NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html

The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ.

A 16-page document, prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict used to head, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a "wound" since they do not recognise the primacy of the Pope.

But the document said the "wound is still more profound" in the Protestant denominations -- a view likely to further complicate relations with Protestants.

Wow. Probably a good thing they didn't open their mouths about Judaism.

Or Islam. ESPECIALLY Islam.

Its almost as if Vatican II never took place.

Cool!!!!

With luck they will start a war between themselves.

Hopefully people will realise that religion is bollocks.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html



Wow. Probably a good thing they didn't open their mouths about Judaism.

Or Islam. ESPECIALLY Islam.

I have a thing or 2 to say about that. And people wonder why the Catholic Church is so frowned upon these days. The Catholic Church needs to get its head up out of the sand and stop looking up to their patron saints.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html



Wow. Probably a good thing they didn't open their mouths about Judaism.

Or Islam. ESPECIALLY Islam.


Your statement reflects the injustice of our time; why is it more acceptable to make a statement defaming a Christian denomination than it is to express the same sentiments, only about Islam or Judaism?

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html



Wow. Probably a good thing they didn't open their mouths about Judaism.

Or Islam. ESPECIALLY Islam.

What is so special about this? How could you expect the vatican to hold any other position then this?

Your statement reflects the injustice of our time; why is it more acceptable to make a statement defaming a Christian denomination than it is to express the same sentiments, only about Islam or Judaism?

Oh, I don't think it is. But the Jews would have gotten all whiny and eventually brought it all back to the Holocaust, and the Muslims would just fucking kill people and blow shit up.

Oh, I don't think it is. But the Jews would have gotten all whiny and eventually brought it all back to the Holocaust, and the Muslims would just fucking kill people and blow shit up.

I like the cut of yer jib

(and i'm a jew :eek:)

well, in blood that is (if there is such a thing)

What is so special about this? How could you expect the vatican to hold any other position then this?

It is special because it is flat out wrong in what they believe. Because according to the Bible when 2 or more are gathered together to worship and praise God, his spirit will be among them.

That is how we can expect them to hold another position.

It is special because it is flat out wrong in what they believe. Because according to the Bible when 2 or more are gathered together to worship and praise God, his spirit will be among them.

That is how we can expect them to hold another position.

I still don't expect the vatican to hold any other position.

Gaudium et spes?

Oh, I don't think it is. But the Jews would have gotten all whiny and eventually brought it all back to the Holocaust, and the Muslims would just fucking kill people and blow shit up.

Whereas the christians are expected to take any abuse they attract?

It's a fair point you make though; recall the hoodoo a while ago when Ratzinger cited a Byzantine source daring to criticise Islam.

Whereas the christians are expected to take any abuse they attract?


Well, y'know it's in their nature, turn the other cheek and all that shit.

Gaudium et spes?

Yep. Right out the window.

Whereas the christians are expected to take any abuse they attract?

They're not expected to, but since for the most part they are intelligent, rational, modern people, they just do. As should the other religions. Not naming any names here, ISLAM!

I still don't expect the vatican to hold any other position.
Agreed. For "men of God," they have a hard time seeing beyond their own self-serving interests.

Wow. Probably a good thing they didn't open their mouths about Judaism.

Pope Palpatine covered the Jews with the revival of the Tridentine Mass.

Or Islam. ESPECIALLY Islam.

And he did that with his famously brilliant speech that included "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

I guess the Sith Pope really is an equal opportunity offender. The one thing progressive about his papacy.

Your statement reflects the injustice of our time; why is it more acceptable to make a statement defaming a Christian denomination than it is to express the same sentiments, only about Islam or Judaism?

Because Christians don't suicide bomb your ass. They just shoot you.

This statement is yet another reason why the Roman Catholic Church is no longer to be admired, but to be pitied.

It is the height of supreme arrogance to say their calling to God is above all other callings to God. It is a fancy way of saying, "My God can beat your God up." It is puerile, childish and frankly...disgusting.

This Pope brings shame to Roman Catholicism (as if it doesn't have enough to answer for anyway).

~S

Because Christians don't suicide bomb your ass. They just shoot you.

Anyone can blow people up with a bomb or a gun, but it takes real balls to BE the bomb.

I'm waiting what Kat has to say about this.

But more importantly what Gens does!

One religion thinks it is the right one and all others are wrong?


In other news water is wet, gravity works downwards, sex makes babies, the sky is blue and you touch yourself at night.

This has been an edition of Not Newsworthy News, your number one source for shit you already knew.

My imaginary friend can beat your imaginary friend up!

One religion thinks it is the right one and all others are wrong?


In other news water is wet, gravity works downwards, sex makes babies, the sky is blue and you touch yourself at night.

This has been an edition of Not Newsworthy News, your number one source for shit you already knew.

On the other hand, it's a little more newsworthy in the fact that it's a story about a religion stirring up a fuss that isn't bandwagonning to the Flavor of the Month, Islam.

Might actually make people realize "Hey, Muslims aren't the only religious people with serious issues here!"

[Cue rants about Catholics not beheading people or blowing themselves up]

This statement is yet another reason why the Roman Catholic Church is no longer to be admired, but to be pitied.

It is the height of supreme arrogance to say their calling to God is above all other callings to God. It is a fancy way of saying, "My God can beat your God up." It is puerile, childish and frankly...disgusting.

