is very hard to believe that every living creature with all its extremely specific adaptation, could have developed on Earth in just a few million years.

Agreed, but happily the world is about 4.56 billion years old so there's been abundant time.

Now, if you believe, as some do, that the Earth is only 6 or 7 thousand years, then evolution makes absolutely no sense what so ever because adaptation takes far longer than a few thousand years, unless you have a divine presense controlling it.

Given that there are trees which are more than 10,000 years old it makes no sense to believe that the Earth is only 6 or 7 thousand years old.

If he says the sky is green, and it is, in fact, not green, then he is in no way, religiously or theoretically or literally, correct, right, or accurate. Only blind faith and a lack of respect for the simple laws of information and logic could possibly lead you to believe otherwise.

Read my post you quoted last time, I specifically said the Holy Spirit would not allow him to say "the sky is green" when speaking in an official capacity. That was my whole point, he can't just say whatever he wants, he can only speak the truth, which is why the Pope officially declares so few things.

If he says the sky is green, and it is, in fact, not green, then he is in no way, religiously or theoretically or literally, correct, right, or accurate. Only blind faith and a lack of respect for the simple laws of information and logic could possibly lead you to believe otherwise.

But wait...that would be lying. Which would automatically make him wrong. Did you have a legitimate point here?

Agreed, but happily the world is about 4.56 billion years old so there's been abundant time.



Given that there are trees which are more than 10,000 years old it makes no sense to believe that the Earth is only 6 or 7 thousand years old.

Except...there aren't any trees that old...

Read my post you quoted last time, I specifically said the Holy Spirit would not allow him to say "the sky is green" when speaking in an official capacity. That was my whole point, he can't just say whatever he wants, he can only speak the truth, which is why the Pope officially declares so few things.

They also claim the holy spirit would prevent mistranslations in the bible which would alter the original message. That is obvious bunk to me, but maybe not to you, in which case, we're simply at an impasse.

But wait...that would be lying. Which would automatically make him wrong. Did you have a legitimate point here?

Yes. My point being he could believe the sky is green, or he could want to believe the sky is green. There are ways of saying things that are untrue without outright lying. The subtleties of speech and the vagueness of the limitations of the pope combine to form a wide and stretchy fence within which the catholics can roam about, free from any critical thought whatsoever.

Except...there aren't any trees that old...

That is correct, the oldest tree is a Bristlecone Pine somewhere in South America? I do not remember the exact age, it is very old, but less than 8,000 I believe.

They also claim the holy spirit would prevent mistranslations in the bible which would alter the original message. That is obvious bunk to me, but maybe not to you, in which case, we're simply at an impasse.




I do not believe the message of the Bible has been significantly altered, but I also don't remember hearing the Church say that biblical translators were infallible, or that the Holy Spirit would prevent the Bible from being mistranslated. Is there a specific part of the Bible you were referring to though?

Except...there aren't any trees that old...

Oh really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology)

Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 10,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main and Rhine rivers).

EDIT: My bad, I meant chronologies rather than living trees.

I do not believe the message of the Bible has been significantly altered, but I also don't remember hearing the Church say that biblical translators were infallible, or that the Holy Spirit would prevent the Bible from being mistranslated. Is there a specific part of the Bible you were referring to though?

No. Much like the statement about the pope's infallability being enforced and protected by the holy spirit, the statement about likewise protection extending into god's message was argued here, on NSG. No source was provided, but I gave the benefit of the doubt just for argument's sake.

Besides, why wouldn't the holy spirit protect it? Makes sense to me. If by sense, I can mean, no logical reasoning being involved whatsoever because we're talking about a 'holy ghost', whose existence even within the confines of the book and architecture that came up with it is (at best) vague and iffy.

Oh really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology)

Yeah, I checked another link on that page and found that the Bristlecone Pine I was talking about is considered the oldest living tree, not the oldest ever, I didn't see specifically it referring to that type of tree that you mentioned, but I did notice the part about 10,000 years.

Besides, why wouldn't the holy spirit protect it? Makes sense to me. If by sense, I can mean, no logical reasoning being involved whatsoever because we're talking about a 'holy ghost', whose existence even within the confines of the book and architecture that came up with it is (at best) vague and iffy.

I don't particularly see the need for it as a Catholic. Teaching the Gospels and the Bible is one of the priests' primary duties, and the Bible itself is mostly just a tool for them, not that it can't be useful to other people too. As long as the Holy Spirit guides the Church, He doesn't specifically need to make sure the Bible is correct word for word. Now for non-Catholic Christians, I can see why they would have to think that God ensured the Bible to be correct, because they don't have anyone with the authority to teach it, so they just read and decide for themselves, which would make them way off target if part of the Bible was incorrect.

I don't particularly see the need for it as a Catholic. Teaching the Gospels and the Bible is one of the priests' primary duties, and the Bible itself is mostly just a tool for them, not that it can't be useful to other people too. As long as the Holy Spirit guides the Church, He doesn't specifically need to make sure the Bible is correct word for word. Now for non-Catholic Christians, I can see why they would have to think that God ensured the Bible to be correct, because they don't have anyone with the authority to teach it, so they just read and decide for themselves, which would make them way off target if part of the Bible was incorrect.

Well I'm assuming (and kind of hoping, for your sake) that the priests that teach you the message of the lord are going by what the book said, rather than what they saw on the bathroom wall of the monastary. All the power the church has comes from the power the book supposedly gives it. Without the book, the church is just a huge company/cult with no specific messsage, and even with it, they're just barely scraping the bottom of the cult barrel.

That is correct, the oldest tree is a Bristlecone Pine somewhere in South America? I do not remember the exact age, it is very old, but less than 8,000 I believe.

The Oldest Tree

Found in the Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park in California, the oldest tree recognized is a Redwood known as Eternal God. The tree is believed to be 12,000 years old, although it is argued as being only 7,000 years old, which still makes it the oldest.

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=445&ArticleID=4852&l=en

internet knowledge is only a few keystrokes away

Well I'm assuming (and kind of hoping, for your sake) that the priests that teach you the message of the lord are going by what the book said, rather than what they saw on the bathroom wall of the monastary. All the power the church has comes from the power the book supposedly gives it. Without the book, the church is just a huge company/cult with no specific messsage, and even with it, they're just barely scraping the bottom of the cult barrel.

Some priests get their homilies directly from the Bible, but many use biblical commentaries, some of which date back to very early translations of the Bible, even before the Middle Ages. And the Church does not claim its power comes from the Bible. If anything, the Bible comes from the Church because it was the Church who took all the individual books and put them together into 1 book, called the Bible.

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=445&ArticleID=4852&l=en

internet knowledge is only a few keystrokes away

Though I'm not entirely sure he was speaking purely of living trees. Dead trees are still trees.

Some priests get their homilies directly from the Bible, but many use biblical commentaries, some of which date back to very early translations of the Bible, even before the Middle Ages. And the Church does not claim its power comes from the Bible. If anything, the Bible comes from the Church because it was the Church who took all the individual books and put them together into 1 book, called the Bible.

Which is weird.


The stories came first - then came the church. Then came the bible from the stories, minus the stories the church didn't like.

If anything I'd give more power to the stories, and because I don't trust the church, I'm more interested in the ones they didn't like than any others. Gospel of Mary, anyone?


EDIT: Also, I'm curious. Which version of revelations do you prefer?

That is correct, the oldest tree is a Bristlecone Pine somewhere in South America? I do not remember the exact age, it is very old, but less than 8,000 I believe.

Yes, it's about 4,800 years old (4,767), named Methuselah, and is growing on the West coast of the USA.

Though I'm not entirely sure he was speaking purely of living trees. Dead trees are still trees.

A living tree can less easily be refuted as evidence against a young Earth than a dead one, though, so to have a living tree out of the range of 5-6 thousand years is more likely to cast doubt on the claims of Young Earth Creationists.

A living tree can less easily be refuted as evidence against a young Earth than a dead one, though, so to have a living tree out of the range of 5-6 thousand years is more likely to cast doubt on the claims of Young Earth Creationists.

According to the Bible, fruit bearing trees were created in a single day (and before the sun existed...) One can interpret that as meaning they were not created as little saplings, but as fully grown adult trees. As such, a tree appearing to be 10 000 years old really would not prove anything to them.