This Pope brings shame to Roman Catholicism (as if it doesn't have enough to answer for anyway).

~S

Say what you will, but the Catholic Church is still centuries ahead of some other religions.

Oh, I don't think it is. But the Jews would have gotten all whiny and eventually brought it all back to the Holocaust, and the Muslims would just fucking kill people and blow shit up.Yeah. Those Jews sure got uppity since that silly little thing, eh?
When the Jews object to the sort of rhetoric that has historically preceded murderous Christian campaigns against them of which the Holocaust was only the most deadly they just are being whiners.
Now when American Christian fundies rant and rave about how they are being persecuted they are dead on. Never mind that no one is in a position to do so and they are in fact generally the ones doing the persecuting in this country.

And Christian fanatics never resort to murder when their superstitions are challenged these days.
All of those bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors though... Forget those. Chalk those up to mysterious cults so alien and primordial that even their mere names will drive you insane. Yup, Tim Mcvey worshiped Cthulhu. So does the Christia-erm... Rl'yeh Identity Movement. Yeah... that's it.

Yeah. Those Jews sure got uppity since that silly little thing, eh?
When the Jews object to the sort of rhetoric that has historically preceded murderous Christian campaigns against them of which the Holocaust was only the most deadly they are being whiners.:rolleyes:
Now when American Christian fundies rant and rave about how they are being persecuted they are dead on. Never mind that no one is in a position to do so and they are in fact generally the ones doing the persecuting in this country.

And Christian fanatics never resort to murder when their superstitions are challenged.
All of those bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors though... Forget those. And Tim Mcvey worshiped Cthulhu. So does the Christian Identity Movement.

Still, simply insulting christianity would not result in a massive riot.

I'm waiting what Kat has to say about this.

I can't imagine what good he thinks will come of being divisive to our brothers and sister in Christ, nor what the cardinals were thinking when they elected him as the head of the church.

I can't imagine what good he thinks will come of being divisive to our brothers and sister in Christ, nor what the cardinals were thinking when they elected him as the head of the church.

I imagine the wanted him as a transitional Pope. I mean, he should be dead in the next decade.

I think the vatican is partially right. But the Pope forgot to mention that the catholic church is wounded as well. The church world wide is afflicted with the thorn of religion. We have turned Christ's life, words, and sacrifice in to a religion, instead of doing His will, and going out and loving the world, and turning away from religion, but towards a closer fellowship with God.

...nor what the cardinals were thinking when they elected him as the head of the church.

"At least he's not the black guy" probably.

All Vatican II says is that people are free to worship in a different manner. It doesn't say that that manner is correct, and I doubt there is any body in the church that would not view the Protestant churches to be misguided in their attitude towards Christ, just like there are very few Protestant clergy who would view the Catholics not to be heretical. The Orthodox and Catholic split is well-known, and there are parties in the Russian and Greek churches who refused to meet John Paul II when he visited those countries during his Papacy. It only makes sense that the Orthodox Churches would be referred to as 'wounded'.

What do you expect from a organization that protects pedophiles? Sanity?

They're irrelevant.

And it looks like he wants to drag the church back about a hundred years, too.

This sure ain't what *I* was taught in religious instruction.

This is actually quite interesting to watch, because I spent my entire religion class last year learning about the gradual liberalisation of the Church.

I imagine the wanted him as a transitional Pope. I mean, he should be dead in the next decade.

And it looks like he wants to drag the church back about a hundred years, too.

This sure ain't what *I* was taught in religious instruction.

I think the vatican is partially right. But the Pope forgot to mention that the catholic church is wounded as well. The church world wide is afflicted with the thorn of religion. We have turned Christ's life, words, and sacrifice in to a religion, instead of doing His will, and going out and loving the world, and turning away from religion, but towards a closer fellowship with God.

I think you should read up on your definition of religion.

And it looks like he wants to drag the church back about a hundred years, too.

This sure ain't what *I* was taught in religious instruction.1936 was not 100 years ago.

Whew, "recognize the primacy of the Pope",... back then this was even an excuse to "arm the Spanish Armada to take down the Heretic Queen of England".

And Christian fanatics never resort to murder when their superstitions are challenged these days.
All of those bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors though... Forget those. Chalk those up to mysterious cults so alien and primordial that even their mere names will drive you insane. Yup, Tim Mcvey worshiped Cthulhu. So does the Christia-erm... Rl'yeh Identity Movement. Yeah... that's it.

Heh, the abortion clinic again? Doesn't anyone have any other example of Christian terrorism?

not my own words, but it explains it better then I could.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious, but consider the scope of the problem. There were five deadly attacks over a 35 year period in the U.S. Seven people died. This is an average of one death every five years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists have staged over seven thousand deadly attacks in just the five years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period..

Catholic Church, why do you make me ashamed to call myself a part of you?

1936 was not 100 years ago.

Your right only 71 ... so?

Heh, the abortion clinic again? Doesn't anyone have any other example of Christian terrorism?

not my own words, but it explains it better then I could.

Inquisitions, Crusades and if I'm feeling especially annoyed by christians, the Holocaust.

1936 was not 100 years ago.

Where did I say anything about 1936?

All Vatican II says is that people are free to worship in a different manner. It doesn't say that that manner is correct, and I doubt there is any body in the church that would not view the Protestant churches to be misguided in their attitude towards Christ, just like there are very few Protestant clergy who would view the Catholics not to be heretical. The Orthodox and Catholic split is well-known, and there are parties in the Russian and Greek churches who refused to meet John Paul II when he visited those countries during his Papacy. It only makes sense that the Orthodox Churches would be referred to as 'wounded'.however orthodox churches are considered real churches, while protestants are only considered christian groupings. which is in fact true, since the protestants left the apostolic continuity.

however orthodox churches are considered real churches, while protestants are only considered christian groupings. which is in fact true, since the protestants left the apostolic continuity.

Could it also be because they did not like the orthodox church being corrupted? I mean, even Christianity broke away from Judism.

Fuck the pope. :)

Fuck the pope. :)

Gross.

Oh, and this latest picture of him: http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/art.pope2.gi.jpg

Brings up an interesting question in my mind:

Has anyone seen his reflection?

Oh, and this latest picture of him: http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/art.pope2.gi.jpg

Brings up an interesting question in my mind:

Has anyone seen his reflection?

Now witness the power of our fully armed and operational latin Mass!

Now witness the power of our fully armed and operational latin Mass!

I find your lack your lack of faith disturbing.

<bangs head into keyboard. Repeatedly.>

As a recovering Catholic, my only question is WTF?!?!?! Joey Ratz seems determined to toss all the goodwill hie predecessor managed to get with other religions into the shitpot. What a dumbfuck.

And he did that with his famously brilliant speech that included "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

I guess the Sith Pope really is an equal opportunity offender. The one thing progressive about his papacy.

Wrong.
That was said by a Byzantine Emperor, different church I am afraid.

I find your lack your lack of faith disturbing.The apparent lack of other mental features is even more disturbing...

Fuck the pope. :)

I'd rather not. He's, like, all old. And gross. And a jackass. A girl has to have standards, after all.

<bangs head into keyboard. Repeatedly.>

As a recovering Catholic, my only question is WTF?!?!?! Joey Ratz seems determined to toss all the goodwill hie predecessor managed to get with other religions into the shitpot. What a dumbfuck.
he's just not seeking the least common denominator with other religions, but keeps true to the church he heads.

I, like the Pope, think that Vatican II was a touch excessive, but not with other Christian churches. We all believe in the same God and all accept Jesus and His saving powers. Does it really matter who the big bureaucrat is in the end?

I, like the Pope, think that Vatican II was a touch excessive, but not with other Christian churches. We all believe in the same God and all accept Jesus and His saving powers. Does it really matter who the big bureaucrat is in the end?Yes, it does.

Yes, it does.

Why?

I think the vatican is partially right. But the Pope forgot to mention that the catholic church is wounded as well. The church world wide is afflicted with the thorn of religion. We have turned Christ's life, words, and sacrifice in to a religion, instead of doing His will, and going out and loving the world, and turning away from religion, but towards a closer fellowship with God.

<3

Heh, the abortion clinic again? Doesn't anyone have any other example of Christian terrorism?

Um, current or historical?
And by "Christian terrorism," does it have to have Christianity/"Christ's teachings" as the only professed motive, or can Christianity/"Christ's teachings" simply be used as one of the reasons why?

Why?The spirit that was given to humanity on pentecost lives on in the people of the orthodox churches, including catholicism, passed on from generation to generation. protestants only have scripture since they stepped out of this living, dynamic, growing, evolving community in the 16th century. Catholicism sees it that way, and not without a certain justification.

The spirit that was given to humanity on pentecost lives on in the people of the orthodox churches, including catholicism, passed on from generation to generation. protestants only have scripture since they stepped out of this living, dynamic, growing, evolving community in the 16th century. Catholicism sees it that way, and not without a certain justification.

Except for the fact that we are to spread the word of God and it does not matter what denomination you belong to. We are tagged with the same set of instructions. To say one denomination is right over another is just flat out stupid.

The spirit that was given to humanity on pentecost lives on in the people of the orthodox churches, including catholicism, passed on from generation to generation. protestants only have scripture since they stepped out of this living, dynamic, growing, evolving community in the 16th century. Catholicism sees it that way, and not without a certain justification.

But this is operating under the assumption the the Catholic Church is the One True Way, and that everything else will get you sent to hell. Reminds me of the 'Sufi Parable' in... some Discordian tract or another. <runs off to find the quote>

The apparent lack of other mental features is even more disturbing...

And I was expecting :

Fatherrrr nooooooooooo!

But this is operating under the assumption the the Catholic Church is the One True Way, and that everything else will get you sent to hell. Reminds me of the 'Sufi Parable' in... some Discordian tract or another. <runs off to find the quote>it is only operating under the assumption that the orthodox churches, that includes catholicism, are the continuation of the original christian community, which today is roughly two thirds of what can be called "christian".

Except for the fact that we are to spread the word of God and it does not matter what denomination you belong to. We are tagged with the same set of instructions. To say one denomination is right over another is just flat out stupid.

This is to say that all denominations are equal. On the contrary, the "catholic" church encompasses all tenets of the Christian faith. In contrast, the Protestant denominations have selected for themselves to which tenets to adhere. That is the rub.

it is only operating under the assumption that the orthodox churches, that includes catholicism, are the continuation of the original christian community.

Okay, granted.