A living tree can less easily be refuted as evidence against a young Earth than a dead one, though, so to have a living tree out of the range of 5-6 thousand years is more likely to cast doubt on the claims of Young Earth Creationists.

Common sense casts a doubt on those idiots. Trees, fossils, and relics make them look like assholes - it goes far beyond just 'casting doubt'.

I was legitimately curious. I hadn't heard it before.

Former Hindu, remember?

granted. but i very much dislike being on the same side as UB in any religious debate. too bad he is right sometimes.

did you understand my explanation of why infallibility is no big deal (unless you are that deep into theology)?

Without the book, the church is just a huge company/cult with no specific messsage, and even with it, they're just barely scraping the bottom of the cult barrel.
Actually, without the book, the Church is more of a political party than a cult or company. They have lobbyists, political agendas, members, and possibilities of getting financing from them.

Oh, and they're lying jackasses who'll say anything to increase their own temporal power.

So yeah, political party.

Cons:

Very very bad history
A huge bunch of flaws
Quite a few corruptions

Pros:

More respectful to modern day sciences
Most catholics generally are rational and more open minded then many other sects imo

Is it just me, or does that sound suspiciously like the kind of legalism which Jesus attacked the Pharisees for?

yeah it sort of does but i think the pharisees took it even farther than that.

Actually, without the book, the Church is more of a political party than a cult or company. They have lobbyists, political agendas, members, and possibilities of getting financing from them.

Oh, and they're lying jackasses who'll say anything to increase their own temporal power.

So yeah, political party.

Well-said. Have a cookie. *cookies*

granted. but i very much dislike being on the same side as UB in any religious debate. too bad he is right sometimes.

did you understand my explanation of why infallibility is no big deal (unless you are that deep into theology)?

I understand now, and thank you.

No that is not true. Christianity found its church in Rome when Emperor Constintine declared Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire back in 312, I think.

Sometime around there Peter was declared to be the first Bishop of Rome, and eventually was declared to be the first Pope. It was around this time that the Othodox Church broke off from the Catholic Church.

:headbang:um excuse me ! There must be a disticion here, Rome and Constantionple (rgh, spelling) were the same until 1056ish (not 300ish idiot) when ur all farty pants pope said "Oh look at me Im a descendet of Peter, Oh im so special and im infallible :)!" and our patriarch said "Uh no! only God is infallible" (which is true) and so ur pope said well if ur not for me ur against me! and he excommunicated the patriarch and the the patriarch returened the favor. So there! As the pope did it first it means he seperated first, ask most historinas ans=d theyll agree (o and also u guys had started the filioque) and now u guys are really on the rong path if i must say so my self execpt on the abortion and gay thing

:headbang:um excuse me ! There must be a disticion here, Rome and Constantionple (rgh, spelling) were the same until 1056ish (not 300ish idiot) when ur all farty pants pope said "Oh look at me Im a descendet of Peter, Oh im so special and im infallible :)!" and our patriarch said "Uh no! only God is infallible" (which is true) and so ur pope said well if ur not for me ur against me! and he excommunicated the patriarch and the the patriarch returened the favor. So there! As the pope did it first it means he seperated first, ask most historinas ans=d theyll agree (o and also u guys had started the filioque) and now u guys are really on the rong path if i must say so my self execpt on the abortion and gay thing

Except their stance on abortion and gays?

Here, ladies and gentlemen, stands before you a man who has drunk far too much Jesus juice.

:headbang:um excuse me ! There must be a disticion here, Rome and Constantionple (rgh, spelling) were the same until 1056ish (not 300ish idiot) when ur all farty pants pope said "Oh look at me Im a descendet of Peter, Oh im so special and im infallible :)!" and our patriarch said "Uh no! only God is infallible" (which is true) and so ur pope said well if ur not for me ur against me! and he excommunicated the patriarch and the the patriarch returened the favor. So there! As the pope did it first it means he seperated first, ask most historinas ans=d theyll agree (o and also u guys had started the filioque) and now u guys are really on the rong path if i must say so my self execpt on the abortion and gay thing

you have a good point but its lost in the text-speak. you have a full keyboard. its not all that difficult to type you instead of u. it makes you look more serious and other posters will take you more seriously if you spell everything correctly.

you have a good point but its lost in the text-speak. you have a full keyboard. its not all that difficult to type you instead of u. it makes you look more serious and other posters will take you more seriously if you spell everything correctly.

qft and irony

Except their stance on abortion and gays?

Nobody cares about them baby-eating homosexual abortion doctors.

*rolls eyes*


"Judge not lest ye shall be judged, turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour, do unto others what you would want others to do unto you"

That Jesus guy said some pretty interesting things. Too bad nobody in the Roman Catholics or Orthodox ever listened to him.

qft and irony

i know

*sheepish look*

who is the "never use capital letters" lady to knock someone's textspeak?

but DAYAM its annoying.

because they don't have anyone with the authority to teach it

There are people of authority to teach it, they are called Ministers or Preachers, or Pastors....just because they aren't Priests doesn't mean they are less ordained, or that they haven't been to Seminary.

I am asking questions because I am NOT Catholic, and I have been trying to do so in the utmost respect. For you to claim that there aren't people of authority to teach is demeaning to the non-Catholic Christians. In this discussion you haven't appeared to be as such, so I don't think you meant what it sounded like, I did want you to be aware of how it could be taken.

i know

*sheepish look*

who is the "never use capital letters" lady to knock someone's textspeak?

but DAYAM its annoying.

I was moreso pointing out the irony of me saying "qft" as a shortened way of saying "quoted for truth" while quoting and agreeing with a post that suggests that sort of stuff be kept to a minimum.


But now that you mention it, I can poke fun at you as well. *poke, poke* ^^

There are people of authority to teach it, they are called Ministers or Preachers, or Pastors....just because they aren't Priests doesn't mean they are less ordained, or that they haven't been to Seminary.

I am asking questions because I am NOT Catholic, and I have been trying to do so in the utmost respect. For you to claim that there aren't people of authority to teach is demeaning to the non-Catholic Christians. In this discussion you haven't appeared to be as such, so I don't think you meant what it sounded like, I did want you to be aware of how it could be taken.

Yeah, I didn't mean that, I meant that they don't have the same kind of authority. Protestants have preachers and ministers, etc. but if they personally believe something different from the Bible they can go with that, instead of what their pastor says. Catholics believe that their priests are supposed to interpret the Bible and they are supposed to believe what the Church says, not what they personally get from it since less educated individuals are more easily incorrect than an organization made up of people with Ph.D's even if you completely discount the divine part of it. Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible, but all Catholics are aware that it is up to the Church to interpret the Bible's meaning, and individuals' reading of the Bible is to be based on Church teaching for the purpose of a spiritual and devotional session, not for actually trying to discern the meaning of the Bible for themselves. I hope that made sense.

I was moreso pointing out the irony of me saying "qft" as a shortened way of saying "quoted for truth" while quoting and agreeing with a post that suggests that sort of stuff be kept to a minimum.


But now that you mention it, I can poke fun at you as well. *poke, poke* ^^

o

*pokes back*

i suppose we are all guilty of it to some extent but its a slippery slope! we have to hold back the tide or we will all be swept away in a storm of textspeak. (or a flood of mixed metaphors) whats next? allowing people to post in L33T??

Yeah, I didn't mean that, I meant that they don't have the same kind of authority. Protestants have preachers and ministers, etc. but if they personally believe something different from the Bible they can go with that, instead of what their pastor says. Catholics believe that their priests are supposed to interpret the Bible and they are supposed to believe what the Church says, not what they personally get from it since less educated individuals are more easily incorrect than an organization made up of people with Ph.D's even if you completely discount the divine part of it. Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible, but all Catholics are aware that it is up to the Church to interpret the Bible's meaning, and individuals' reading of the Bible is to be based on Church teaching for the purpose of a spiritual and devotional session, not for actually trying to discern the meaning of the Bible for themselves. I hope that made sense.

im pretty sure that varies depending on denomination. some are more rigorous than others.

they are not all like those awful tv evangelists who tell you that if you just send them money, god will make them rich.