Okay, granted.while protestants left this community and replaced it with scripture as the basis of their christianity. that's why there are no saints in protestantism, because the evolution of the community and the exemplary lives lived in it are irrelevant once you have only the written word as the source of your connection with "god".

As to what exactly shall God "Hold true in heaven as we hold true on Earth"?

Perhaps the one whom shouts the loudest, or perhaps just the one with the bigger cock?

I'd like to share with you a little joke.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Well... are you religious?" He said yes.

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist"

"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God!"

"Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God!"

"Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!", and pushed him off.

Maybe I should send it to Mr. Ratz and see if he gets it. He might have some kind of epiphany...

Yes, despite the fact we've been in office (that can be proved or officially recognized by a state: ie, the Roman Empire) since 313 AD and have been employing millions of scholars, theologians, and experts to study the bible, religion, and faith consistently since this time....

Despite the fact that we have thousands of colleges, monasteries, and people with actual credentials providing advice and understanding to the pontiff...

I think a few happy clappy hippie Christians with a guitar and delusions of grandeur full of holier than thou self-righteousness ruling over a bunch of local yokel rednecks must be right!!!!

As far as the Jews go, just remember, I don't see any Phoenicians walking around these days. I'd be hard pressed to argue with them either. :)

Yes, despite the fact we've been in office (that can be proved or officially recognized by a state: ie, the Roman Empire) since 313 AD and have been employing millions of scholars, theologians, and experts to study the bible, religion, and faith consistently since this time....

Despite the fact that we have thousands of colleges, monasteries, and people with actual credentials providing advice and understanding to the pontiff...

I think a few happy clappy hippie Christians with a guitar and delusions of grandeur full of holier than thou self-righteousness ruling over a bunch of local yokel rednecks must be right!!!!

As far as the Jews go, just remember, I don't see any Phoenicians walking around these days. I'd be hard pressed to argue with them either. :)

Not always wrong but sometimes

Yes, despite the fact we've been in office (that can be proved or officially recognized by a state: ie, the Roman Empire) since 313 AD and have been employing millions of scholars, theologians, and experts to study the bible, religion, and faith consistently since this time....

Despite the fact that we have thousands of colleges, monasteries, and people with actual credentials providing advice and understanding to the pontiff...

I think a few happy clappy hippie Christians with a guitar and delusions of grandeur full of holier than thou self-righteousness ruling over a bunch of local yokel rednecks must be right!!!!

As far as the Jews go, just remember, I don't see any Phoenicians walking around these days. I'd be hard pressed to argue with them either. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

The Catholics aren't always wrong. But when they ARE wrong, they take it to the max. :p

How could you expect the vatican to hold any other position then this?

That is an ecumenical matter.

That is an ecumenical matter.

Several respected priests (http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=b66SlBA948o) agree.

This is to say that all denominations are equal. On the contrary, the "catholic" church encompasses all tenets of the Christian faith. In contrast, the Protestant denominations have selected for themselves to which tenets to adhere. That is the rub.

However, we are dealing with the Catholic church (notice the capital C). Meaning the papacy. I do not recognize the pope as the leader of the Christian Faith. Coming from the Pope, it means that my way of worship is incorrect and that annoys me to no end. So why should I be ruled incorrect when I actually do my best to follow what Christ wanted us to do?

However, we are dealing with the Catholic church (notice the capital C). Meaning the papacy. I do not recognize the pope as the leader of the Christian Faith. Coming from the Pope, it means that my way of worship is incorrect and that annoys me to no end. So why should I be ruled incorrect when I actually do my best to follow what Christ wanted us to do?

Because the Pope is always right(by papal decree). *nod*

Because the Pope is always right(by papal decree). *nod*

Then I would like to meet the Pope and tell him his beliefs are wrong as is the entire patron saint thing.

while protestants left this community and replaced it with scripture as the basis of their christianity. that's why there are no saints in protestantism, because the evolution of the community and the exemplary lives lived in it are irrelevant once you have only the written word as the source of your connection with "god".

And what other basis of belief do you have besides Scripture? Does it really matter? Jesus claimed to be the son of a false (in your opinion) and frabricated god made up by Jewish scholars.

Coming back by papal decree, it's the Reformation ladies and gentlemen!

Let's give it a big round of applause as this fight starts up again!

Somewhere up in Heaven, Jesus must be banging his head on a wall in frustration.

Could it also be because they did not like the orthodox church being corrupted? I mean, even Christianity broke away from Judism.

To be picky, Jesus Christ is seen as the Messiah that God foretold to the Jews. Christianity isn't exactly an "Offshoot" of Judaism, in that God was put out with the Jews for being "stiffnecked"...

Oh fiddle, I'm not teaching theology. Just accept they're not the same and move on. It's easier. :)

It is special because it is flat out wrong in what they believe. Because according to the Bible when 2 or more are gathered together to worship and praise God, his spirit will be among them.

That is how we can expect them to hold another position.

Jesus founded the Catholic church when he gave the keys to Peter and established the Papacy.


Unless you convert, Jesus will put you in hell when you die.

Jesus founded the Catholic church when he gave the keys to Peter and established the Papacy.


Unless you convert, Jesus will put you in hell when you die.

John 3:16 tells me otherwise.

I'd rather be "Wounded" than "Crippled" by elitism and bigotry.

Its almost as if Vatican II never took place.
That seems to be their complete goal. Destroy any evidence of Vatican II.