Yeah, I didn't mean that, I meant that they don't have the same kind of authority. Protestants have preachers and ministers, etc. but if they personally believe something different from the Bible they can go with that, instead of what their pastor says. Catholics believe that their priests are supposed to interpret the Bible and they are supposed to believe what the Church says, not what they personally get from it since less educated individuals are more easily incorrect than an organization made up of people with Ph.D's even if you completely discount the divine part of it. Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible, but all Catholics are aware that it is up to the Church to interpret the Bible's meaning, and individuals' reading of the Bible is to be based on Church teaching for the purpose of a spiritual and devotional session, not for actually trying to discern the meaning of the Bible for themselves. I hope that made sense.

Perhaps I'm not reading it correctly, and I've read it several times. Are you saying that Protestant ministers aren't as educated as Priests? I assure you, that isn't true. I do understand that you will never convince me to be Catholic, nor will you convince me that a church that doesn't progress with the times is correct, and I understand that I will never convince you that the Catholic church is wrong, or that the church should progress with the times.

A minister goes to college, then to seminary, then works under another minister before they get a church of their own. I'm not sure why you say that they are "less educated" than a Priest. There are even ministers with doctorates.

Perhaps I'm not reading it correctly, and I've read it several times. Are you saying that Protestant ministers aren't as educated as Priests? I assure you, that isn't true. I do understand that you will never convince me to be Catholic, nor will you convince me that a church that doesn't progress with the times is correct, and I understand that I will never convince you that the Catholic church is wrong, or that the church should progress with the times.

A minister goes to college, then to seminary, then works under another minister before they get a church of their own. I'm not sure why you say that they are "less educated" than a Priest. There are even ministers with doctorates.

I was not saying specifically that priests were more educated than Protestant ministers, I was saying they are more educated than the average people who just pick up a Bible and read it. And as the post above me says, it varies by denomination, in many cases priests are more educated than Protestant ministers. For example, I have a friend who has a bachelors degree in college and that's all, yet he still is the pastor of his own church. In all but the most organized of Protestant churches, this is acceptable. And like you said, some preachers even have a doctorate, all priests are required to have at least 8 years of theology and philosophy study. The programs vary by seminary, but all priests at least have a Master's degree, and most have a doctorate's degree in Theology. So the very least educated priest has as much of an education in theology as the most well educated Protestant ministers if not an equivalent degree, and the most well educated priests, especially some Order Priests, have more degrees and time spent in theology studies than anyone.

Anyway that's all beside the point, what I was saying before is that Protestants have a different arrangement with their pastors than Catholics do. Protestants can disagree with their pastor about what the Bible says, and that's perfectly acceptable, but Catholics are to accept what the priests and the Church teaches the Bible says, regardless of what they think their personal reading of the Bible tells them.

Perhaps I'm not reading it correctly, and I've read it several times. Are you saying that Protestant ministers aren't as educated as Priests? I assure you, that isn't true. I do understand that you will never convince me to be Catholic, nor will you convince me that a church that doesn't progress with the times is correct, and I understand that I will never convince you that the Catholic church is wrong, or that the church should progress with the times.

A minister goes to college, then to seminary, then works under another minister before they get a church of their own. I'm not sure why you say that they are "less educated" than a Priest. There are even ministers with doctorates.

i think the 2 of you are falling apart over terminology.

the catholic church has "authority" in that it has an interpretation of the bible that is "cast in stone" so to speak. this authority rests in the church, the pope and 2000 years of christian thought. a priest cant read a passage from the bible and make his own interpretation of it. he MUST interpret it the way the church tells him to. he is not free to make up his own interpretation.

in what non-catholic (and non orthodox) church do you find the same kind of authority and where does that authority come from? look at the lutheran church--if they disagree, they can jump to a different lutheran synod or start yet another one (if they get enough people to go with them). you cant shop around for a "better" R catholic church, there is only the one. its their way or the highway.

its not a matter of scholarship. there is more than enough protestant scholarship in the past 600 or so years. the "problem" is that there is no AUTHORITY. if you think martin luther was an ass. no problem. if you think john calvin got it right but it needs a little tweaking, who is to say you are wrong?


its just not the same for a catholic.

i think the 2 of you are falling apart over terminology.

the catholic church has "authority" in that it has an interpretation of the bible that is "cast in stone" so to speak. this authority rests in the church, the pope and 2000 years of christian thought. a priest cant read a passage from the bible and make his own interpretation of it. he MUST interpret it the way the church tells him to. he is not free to make up his own interpretation.

in what non-catholic (and non orthodox) church do you find the same kind of authority and where does that authority come from? look at the lutheran church--if they disagree, they can jump to a different lutheran synod or start yet another one (if they get enough people to go with them). you cant shop around for a "better" R catholic church, there is only the one. its their way or the highway.

its not a matter of scholarship. there is more than enough protestant scholarship in the past 600 or so years. the "problem" is that there is no AUTHORITY. if you think martin luther was an ass. no problem. if you think john calvin got it right but it needs a little tweaking, who is to say you are wrong?


its just not the same for a catholic.

Exactly, except for this first part, I just used the education part of it in one spot to compare priests to average people, not compare them to other professional theologians; your definition of authority is what I meant the whole time.

ok, thank you for clarifying that. I wasn't trying to attack, I was honestly confused.

As I said, I am not all knowledgeable in how much schooling a Protestant minister requires, and I have NO idea how much a Catholic Priest requires.

I understand your point about interpreting the Bible. Ministers help guide the congregation in interpretation, but allow us to make our own conclusions. However, I know a minister that has been known to say outright "NO, you're WRONG" to one of the members in the congregation. (That was actually quite funny)

i think the 2 of you are falling apart over terminology.

the catholic church has "authority" in that it has an interpretation of the bible that is "cast in stone" so to speak. this authority rests in the church, the pope and 2000 years of christian thought. a priest cant read a passage from the bible and make his own interpretation of it. he MUST interpret it the way the church tells him to. he is not free to make up his own interpretation.

in what non-catholic (and non orthodox) church do you find the same kind of authority and where does that authority come from? look at the lutheran church--if they disagree, they can jump to a different lutheran synod or start yet another one (if they get enough people to go with them). you cant shop around for a "better" R catholic church, there is only the one. its their way or the highway.

its not a matter of scholarship. there is more than enough protestant scholarship in the past 600 or so years. the "problem" is that there is no AUTHORITY. if you think martin luther was an ass. no problem. if you think john calvin got it right but it needs a little tweaking, who is to say you are wrong?


its just not the same for a catholic.


I get that...I was concerned (for lack of a better term) that Tolvarus was calling Protestant minister "undereducated". My post was less to the topic at hand, and more to get clarification of the comment. The second post was because I needed clarification of his response.

Thank you, though, for a well thought out response

I get that...I was concerned (for lack of a better term) that Tolvarus was calling Protestant minister "undereducated".


You understand that is not what I was saying now though, right?

I get that...I was concerned (for lack of a better term) that Tolvarus was calling Protestant minister "undereducated". My post was less to the topic at hand, and more to get clarification of the comment. The second post was because I needed clarification of his response.

Thank you, though, for a well thought out response

thank you

i was worried about that too. there are so many protestant denominations and the ones that get all the "press" are the weird ones like tv evangelists and snake handlers.

we can forget that most mainstream denominations are very rigorous in their requirements for the ministry.

You understand that is not what I was saying now though, right?

yes, I do...we can go back to the topic at hand now.

(like I said, I didn't think that you were trying to demean Protestant ministers, it read funny to me, and I had needed clarification...then, needed clarification for the clarification. I'm all good now. Thank you for indulging me)

I was wondering what you, the ever-so-intelligent posters here, think about Roman Catholicism, the first Christian Church? What are your thoughts on the Pope, the Saints, other denominations?

Please remain respectful.

I am a Roman Catholic and believe that the fullness of the Truth of Christ is found in Mother Church, but that most other Christian sects also have been given grace by God. Pax

Um, personally? They're nice and upstanding people and-all but:

A: Being nailed to a cross doesn't foot-the-bill for ALL Catholic sins.
B: Christ was a Rabbi, and strongly advicated Judaism.
C: The Christian Ten Commandments are messed up (thou shall not kill), but the Jews have the ORIGINAL (you shall not murder).
D: Why would Christ die, and then come back to life?
And E: God wouldn't be just if he sent you to hell for not thinking his Son was the ONLY Prophet, when there were obviously many more.