Yes, despite the fact we've been in office (that can be proved or officially recognized by a state: ie, the Roman Empire) since 313 AD and have been employing millions of scholars, theologians, and experts to study the bible, religion, and faith consistently since this time....

Despite the fact that we have thousands of colleges, monasteries, and people with actual credentials providing advice and understanding to the pontiff...

I think a few happy clappy hippie Christians with a guitar and delusions of grandeur full of holier than thou self-righteousness ruling over a bunch of local yokel rednecks must be right!!!!

As far as the Jews go, just remember, I don't see any Phoenicians walking around these days. I'd be hard pressed to argue with them either. :)

As a fellow Catholic, I must humbly ask you to make a point rather than sit there on your high horse feeling superior.

Because the Pope is always right(by papal decree). *nod*

Not quite. http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Whereas the christians are expected to take any abuse they attract?

It's a fair point you make though; recall the hoodoo a while ago when Ratzinger cited a Byzantine source daring to criticise Islam.

Historically, the christians would have just crusaded. But its the 21st century.

John 3:16 tells me otherwise.

No amount of typing out numbers and jabber will save you when Jesus puts you in hell for going to the wrong church.

No amount of typing out numbers and jabber will save you when Jesus puts you in hell for going to the wrong church.

Oh yes, people go to hell for going to different churches....glad to see we're not being petty or superficial here :rolleyes:

Perhaps if so many so-called Christians didn't act like shallow holier-than-thou bigots, more people would find religion attractive.

Oh yes, people go to hell for going to different churches....glad to see we're not being petty or superficial here :rolleyes:

Perhaps if so many so-called Christians didn't act like shallow holier-than-thou bigots, more people would find religion attractive.

I hate to tell ya -- you're lumping the atheists in with the Christians there.

No amount of typing out numbers and jabber will save you when Jesus puts you in hell for going to the wrong church.

Who says it is jabber. All who accept Christ will be with Him in heaven. I have accepted the Lord Savior Jesus in my heart of hearts and I do the best I can to live by His teachings.

No amount of typing out numbers and jabber will save you when Jesus puts you in hell for going to the wrong church.

Don't be an idiot. Vatican II established that everyone can be saved.

Oh yes, people go to hell for going to different churches....glad to see we're not being petty or superficial here :rolleyes:

"We're here to bring you back to the one true faith… the western branch of American Reformed Presbylutheranism." :D

I hate to tell ya -- you're lumping the atheists in with the Christians there.

*celebrates Richard Dawkins, realizes folly… stops.*

Say what you will, but the Catholic Church is still centuries ahead of some other religions.

I was Catholic for 39 years (been out of the Church for 5 years now), and I can assure you that statement is 100% true if the other religions have not left the Renaissance period. A repudiation of the Vatican II councils will return the Church to the principles of pre-Baroque Europe.

~S

Where did I say anything about 1936?My point is that you don't have to go back 100 years to see a Medieval (or worse) Catholic Church. As an act of Christian charity, I won't even use 'Hitler's Pope' to make my point. Franco's Church will suffice. I do not deny that even then there were good strains in the Church- but as the Liberation Theologists of today they were widely repudiated by the mainstream Church hierarchy.

Frankly, I don't care what the Protestants, or anyone else thinks about the Holy Father's actions. They don't pay tithes.

I can't imagine what good he thinks will come of being divisive to our brothers and sister in Christ, nor what the cardinals were thinking when they elected him as the head of the church.

Palpatine's election is proof of the dangers of partaking too much in the sacramental wine.

Cool!!!!

With luck they will start a war between themselves.

Hopefully people will realise that religion is bollocks.

Remove the war and you have my opinion on how humanity should act.

Frankly, I don't care what the Protestants, or anyone else thinks about the Holy Father's actions. They don't pay tithes.

That seems to be a common attitude ... probably part of the reason why catholicism in general is declining

"Wounded?" This from the church that protects pedophile priests, doesn't have enough priests to perform daily functions, is losing members faster than Bush is losing support and steadfastly refuses to come into the 20th century (never mind the 21st) where women and minorities are concerned.

You go, Benedict.

Frankly, I don't care what the Protestants, or anyone else thinks about the Holy Father's actions. They don't pay tithes.

hmmm I tithe 10% to the church I attend. :eek:

I can't imagine what good he thinks will come of being divisive to our brothers and sister in Christ, nor what the cardinals were thinking when they elected him as the head of the church.


"Ein Volk, ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer", or possibly "Una Duce, una Voce". "He knows where I live", "Damn that photographer.....", or "Last time I buy tights there...." may also have popped in too.....

Frankly, I don't care what the Protestants, or anyone else thinks about the Holy Father's actions. They don't pay tithes.

Neither do most catholics...

"Wounded?" This from the church that protects pedophile priests, doesn't have enough priests to perform daily functions, is losing members faster than Bush is losing support and steadfastly refuses to come into the 20th century (never mind the 21st) where women and minorities are concerned.

You go, Benedict.
Seconded.
*bows*

I'm gonna peruse the thread a little more carefully to see if anyone missed using any "colourful metaphors".

Its almost as if Vatican II never took place.


Another big news story of year concerned the Ecumenical Council in Rome, known as vatican ii. among the things they did in an attempt to make the church more commercial was to introduce the vernacular into portions of the mass, to replace latin, and to widen somewhat the range of music permissible in the liturgy, but I feel that if they really want to sell the product, in this secular age, what
They ought to do is to redo some of the liturgical music in popular song forms. I have a modest example here. its called the Vatican Rag.

First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Do whatever steps you want, if
You have cleared them with the pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie eleison,
Doin the Vatican Rag.

Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional,
There, the guy whos got religionll
Tell you if your sins original.
If it is, try playin it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!

So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in rome do like a roman,
Ave maria,
Gee its good to see ya,
Gettin ecstatic an
Sorta dramatic an
Doin the Vatican Rag!
...shout out to mah homies in the nation of Cobbleism.

"... is losing members faster than Bush is losing support....not at all

The amount of secular Catholics is rising by the year. In 200 years time catholisim will be dead.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html



Wow. Probably a good thing they didn't open their mouths about Judaism.

Or Islam. ESPECIALLY Islam.
Remind me again: why does anybody listen to the Pope?

Remind me again: why does anybody listen to the Pope?He administrates the largest part of christianity

He administrates the largest part of christianity
Yeah, but...why?

Why do Catholics listen to him, ever? He's a crazy old man who hears voices and dribbles racist, sexist, bigoted nonsense, whenever he's not busy helping sexual predators get away with raping children. He's like the creepy uncle that your mom warned you to avoid whenever possible.

Most of the Catholics I know are not insane or stupid. Of course, most of the Catholics I know ignore the Pope whenever he says something they don't like. So what's the point of having him around?

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html



Wow. Probably a good thing they didn't open their mouths about Judaism.

Or Islam. ESPECIALLY Islam.

Hehe yeah i clearly remember the words of the Christ on the cross.

'In the years to come my fathers representative will be a man born of man and will be called the Pope, he will have our athourity to make changes to the Church and the way, and the worship'

Yeah, but...why?

Why do Catholics listen to him, ever? He's a crazy old man who hears voices and dribbles racist, sexist, bigoted nonsense, whenever he's not busy helping sexual predators get away with raping children. He's like the creepy uncle that your mom warned you to avoid whenever possible.

Most of the Catholics I know are not insane or stupid. Of course, most of the Catholics I know ignore the Pope whenever he says something they don't like. So what's the point of having him around?

For most Catholics (like those you know): there's no point for this pope.

But it is always useful to have someone at the top to make the tough decisions in matters of faith instead of arguing about which book belong in the bible and which is not.

At one point in time, we needed an go-to guy and the position was kept as much for tradition's sake than anything else. And believe me, the Catholic church is big on traditions.

For most Catholics (like those you know): there's no point for this pope.

But it is always useful to have someone at the top to make the tough decisions in matters of faith instead of arguing about which book belong in the bible and which is not.

Yet when he makes a "bad" decision, all the Catholics I know just ignore him anyhow.

It seems like Catholics (like pretty much everybody else) each have a pretty clear view of what is right or wrong all by themselves. If the Pope does something wrong, they write him off and continue following their personal moral code. Yet when he does something "right," they suddenly discover that he's the Voice Of God, and isn't he a great chap?


At one point in time, we needed an go-to guy and the position was kept as much for tradition's sake than anything else. And believe me, the Catholic church is big on traditions.
I suppose that makes sense, simply because of the strength that tradition seems to have with some people. Maybe my problem is that I've never been very big on tradition so I have trouble empathizing with this.

Why do Catholics listen to him, ever? He's a crazy old man who hears voices and dribbles racist, sexist, bigoted nonsense, whenever he's not busy helping sexual predators get away with raping children. He's like the creepy uncle that your mom warned you to avoid whenever possible.


That's a huge exaggeration.

That's a huge exaggeration.

True. Not once have I seen him dribble.

Yet when he makes a "bad" decision, all the Catholics I know just ignore him anyhow.

It seems like Catholics (like pretty much everybody else) each have a pretty clear view of what is right or wrong all by themselves. If the Pope does something wrong, they write him off and continue following their personal moral code. Yet when he does something "right," they suddenly discover that he's the Voice Of God, and isn't he a great chap?

Aren't we a jolly bunch of hypocrites?
But pretty much, yeah. And this pope is exactly like us. Don't like Vatican II? Change the rules!

I suppose that makes sense, simply because of the strength that tradition seems to have with some people. Maybe my problem is that I've never been very big on tradition so I have trouble empathizing with this.

Oh well, can't win 'em all. Say 'hi' to the devil for me. ;)

For most Catholics (like those you know): there's no point for this pope.

But it is always useful to have someone at the top to make the tough decisions in matters of faith instead of arguing about which book belong in the bible and which is not.

At one point in time, we needed an go-to guy and the position was kept as much for tradition's sake than anything else. And believe me, the Catholic church is big on traditions.

Yeah but they carried the comfort of a "go to guy" too far with making him supposedly infallible in the matters of dogma ... its all good and fine to wish some leadership but that last step was stupid

Yeah but they carried the comfort of a "go to guy" too far with making him supposedly infallible in the matters of dogma ... its all good and fine to wish some leadership but that last step was stupid

Actually, contrary to popular belief, the pope does not always speak with infallibility. In fact most of the time he doesn't. There is a special word for it when he does speak with infallibility (can't remember what it is right now for some reason). Unfortunately the vaticans policy on contraceptives was spoken with infalliblity (and was one of the very few times it has ever happened).