Um, personally? They're nice and upstanding people and-all but:

A: Being nailed to a cross doesn't foot-the-bill for ALL Catholic sins.
B: Christ was a Rabbi, and strongly advicated Judaism.
C: The Christian Ten Commandments are messed up (thou shall not kill), but the Jews have the ORIGINAL (you shall not murder).
D: Why would Christ die, and then come back to life?
And E: God wouldn't be just if he sent you to hell for not thinking his Son was the ONLY Prophet, when there were obviously many more.
A. Right, it's supposed to foot the bill for ALL sins, not just the Catholics'.
B. Very bad indeed. Judaism is crap.
C. What does that matter? Neither version is what people really followed. Least of all Christians and Jews. Forbidding genocide should have been explicitly included in said commandment.
D. According to Christianity his death was the sacrifice to pay for humanity's sins once and for all. After that was done why should he remain dead?
E. Catholicism, as the rest of Christianity, does not just regard Yeshua as a prophet, he is supposedly the Christ and the son of god, an incarnation of god, and ultimately god himself. That's what Christianity is about.

I'm fine with the true dogma, but have quibbles with the laws of man. As imperfect as we are, I do not think it proper to align law of man with law of God. The Church loses my respect.

Specifically, the whole Limbo fiasco.

BTW, I'm a baptised but Fallen Away Catholic. Never confirmed, nothing past baptism, but I believe.

Well, limbo was never actuallt doctrine. Medieval theologians theorized, but it was only that; a theory. People ddn't know what to think so they who's job it was to think went to work.

Um, personally? They're nice and upstanding people and-all but:

A: Being nailed to a cross doesn't foot-the-bill for ALL Catholic sins.
B: Christ was a Rabbi, and strongly advicated Judaism.
C: The Christian Ten Commandments are messed up (thou shall not kill), but the Jews have the ORIGINAL (you shall not murder).
D: Why would Christ die, and then come back to life?
And E: God wouldn't be just if he sent you to hell for not thinking his Son was the ONLY Prophet, when there were obviously many more.

A: Actually, as Christ was God, His death upon the Cross has infinite value and thus cleared the "wages of sin" which is death, from us.
B: Christ was a Rabbi, a Teacher. Judaism was the preperation for Chris's coming. Christianity is simply the furtherance of God's divne will.
C: Well, it depends upon the translation, but yes, you are correct. However, how do we define murder? As a Catholic, I believe that ALL life is sacred and should be held in awe with dignity. Life is a gift of God, we should not destroy what He has given us. This is why abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, etx., are all immoral and unjust.
D: Christ died that we may be freed from sin. His resurrection was the ultimate triumph over sin and death thus proving His power over ALL creation. He also decended into Hell to free those righteous dead such as the Patriarchs and prophets.
E: Ummm, you are a tad misconstrued on Christian belief. There were MANY prophets. Read through the Old Testament. Christ even acknowledged them. Christ Jesus is God, thus He is above the holy prophets. The Prophets were the messenger sent before Him that His way may be cleared. This is especially true for St.John the Baptist. The following is a summation of faith (the Apostle's Creed) which is the accepted staement of things necessary for salvation:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.Now we know about you, but not about god.

Now we know about you, but not about god.

Yes, you do now know about my beleif. However, this also tells you of God. I did not write this staement. It has been around for centuries. The person that I was responding misunderstands the Christian faith. How can he learn fo God withut learning of His teachings?

I really have nothing bad to say about it 'cept that I don't understand why my wife wasn't taught the bible growing up (she's roman catholic). Yes, she went to mass and paid attention to the readings, but how is a child supposed to interpret and understand the bible?:confused:

Yes, you do now know about my beleif. However, this also tells you of God. I did not write this staement. It has been around for centuries. The person that I was responding misunderstands the Christian faith. How can he learn fo God withut learning of His teachings?I know this creed. Which dwells entirely on belief. I stillmiss the facts.
And how do you know what god's teachings are?

I know this creed. Which dwells entirely on belief. I stillmiss the facts.
And how do you know what god's teachings are?

Aw c'mon, don't let it die yet - this thread coulda become another all-out "YES!" "NO!" brawl between everyone, which would've been fun to watch.

A: Being nailed to a cross doesn't foot-the-bill for ALL Catholic sins.
You know...I never really thought of it from that direction, but I think this is a fabulous point.

If we embrace the traditional Christian idea of sin, then I have lived in sin for my entire life. There has never been a single instant of my life that was sin-free. For most of my life, I have actively pursued "sinful" activities, as defined by traditional Christianity. My current relationship has been sin from start to finish (5+ years at this point). I take the Lord's Name in vain at least twice a day, though it's usually pretty garbled ("goddammitall!").

And that's just me. One person. I'm guesstimating about 788,923,150 sinful moments, JUST for me. And I've got no intention of stopping.

Jesus was only on the cross for like 6 hours. I'm sure that was horrible, don't get me wrong, but when you weigh that against the amount of man-hours of sin cranked out by the human race...well, it seems like God got completely hosed in that deal.

You know...I never really thought of it from that direction, but I think this is a fabulous point.

If we embrace the traditional Christian idea of sin, then I have lived in sin for my entire life. There has never been a single instant of my life that was sin-free. For most of my life, I have actively pursued "sinful" activities, as defined by traditional Christianity. My current relationship has been sin from start to finish (5+ years at this point). I take the Lord's Name in vain at least twice a day, though it's usually pretty garbled ("goddammitall!").

And that's just me. One person. I'm guesstimating about 788,923,150 sinful moments, JUST for me. And I've got no intention of stopping.

Jesus was only on the cross for like 6 hours. I'm sure that was horrible, don't get me wrong, but when you weigh that against the amount of man-hours of sin cranked out by the human race...well, it seems like God got completely hosed in that deal.

Indeed. And it wasn't even the cross that did it, it was the dying, but the guy came back anyway, so couldn't god have just said "Y'know what? I have a son now, so to celebrate I'm gonna wipe the slate clean and give you guys get-out-of-jail-free passes. Have a cigar." instead of all the drama and theatrics of all that bullshit that happened. Cut to the chase.

Jesus was only on the cross for like 6 hours. I'm sure that was horrible, don't get me wrong, but when you weigh that against the amount of man-hours of sin cranked out by the human race...well, it seems like God got completely hosed in that deal.

Not to mention I would take the same deal Jesus got in a heartbeat.
A few hours of intense suffering in exchange for eternal life, a seat in heaven and power approaching that of God himself ? Hell yeah !
The whole "absolving humanity of sin" is merely a nice bonus.

Not to mention I would take the same deal Jesus got in a heartbeat.
A few hours of intense suffering in exchange for eternal life, a seat in heaven and power approaching that of God himself ? Hell yeah !

Word.

Frankly, when you think about it, Jesus got a better deal than any other human who has ever lived. He didn't even have to die.

A normal person who dies quietly in their sleep has given up more than Jesus ever did. If we actually were going to use suffering as a trade to absolve sin, then a typical child living in modern-day Rwanda is more of a "messiah" than Jesus.

Word.

Frankly, when you think about it, Jesus got a better deal than any other human who has ever lived. He didn't even have to die.

A normal person who dies quietly in their sleep has given up more than Jesus ever did. If we actually were going to use suffering as a trade to absolve sin, then a typical child living in modern-day Rwanda is more of a "messiah" than Jesus.

It's because that child has not accepted JAAAYSUSSSS.

It's because that child has not accepted JAAAYSUSSSS.

Ironically many of them did...

Ironically many of them did...

Lies propogated by the liberal media. Mhm.

Word.

Frankly, when you think about it, Jesus got a better deal than any other human who has ever lived. He didn't even have to die.

A normal person who dies quietly in their sleep has given up more than Jesus ever did. If we actually were going to use suffering as a trade to absolve sin, then a typical child living in modern-day Rwanda is more of a "messiah" than Jesus.

Not only did he not die but he knew where he was going after words with a certainty

Not only did he not die but he knew where he was going after words with a certainty

I suppose a christian would argue that he had to go spend three days in hell before he was resurrected, but I've also heard it argued that hell isn't as bad as it's made out to be - simply a place with a lack of god's influence or presence.

Theoretically speaking, Jesus's 6ish hours of torture on earth were worse than his three days in hell.

I suppose a christian would argue that he had to go spend three days in hell before he was resurrected...

And Jesus would be in hell because.....

And Jesus would be in hell because........the gospel of bartholomew says so.

Not only did he not die but he knew where he was going after words with a certaintyafter words?

after words?

afterwards. As in, after the fact.

And Jesus would be in hell because.....
Because when he died, he took the heat for your sins. That is why he died in the first place. Basically, he took the punishment for every single sin commited by every single person throughout history. I would say that warrents going to hell.

I suppose a christian would argue that he had to go spend three days in hell before he was resurrected, but I've also heard it argued that hell isn't as bad as it's made out to be - simply a place with a lack of god's influence or presence.

Theoretically speaking, Jesus's 6ish hours of torture on earth were worse than his three days in hell.
My Opinion: You've never been in a place completly devoid of God. That's what Hell is, and a world without God is a lot worse than you could possibly imagine.
Of course, the acurracy of that statement is limited by my limited knowlage. I've never been to Hell, so I can't really tell you how bad it would be.

Because when he died, he took the heat for your sins. That is why he died in the first place. Basically, he took the punishment for every single sin commited by every single person throughout history. I would say that warrents going to hell.


Well I would have considered being the Son of God would get him a pass from that whole shenanigan.

That and the Gospel of Bartholomew wasn't Catholic doctrine *glances at thread title*, I'm going to go with what 20 years of Catholicism taught me.

My Opinion: You've never been in a place completly devoid of God. That's what Hell is, and a world without God is a lot worse than you could possibly imagine.
Of course, the acurracy of that statement is limited by my limited knowlage. I've never been to Hell, so I can't really tell you how bad it would be.

Well, I don't consider "without god" to mean "with pain", "with torture", "with eternal torment". It just means "without god". Doesn't even mean "without love", it just means "without god's love" which I'm not entirely sure I get even on Earth.

But yeah, we've never been to hell, so we can only assume.

Well I would have considered being the Son of God would get him a pass from that whole shenanigan.

That and the Gospel of Bartholomew wasn't Catholic doctrine *glances at thread title*, I'm going to go with what 20 years of Catholicism taught me.

If he wern't the Son of God, than dying would've been pointless. The sins of the world can only be corrected by one who is without sin. He did it because he was the "Son of God."

If he wern't the Son of God, than dying would've been pointless. The sins of the world can only be corrected by one who is without sin. He did it because he was the "Son of God."

To be fair, it was god that made that stipulation. The scene went down according to his rules. Surely he could've done it a better way.

Prehaps, but there's one thing God can't (won't) do: Break the rules he created.
One of those rules is that the penalty of sin is death, and only someone without sin can take it away.
It may seem like poor planning, but God is just a little bit smarter than any of us, so if we disagree, the problem is most likely on our end.

Because when he died, he took the heat for your sins. That is why he died in the first place. Basically, he took the punishment for every single sin commited by every single person throughout history. I would say that warrents going to hell.

I'd say it's pretty fucked up to think that any person can (or should) take responsibility for MY sins.

My mistakes and my sins are mine. Only I can take responsibility or credit for the things that I do. Somebody else can decide to be a martyr and claim they're doing it for me, but that's as empty as if they claim that when they eat a burger they are eating it "for" me. Sorry, no dice.


My Opinion: You've never been in a place completly devoid of God.
That's what Hell is, and a world without God is a lot worse than you could possibly imagine.

I currently live in a world without God, and it's not so bad. It's got its ups and downs, really, but it's hardly a horrible place to be. I'm quite happy to be here.


Of course, the acurracy of that statement is limited by my limited knowlage. I've never been to Hell, so I can't really tell you how bad it would be.
Meh. I'm not worried. If Hell is simply "a place without God" then that's not bad in the least.

The only thing that would suck would be existing forever. I think eternal life (or eternal afterlife) is a very unsavory prospect.

Prehaps, but there's one thing God can't (won't) do: Break the rules he created.

He could simply have not created stupid rules in the first place.


One of those rules is that the penalty of sin is death, and only someone without sin can take it away.

Nobody can, or should, "take away" sins that have already been committed. You can't undo what has been done. You can, however, take responsibility for it and try to make amends.

It is cowardly and unworthy to expect somebody else to atone for your mistakes or your sins. It is cowardly to accept if somebody else offers to do this.


It may seem like poor planning, but God is just a little bit smarter than any of us, so if we disagree, the problem is most likely on our end.
Sorry, but if God can't hold up to my (admittedly limited) critical thinking abilities, then that's a pretty crappy God. I have standards.

He could simply have not created stupid rules in the first place.


Nobody can, or should, "take away" sins that have already been committed. You can't undo what has been done. You can, however, take responsibility for it and try to make amends.

It is cowardly and unworthy to expect somebody else to atone for your mistakes or your sins. It is cowardly to accept if somebody else offers to do this.


Sorry, but if God can't hold up to my (admittedly limited) critical thinking abilities, then that's a pretty crappy God. I have standards.

*bakes a fresh batch of cookies for Bottle*

Man, how fast people are to bare teeth.

I used to be Catholic. I converted for reasons of my own but I have nothing against the Catholic Church. In fact, I respect it.

People like to start their tirades against the church by talking about the Medieval Period. "Don't even make me mention the Middle Ages" someone said. Why not? Let's talk about the Dark Ages for a moment.

When the Western Empire collapsed, it degenerated from one single unified government into barbaric, almost tribal warring factions. You think the Franks were all united as one? How about the Germanics? The Goths? Nope. Chaos. It took centuries for things to start to recover into what later became entities like Charlemagne's empire, Aragon, etc. Saxons going from the north into Britain, Huns running around in the East, nothing like a true kingdom appeared for quite some time.

In all that chaos, what held the line and enabled this recovery? Who kept the infrastructure like roads, sanitation, aqueducts, etc going? It was the Roman church. They were the one element that unified all these disparate people and so it enabled things to start to re-organize and recover.

Was there corruption? Yeah. Were there atrocities? Yeah. Welcome to the Middle Ages. You think it was any different over in Constantinople? How about in other cultures? You think people were all paragons of virtue in Persia? India?

I mean geez, people lighten up. No matter what things were like a THOUSAND years ago things are pretty different now. So the Catholic Church disapproves of abortion. So it disapproves of homosexual behavior. So it disapproves of birth control. What the heck do you care if you're not Catholic?

The Catholic church sends relief, money, food, aid, medicine and education to all corners of the world where it's desperately needed. They have better schools than the almighty US Government is capable of running. Have yuo ever met a monk? I have. There's a Fransiscan Monstery in Washington, DC and I've been there. Here are a bunch of guys that believe in something so strongly that they've given up a lot of teh things you and I take for granted in order to persue it. That's something to be respected. The same goes for any priest or nun. They devote their lives to serving God, and that translates into exactly the sort of charitable work I mentioned above.

Don't trouble this thread by talking about priests and child molestation. People from all walks of life have been known to molest children. It's sensationalism when the media makes a bigger deal out of it being a priest than if it were, say, a little league coach or even a neighbor.

When I was 12, my parents divorced. I was going to a Catholic school at the time and people were very weird around me because divorce tends to be more rare in the Catolic community than in the general community. None of the teachers really knew what to say, and few other students knew what I was experiencing. One day, when we were attening Confession (somethign we did a few times a year in school) I was listing my troubles and sins when it came up that my parents had split. The priest listened to what I had to say and did not judge, did not act weird, nothign like that. I started to cry because it was really the first time anyone had truly listened to me on this subject. He gave me a fatherly kiss on the cheek and reassured me that everything would be okay.

That man was one of only two examples of a true Christian that I have ever met in my life. Sadly, he has since passed away, but I will always remember that when I was in one of the lowest and most painful times in my life, it was a Catholic Priest that showed me kindness and understanding.

If that is what the Catholic church represents, and that is what evolved from the darkness of history, then that's a testimony of the quality of the people who are a part of it.

Man, how fast people are to bare teeth.