Yeah but they carried the comfort of a "go to guy" too far with making him supposedly infallible in the matters of dogma ... its all good and fine to wish some leadership but that last step was stupid

Actually, that last step was the only way to stop the bickering (for a few hundread years at least, damn you Schism!). If he wasn't THE definitive answer, you'd still have people claiming ".yeah, but Mary wasn't really a virgin" and go on to spread some heretical version of the dogma.

Sure, that clause was abused (and I mean in a big way) but it would have been worse as far as the number of different christian branches if it wasn't there in the beginning.

Nowadays: feel free to ridicule our system of governance.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html



Wow. Probably a good thing they didn't open their mouths about Judaism.

Or Islam. ESPECIALLY Islam.

You apperently didn't read the Catholic news earlier this week.

Actually, that last step was the only way to stop the bickering (for a few hundread years at least, damn you Schism!). If he wasn't THE definitive answer, you'd still have people claiming ".yeah, but Mary wasn't really a virgin" and go on to spread some heretical version of the dogma.

Sure, that clause was abused (and I mean in a big way) but it would have been worse as far as the number of different christian branches if it wasn't there in the beginning.

Nowadays: feel free to ridicule our system of governance.
I should clarify:

I totally understand why the office of Pope was invented, and why the authority structure of the Church worked for a very long time. I may not agree with it, but I absolutely can see the pragmatic value (and concrete success!) of this system.

It's just that today, for Catholics living in modern democratic nations, it seems essentially useless. I guess the hierarchy can be maintained by drawing strength from the Believers in third-world countries, but that seems so cynical that you would think it would drive away all the educated, informed Catholics in first-world nations.

I should clarify:

I totally understand why the office of Pope was invented, and why the authority structure of the Church worked for a very long time. I may not agree with it, but I absolutely can see the pragmatic value (and concrete success!) of this system.

It's just that today, for Catholics living in modern democratic nations, it seems essentially useless. I guess the hierarchy can be maintained by drawing strength from the Believers in third-world countries, but that seems so cynical that you would think it would drive away all the educated, informed Catholics in first-world nations.

Well, yeah, but... y'see... it's because... it's tradition!
And you don't remove traditions. Ever. Otherwise there'd be chaos in the streets. Do you want chaos in the street?

Seriously, a pope can be a good thing. It can be a great spreader of goodwill and a voice for peace in these modern times. It's just that THIS pope isn't. Not like the last one.

Well, yeah, but... y'see... it's because... it's tradition!
And you don't remove traditions. Ever. Otherwise there'd be chaos in the streets. Do you want choas in the street?

In all seriousness, I totally could get on board with that idea, if it wasn't for the fact that all the traditions I happen to like are the ones that "traditionalists" are trying to kill.

For instance, the real "traditional family" in my country involved a lot more that just Mom, Pop, and babies. It involved a complex network of people all helping to create and sustain a home. I like that idea. More people around to help, more people to take up slack if something bad happens. But now the "traditionalists" are all about pushing the nuclear family model that has only exists for a couple of generations.

Or premarital sex, for another example. My country has a long and glorious history of shagging out of wedlock, yet "traditionalists" want to gut that tradition in favor of purity balls and virgin fumblings on the wedding night.


Seriously, a pope can be a good thing. It can be a great spreader of goodwill and a voice for peace in these modern times. It's just that THIS pope isn't. Not like the last one.
Given that past popes have chosen to spread racist, sexist, homophobic visions of "peace," I tend to have little faith in this particular function of the papacy.

Actually, that last step was the only way to stop the bickering (for a few hundread years at least, damn you Schism!). If he wasn't THE definitive answer, you'd still have people claiming ".yeah, but Mary wasn't really a virgin" and go on to spread some heretical version of the dogma.

Sure, that clause was abused (and I mean in a big way) but it would have been worse as far as the number of different christian branches if it wasn't there in the beginning.

Nowadays: feel free to ridicule our system of governance.

But its un-realistic there was no way in hell that was going to continue to work something like the Schism was bound to happen anyway and at many points has FUELED the branching of Christian denominations. In the end they did not have any choice when the Pope went against their morals or beliefs they could choose to STAY with the catholic church and therefore papal infallibility or they could branch off and follow their morals there was no option of "well this pope is wrong we understand that and things can change"

Hell if there was some built in method for repealing a popes decree may have helped but with hard line decisions and backing it with the supposed infallibility of your leader it removed a lot of the flexibility of people to disagree but still remain in the religion (or at least the denomination)

The short story is Jesus told Peter the apostle to carry on his church. The Catholic Church is the church Peter founded and it's been an unbroken succession since that time.

Papal infallacy comes from Jesus's statement that anything done by the Church on earth will be honored in heaven.

That's the short version.
And yet we still have Protestants...strange, that...

And yet we still have Protestants...strange, that...

Protestants are in their infancy compared to the Catholic Church.

Sorry about answering a question someone else already answered BTW. Or at least, reading the top of the page, I assume they did.

In all seriousness, I totally could get on board with that idea, if it wasn't for the fact that all the traditions I happen to like are the ones that "traditionalists" are trying to kill.

For instance, the real "traditional family" in my country involved a lot more that just Mom, Pop, and babies. It involved a complex network of people all helping to create and sustain a home. I like that idea. More people around to help, more people to take up slack if something bad happens. But now the "traditionalists" are all about pushing the nuclear family model that has only exists for a couple of generations.