I used to be Catholic. I converted for reasons of my own but I have nothing against the Catholic Church. In fact, I respect it.

People like to start their tirades against the church by talking about the Medieval Period. "Don't even make me mention the Middle Ages" someone said. Why not? Let's talk about the Dark Ages for a moment.

When the Western Empire collapsed, it degenerated from one single unified government into barbaric, almost tribal warring factions. You think the Franks were all united as one? How about the Germanics? The Goths? Nope. Chaos. It took centuries for things to start to recover into what later became entities like Charlemagne's empire, Aragon, etc. Saxons going from the north into Britain, Huns running around in the East, nothing like a true kingdom appeared for quite some time.

In all that chaos, what held the line and enabled this recovery? Who kept the infrastructure like roads, sanitation, aqueducts, etc going? It was the Roman church. They were the one element that unified all these disparate people and so it enabled things to start to re-organize and recover.

Was there corruption? Yeah. Were there atrocities? Yeah. Welcome to the Middle Ages. You think it was any different over in Constantinople? How about in other cultures? You think people were all paragons of virtue in Persia? India?

I mean geez, people lighten up. No matter what things were like a THOUSAND years ago things are pretty different now. So the Catholic Church disapproves of abortion. So it disapproves of homosexual behavior. So it disapproves of birth control. What the heck do you care if you're not Catholic?

The Catholic church sends relief, money, food, aid, medicine and education to all corners of the world where it's desperately needed. They have better schools than the almighty US Government is capable of running. Have yuo ever met a monk? I have. There's a Fransiscan Monstery in Washington, DC and I've been there. Here are a bunch of guys that believe in something so strongly that they've given up a lot of teh things you and I take for granted in order to persue it. That's something to be respected. The same goes for any priest or nun. They devote their lives to serving God, and that translates into exactly the sort of charitable work I mentioned above.

Don't trouble this thread by talking about priests and child molestation. People from all walks of life have been known to molest children. It's sensationalism when the media makes a bigger deal out of it being a priest than if it were, say, a little league coach or even a neighbor.

When I was 12, my parents divorced. I was going to a Catholic school at the time and people were very weird around me because divorce tends to be more rare in the Catolic community than in the general community. None of the teachers really knew what to say, and few other students knew what I was experiencing. One day, when we were attening Confession (somethign we did a few times a year in school) I was listing my troubles and sins when it came up that my parents had split. The priest listened to what I had to say and did not judge, did not act weird, nothign like that. I started to cry because it was really the first time anyone had truly listened to me on this subject. He gave me a fatherly kiss on the cheek and reassured me that everything would be okay.

That man was one of only two examples of a true Christian that I have ever met in my life. Sadly, he has since passed away, but I will always remember that when I was in one of the lowest and most painful times in my life, it was a Catholic Priest that showed me kindness and understanding.

If that is what the Catholic church represents, and that is what evolved from the darkness of history, then that's a testimony of the quality of the people who are a part of it.

You make a good point, but the bolded paragraph shows the problem.

Many are catholic because they are taught to be. Many follow the teachings of the catholic church because they are told to. When the church says "don't use condoms" or "you can't have an abortion" or "you're an abomination if you have sex with someone of your own sex", that affects all of those people, and indirectly affects the world.

In America, those people vote. They directly affect non-catholics by attempting to legislate for others what they believe for themselves.

In Africa, AIDS is all over the place. You think telling them NOT to use condoms is a good idea? They tell them to simply not have sex - which they don't listen to. And nevermind when someone is raped - abortion is out of the question.


The church affects the world. That's why the world cares.

Man, how fast people are to bare teeth.

I used to be Catholic. I converted for reasons of my own but I have nothing against the Catholic Church. In fact, I respect it.

People like to start their tirades against the church by talking about the Medieval Period.

Actually, I start by commenting on the abuses and human rights violations perpetrated by the Church today. Along with the gross corruption and utter moral bankruptcy demonstrated by the Catholic leadership as a whole.


Let's talk about the Dark Ages for a moment.

*snip for length*

Was there corruption? Yeah. Were there atrocities? Yeah. Welcome to the Middle Ages. You think it was any different over in Constantinople? How about in other cultures? You think people were all paragons of virtue in Persia? India?

Try something for me, okay?

Go steal something from a store. Anything, doesn't matter what. Then get caught. When the cops ask you for your story, list for them all the times in history when OTHER people have stolen things. Explain that they should just chill out and let you off the hook because people all over the world, at many different times, in every different culture, have stolen things.

You can use your one phone call to tell me how that works out for you.


I mean geez, people lighten up. No matter what things were like a THOUSAND years ago things are pretty different now. So the Catholic Church disapproves of abortion. So it disapproves of homosexual behavior. So it disapproves of birth control. What the heck do you care if you're not Catholic?

"So the Catholic Church spreads lies and misinformation among vulnerable populations. So they use their money and influence to directly interfere with the (secular) legal systems and governments of any government they can get their claws into, thereby helping to ensure that women and gays are kept as second-class citizens. So they openly advocate misogyny and homophobia. So what? Why should anybody care?"

I care because the Catholic Church is killing people. I care because the Catholic Church is encouraging the physical and psychological abuse of women and children all over the world. I care because the Church spreads hate speech about women, gays, and pretty much anybody else who won't tow the line.

I care, in short, for the same reason I care about any other organization that is directly and intentionally harming my fellow human beings.


The Catholic church sends relief, money, food, aid, medicine and education to all corners of the world where it's desperately needed.

It's great to do charity work. Doesn't change all the evil shit the Church is up to. Nor does doing charity work give somebody a free pass to lie, cheat, steal, abuse, and kill their fellow humans.


They have better schools than the almighty US Government is capable of running.

Flat-out lie.


Have yuo ever met a monk? I have. There's a Fransiscan Monstery in Washington, DC and I've been there. Here are a bunch of guys that believe in something so strongly that they've given up a lot of teh things you and I take for granted in order to persue it. That's something to be respected. The same goes for any priest or nun. They devote their lives to serving God, and that translates into exactly the sort of charitable work I mentioned above.

That is both totally non-unique and also completely irrelevant.

There are people who sacrifice a great deal in order to be members of racist hate groups. Some of them are extremely educated, intelligent, driven, and devoted to their beliefs. So what? They're still assholes.


Don't trouble this thread by talking about priests and child molestation. People from all walks of life have been known to molest children. It's sensationalism when the media makes a bigger deal out of it being a priest than if it were, say, a little league coach or even a neighbor.

Darling, people aren't just pissed because priests molested children.

They are pissed because THE CHURCH KNEW IT, AND HELPED THE PRIESTS MOLEST MORE CHILDREN.

The Church KNEW. They knew they had priests raping children, and they did nothing whatsoever to stop them. They knew they had rapist priests, and they moved them to new congregations to keep them from being busted and to provide them with new, unsuspecting victims.

Far as I'm concerned, they deserve to be on trial for crimes against humanity for that alone. They're an organization that supports, helps, and funds rapists.


When I was 12, my parents divorced. I was going to a Catholic school at the time and people were very weird around me because divorce tends to be more rare in the Catolic community than in the general community. None of the teachers really knew what to say, and few other students knew what I was experiencing. One day, when we were attening Confession (somethign we did a few times a year in school) I was listing my troubles and sins when it came up that my parents had split. The priest listened to what I had to say and did not judge, did not act weird, nothign like that. I started to cry because it was really the first time anyone had truly listened to me on this subject. He gave me a fatherly kiss on the cheek and reassured me that everything would be okay.
There are plenty of good people who happen to be Catholic. Nobody is disputing that.

The CATHOLIC CHURCH, as an organization, is a corrupt, destructive, dishonest, and (in my humble opinion) deeply disgusting organization. But lots of good, well-meaning people have belonged to shitty organizations. Lots of good, well-meaning people have supported shitty leaders. There are lots of reasons why this can happen.


If that is what the Catholic church represents, and that is what evolved from the darkness of history, then that's a testimony of the quality of the people who are a part of it.
The "evolution from the darkness of history" was achieved only by dragging the Church, kicking and screaming, into the age of Reason. Giving them credit for the progress that happened DESPITE their forceful, often violent, resistance is like giving Southern racists all the credit for the Civil Rights Movement.

Pathetic.

You make a good point, but the bolded paragraph shows the problem.

Many are catholic because they are taught to be. Many follow the teachings of the catholic church because they are told to. When the church says "don't use condoms" or "you can't have an abortion" or "you're an abomination if you have sex with someone of your own sex", that affects all of those people, and indirectly affects the world.

In America, those people vote. They directly affect non-catholics by attempting to legislate for others what they believe for themselves.

In Africa, AIDS is all over the place. You think telling them NOT to use condoms is a good idea? They tell them to simply not have sex - which they don't listen to. And nevermind when someone is raped - abortion is out of the question.


The church affects the world. That's why the world cares.

I understand your point completely, but there are also other things to consider.

Firstly, EVERYBODY votes according to what they personally believe. Whether you vote libertarian becaue you believe in total freedom, or if you vote Democrat because you believe that socialized healthcare is the right thing to do, we all vote based on what we feel is right. Why should Catholics be any different? Should their vote be characterized as dark and sinsiter just because it's motivated by a moral standard that differs from others? Their beliefs tend to be unpopular with people on the left of the political spectrum. So what? The left doesn't monopolize the truth, either. This is how a republic works.

And yes, those places in Africa where AIDS runs rampant... that isn't the fault of the church. As you pointed out, they don't listen to advice about abstinence, which constitutes a mortal sin in Cathoilc doctrine. Why should we assume they'd listen to advice to wear a condom? That's a much less severe sin than adultery.

But yes, the church affects the world. I happen to think it does so in a way that is far more positive than negative. That' sreally the basis of my point. If I felt the church was perfect, I'd still be Catholic. ;)

Actually, I start by commenting on the abuses and human rights violations perpetrated by the Church today. Along with the gross corruption and utter moral bankruptcy demonstrated by the Catholic leadership as a whole.


I'll address this below.


Go steal something from a store. Anything, doesn't matter what. Then get caught. When the cops ask you for your story, list for them all the times in history when OTHER people have stolen things. Explain that they should just chill out and let you off the hook because people all over the world, at many different times, in every different culture, have stolen things.


This analogy doesn't work. In this example, it can be assumed that the police were also arresting other thieves. In the case of the topic at hand, people are often quick to criticize the Roman Church's conduct during the Dark Ages while utterly ignoring other atrocities committed by other religions and governments. Taken in context, there wasn't really much that was remarkable about the church at the time.


"So the Catholic Church spreads lies and misinformation among vulnerable populations. So they use their money and influence to directly interfere with the (secular) legal systems and governments of any government they can get their claws into, thereby helping to ensure that women and gays are kept as second-class citizens. So they openly advocate misogyny and homophobia. So what? Why should anybody care?"

I wonder why people are often so quick to make statements like this but are not nearly as vocal about other religions/governments doing the same or worse in other places. You think women and gays are persecuted in Catholic countries? Try Saudi Arabia, Indonesia or China. Guess whuich of those is Catholic? Answer:none.


I care because the Catholic Church is killing people. I care because the Catholic Church is encouraging the physical and psychological abuse of women and children all over the world. I care because the Church spreads hate speech about women, gays, and pretty much anybody else who won't tow the line.

Who are they killing? What psychological abuse? What hate speech? Be specific. if I made a statement like that you'd haul me up for specifics, too.


It's great to do charity work. Doesn't change all the evil shit the Church is up to. Nor does doing charity work give somebody a free pass to lie, cheat, steal, abuse, and kill their fellow humans.

Examples, please.


Flat-out lie.

Hardly. Ever attended a Catholic school? Ever attended a public school? I have. Both. Around here, the government run schools suck so bad I almost put my kids into a local Catholic school even though we're not even Catholic. That's not even anything new. when I attended Catholic school, My classmates included 3 Baptists, 2 Muslims and 1 Jew that I knew of. Why would they be there if not for the superior quality of the education?


That is both totally non-unique and also completely irrelevant.

There are people who sacrifice a great deal in order to be members of racist hate groups. Some of them are extremely educated, intelligent, driven, and devoted to their beliefs. So what? They're still assholes.

Tell me what the Fransican Monks in the abbey in DC have done to make them assholes worthy of being compared to KKK members.


Darling, people aren't just pissed because priests molested children.

They are pissed because THE CHURCH KNEW IT, AND HELPED THE PRIESTS MOLEST MORE CHILDREN.

The Church KNEW. They knew they had priests raping children, and they did nothing whatsoever to stop them. They knew they had rapist priests, and they moved them to new congregations to keep them from being busted and to provide them with new, unsuspecting victims.

Far as I'm concerned, they deserve to be on trial for crimes against humanity for that alone. They're an organization that supports, helps, and funds rapists.

Now I generally expect a migh higher quality of factual basis from you. Nobody denies that the church handled those cases poorly when this stuff started coming to light. They tried to preserve their image by handling it all quietly. But to characterize it as being some sort of conspiracy to assist child molesters to find new victims is rather disgusting.

Unless, of course, you can prove that.


There are plenty of good people who happen to be Catholic. Nobody is disputing that.

The CATHOLIC CHURCH, as an organization, is a corrupt, destructive, dishonest, and (in my humble opinion) deeply disgusting organization. But lots of good, well-meaning people have belonged to shitty organizations. Lots of good, well-meaning people have supported shitty leaders. There are lots of reasons why this can happen.

Well that would be the point of contention, wouldn't it?


The "evolution from the darkness of history" was achieved only by dragging the Church, kicking and screaming, into the age of Reason. Giving them credit for the progress that happened DESPITE their forceful, often violent, resistance is like giving Southern racists all the credit for the Civil Rights Movement.

Pathetic.

That's disingenuous. As people are so fond of pointing out, the church marches to the beat of its own drum. To suggest that they were dragged into anything the way the South was is to ignore the fact that there is no secular authority over the church like there is over the South. That means either the church advanced itself or God did. If the former is true, then it does deserve credit for that. If the latter is true, this whole topic is meaningless.

I understand your point completely, but there are also other things to consider.

Firstly, EVERYBODY votes according to what they personally believe. Whether you vote libertarian becaue you believe in total freedom, or if you vote Democrat because you believe that socialized healthcare is the right thing to do, we all vote based on what we feel is right. Why should Catholics be any different? Should their vote be characterized as dark and sinsiter just because it's motivated by a moral standard that differs from others? Their beliefs tend to be unpopular with people on the left of the political spectrum. So what? The left doesn't monopolize the truth, either. This is how a republic works.

And yes, those places in Africa where AIDS runs rampant... that isn't the fault of the church. As you pointed out, they don't listen to advice about abstinence, which constitutes a mortal sin in Cathoilc doctrine. Why should we assume they'd listen to advice to wear a condom? That's a much less severe sin than adultery.

But yes, the church affects the world. I happen to think it does so in a way that is far more positive than negative. That' sreally the basis of my point. If I felt the church was perfect, I'd still be Catholic. ;)

I'm gonna tap Bottle on the shoulder here and ask she respond to this. She tends to do it much better than I ever could, with essentially the same arguments.

(In response to: They have better schools than the almighty US Government is capable of running.)
Flat-out lie.

The school system in the US is inherently flawed because it is run by the government. Read "Animal Farm" by George Orwell and see where government education got them.
OK, one might argue that a Catholic school might do the same, but if they tried it, they would lose enrollment and therefore would go out of business. If a public school did that, it would continue to operate (On the taxpayer's dollar, too.)


They are pissed because THE CHURCH KNEW IT, AND HELPED THE PRIESTS MOLEST MORE CHILDREN.
The Church KNEW. They knew they had priests raping children, and they did nothing whatsoever to stop them. They knew they had rapist priests, and they moved them to new congregations to keep them from being busted and to provide them with new, unsuspecting victims. Far as I'm concerned, they deserve to be on trial for crimes against humanity for that alone. They're an organization that supports, helps, and funds rapists.

1. Give me proof that the church knew exactly which priests were molesters
2. Schools do the same thing. Teacher's Unions ensure that molesting teachers get passed around from school to school rather than being fired. Also, a much higher percentage of teachers molest than do priests.
3. Priests who molest are NOT Christians. They are evil men who pretend to be.

I'm tired of guys in big phallic hats gripping big staffs telling us homosexuality is wrong.

I'm tired of guys in big phallic hats gripping big staffs telling us homosexuality is wrong.Rastafarians?

The school system in the US is inherently flawed because it is run by the government. Read "Animal Farm" by George Orwell and see where government education got them.


:rolleyes:


1. Give me proof that the church knew exactly which priests were molesters

I guess you missed to the practice of moving them around where they repeated their assaults. Did you even read about the Boston Cardinal and his actions?

The moving practice even involved moving them between countries. For example a coworkers husband(Irish) went home and learned his best friend had been kidnapped, raped and tortured by the village Priest. The Bishop told his family "we will take care of it" They sent the predator to Canada.

A group that tracks violence against children(was a radio interview) reported Priest assaults in Asia, South America, Europe, the Philippines, and Africa.

2. Schools do the same thing. Teacher's Unions ensure that molesting teachers get passed around from school to school rather than being fired. Also, a much higher percentage of teachers molest than do priests.


Sorry my bullshit meter is going off. You really have to prove a union can prevent families from suing schools.

3. Priests who molest are NOT Christians. They are evil men who pretend to be.

:rolleyes: I love that defense. But at least it's universal. I have heard Muslims say "suicide bombers are not really Muslims....."

Rastafarians?

:D

The school system in the US is inherently flawed because it is run by the government. Read "Animal Farm" by George Orwell and see where government education got them.
OK, one might argue that a Catholic school might do the same, but if they tried it, they would lose enrollment and therefore would go out of business. If a public school did that, it would continue to operate (On the taxpayer's dollar, too.)


1. Give me proof that the church knew exactly which priests were molesters
2. Schools do the same thing. Teacher's Unions ensure that molesting teachers get passed around from school to school rather than being fired. Also, a much higher percentage of teachers molest than do priests.
3. Priests who molest are NOT Christians. They are evil men who pretend to be.

1) Father Tom Galespie my parish priest was found by the church in the 1970's to be molesting children
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200207/10_horwichj_stjoes-m/

in 1993 he molested me

They knew
They moved him around

And afterwords they hid him away in the St. Johns abby

Sick fucks the whole organization

OH NOES ITS RELIGIOUS DEBATING!! RUN!!! :eek:

1) Father Tom Galespie my parish priest was found by the church in the 1970's to be molesting children
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200207/10_horwichj_stjoes-m/

in 1993 he molested me

They knew
They moved him around

And afterwards they hid him away in the St. Johns abbey

Sick fucks the whole organizationAnd you attribute his conduct to his catholicism?

This analogy doesn't work. In this example, it can be assumed that the police were also arresting other thieves. In the case of the topic at hand, people are often quick to criticize the Roman Church's conduct during the Dark Ages while utterly ignoring other atrocities committed by other religions and governments. Taken in context, there wasn't really much that was remarkable about the church at the time.

I wonder why people are often so quick to make statements like this but are not nearly as vocal about other religions/governments doing the same or worse in other places. You think women and gays are persecuted in Catholic countries? Try Saudi Arabia, Indonesia or China. Guess whuich of those is Catholic? Answer:none.

You're contradicting yourself. IMO, a hell of a lot more people criticise Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and China than the Catholic Church.

That's disingenuous. As people are so fond of pointing out, the church marches to the beat of its own drum. To suggest that they were dragged into anything the way the South was is to ignore the fact that there is no secular authority over the church like there is over the South. That means either the church advanced itself or God did. If the former is true, then it does deserve credit for that. If the latter is true, this whole topic is meaningless.

There may not be a secular authority over the church, but there's definitely secular influences. Obviously the church has to follow in some respects the general will of society. I mean, to use the racism analogy further, I doubt the Church could stand up and say 'Good Catholics hate black people' openly and not be forced in some way to cease and desist.

I think it would be nice if they'd reconsider their stance on birth control and join us here in the 21st century.
Hell, if they moved forward into the 19th Century, that'd be a start.

There's a lot one can debate and argue about but one thing is certain:

Peter and Paul were dickheads. :p

And you attribute his conduct to his catholicism?

I'm gonna go ahead and tell you to STAFU at this point, because clearly he was attributing the fact that they knew and moved him around to the catholic church, which is something you can't deny. You're terrible at playing devil's advocate, you're not even an actual catholic - to be good at it, you have to make it seem like you're not blatantly dodging the point.

There's a lot one can debate and argue about but one thing is certain:

Peter and Paul were dickheads. :p

Indeed they were. Bastards probably started the tradition of rejecting the idea that Mary was an apostle, and later rejecting her chapter of the bible (The Gospel of Mary).

And you attribute his conduct to his catholicism?
I think if you read his post again you will find that he was attributing the conduct of the Catholic Church to...the Catholic Church.

Being Catholic doesn't magically make a non-molester into a molester. But being a Catholic priest gives a molester an active, well-connected, extremely well-funded support network which will help him escape prosecution and obtain fresh victims.

And you attribute his conduct to his catholicism?

No I attribute his ABILITY to perpetrate these acts on the catholic organization, they knowingly shuffled him around for decades without prosicution untill he found his way to a parish IN CHARGE OF A 300 + student ELEMENTRY SCHOOL and re commited his acts

They may have not created him or made him wish to do these things but the sure as fuck enabled him to commit these acts

No I attribute his ABILITY to perpetrate these acts on the catholic organization, they knowingly shuffled him around for decades without prosicution untill he found his way to a parish IN CHARGE OF A 300 + student ELEMENTRY SCHOOL and re commited his acts

They may have not created him or made him wish to do these things but the sure as fuck enabled him to commit these acts
Exactly.

The fact that the particular individual you are talking about happened to be Catholic wouldn't have mattered, except for the fact that the Catholic Church has chosen to help and support child molesters.

For the life of me, I haven't been able to find a single part of Catholic doctrine that specifically requires Catholics to help child molesters, so I assume it is quite possible for the Church to stop helping child molesters and still be Catholic. Nothing about Catholicism, in and of itself, appears to require that one be a child molester, or that one help child molesters. So, in my opinion, Catholicism itself is not the problem.

The problem is the Catholic Church, an organization of human beings which has decided to help child molesters.

Exactly.

The fact that the particular individual you are talking about happened to be Catholic wouldn't have mattered, except for the fact that the Catholic Church has chosen to help and support child molesters.

For the life of me, I haven't been able to find a single part of Catholic doctrine that specifically requires Catholics to help child molesters, so I assume it is quite possible for the Church to stop helping child molesters and still be Catholic. Nothing about Catholicism, in and of itself, appears to require that one be a child molester, or that one help child molesters. So, in my opinion, Catholicism itself is not the problem.

The problem is the Catholic Church, an organization of human beings which has decided to help child molesters.
Agreed ... I don't get it either I guess it has something to do with protecting their moral authority ...

The more and worse mistakes perpetrated by people in their organization the more people question the rightness of their interpretations of scripture maybe

Agreed ... I don't get it either I guess it has something to do with protecting their moral authority ...

The more and worse mistakes perpetrated by people in their organization the more people question the rightness of their interpretations of scripture maybe

Which, in this case, they should.

Again, one does wonder how they can claim moral high ground and say, condemn homosexuality as TEH MOST EBIL THING ON ZE EARTH!!!11!One!Eleven!

Cuz, you know, what two consenting adults in love with each other do behind closed door is a bigger threat to society and children's well-being as opposed to, say, harboring molesters and protecting them from the legal consequences of their actions by shipping them around the world so they can molest even more.

Think of the children! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?!

its a good option if you like your religion mysterious and complicated. if not, try another, there are plenty.

Life is mysterious and complicated.

Think of the children! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?!

That they are doing just that IS the problem.
"Altar boy, Oh Altar boy - confess your sins to me
You will find the grce of God - inside my rect.. ory"

Life is mysterious and complicated.

Meh.

It's weird, and only as complicated as you allow it to be.

That they are doing just that IS the problem.
"Altar boy, Oh Altar boy - confess your sins to me
You will find the grce of God - inside my rect.. ory"

Saw it live :) Stephan Lynch is da bomb

Saw it live :) Stephan Lynch is da bomb

QFT

Life is mysterious and complicated.

Complicated, can be
Mysterious not really