Or premarital sex, for another example. My country has a long and glorious history of shagging out of wedlock, yet "traditionalists" want to gut that tradition in favor of purity balls and virgin fumblings on the wedding night.

To be honest, tradition for tradition's sake is bogus. When a tradition endures it's because it's been proven to be reliable and a working solution. When it becomes a bunch of rituals that nobody really remembers why they do it, it's time to kick it to the curb.


Given that past popes have chosen to spread racist, sexist, homophobic visions of "peace," I tend to have little faith in this particular function of the papacy.

Blame it on politicians. Well, technically cardinals but they're the politicians of the church. Not enough checks and balances like Upward Thrust pointed out so adequately.

Also, anyone who think he knows what god wants is bound to be a bit screwy in the head.

But its un-realistic there was no way in hell that was going to continue to work something like the Schism was bound to happen anyway and at many points has FUELED the branching of Christian denominations. In the end they did not have any choice when the Pope went against their morals or beliefs they could choose to STAY with the catholic church and therefore papal infallibility or they could branch off and follow their morals there was no option of "well this pope is wrong we understand that and things can change"

Hell if there was some built in method for repealing a popes decree may have helped but with hard line decisions and backing it with the supposed infallibility of your leader it removed a lot of the flexibility of people to disagree but still remain in the religion (or at least the denomination)

Too true, I'm afraid. But can you think of another way to stop the explosion of varying religious dogma than to have a definitive authority? Sure, they might have come with better safeguards on abuse but the pope thing worked pretty well until the pope position stopped being a religious figure and became a politician.

Too true, I'm afraid. But can you think of another way to stop the explosion of varying religious dogma than to have a definitive authority? Sure, they might have come with better safeguards on abuse but the pope thing worked pretty well until the pope position stopped being a religious figure and became a politician.

Not without some flexibility and even then in the long run ...

A major problem though is incorporating a flexible power structure with a belief structure that proposes an objective right

The ideas really clash in a lot of ways

Not without some flexibility and even then in the long run ...

A major problem though is incorporating a flexible power structure with a belief structure that proposes an objective right

The ideas really clash in a lot of ways

Why is splintering a bad thing?

In Hinduism, and I'm only using this as an example because it illustrates my point and it's something I know well enough to talk about, there is no central governing body of the faith. The traditions that get passed down are by and large the traditions parents teach to their kids, as well the holy books. The individual priests are generally trained in the traditions taught to their teachers. There's virtually no oversight.

As a result, if you pull any 10 Hindus off the street and ask for a detailed explanation of their faith, you're probably going to get about 20 different answers.

So having a unified, agreed upon doctrine doesn't really seem all that important. At least from my perspective.

I think the current Pope doesn't like Tom Lehrer

First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Do whatever steps you want, if
You have cleared them with the Pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie eleison,
Doin' the Vatican Rag.

Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional,
There, the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!

So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in Rome do like a Roman,
Ave Maria,
Gee it's good to see ya,
Gettin' ecstatic an'
Sorta dramatic an'
Doin' the Vatican Rag!

Yeah, but...why?

Why do Catholics listen to him, ever? He's a crazy old man who hears voices and dribbles racist, sexist, bigoted nonsense, whenever he's not busy helping sexual predators get away with raping children. He's like the creepy uncle that your mom warned you to avoid whenever possible.

Most of the Catholics I know are not insane or stupid. Of course, most of the Catholics I know ignore the Pope whenever he says something they don't like. So what's the point of having him around?Well, if catholics ignore the pope whenever he says something they don't like, they should examine why they are catholics at all. The pope is neither insane nor stupid, either. He understands very well all the arguments that concern catholicism and the church, but that does not mean he can just give up catholicism and surrender to relativism. The catholic church has moral standards that are valid throughout the church, and if there are to be changes then the entire church must change (which it does). Although the church is theoretically ruled by the pope in an absolutist manner, it is practically ruled by a huge network of priests and bishops, including the cardinals and the pope himself. There are no one-man decisions. Although the moral standards set up by the church are indeed very high and often go against the intuitive understanding of lay people, these people often forget that the church at the same time always offers (and in fact must offer) forgiveness to those who fail these moral standards. Protestant churches have no forgiveness to offer.

In all seriousness, I totally could get on board with that idea, if it wasn't for the fact that all the traditions I happen to like are the ones that "traditionalists" are trying to kill.

For instance, the real "traditional family" in my country involved a lot more that just Mom, Pop, and babies. It involved a complex network of people all helping to create and sustain a home. I like that idea. More people around to help, more people to take up slack if something bad happens. But now the "traditionalists" are all about pushing the nuclear family model that has only exists for a couple of generations.
Where did the traditionalists say they want to get rid of "a complex network of people all helping to create and sustain a home?" A church could be a complex network of people helping to create and sustain a home...

Well, if catholics ignore the pope whenever he says something they don't like, they should examine why they are catholics at all.

I guess that explains all those American Catholics on the Pill.

I guess that explains all those American Catholics on the Pill.

or the 90% of Catholics who don't follow Church dogma on contraception period.

I should clarify:

I totally understand why the office of Pope was invented, and why the authority structure of the Church worked for a very long time. I may not agree with it, but I absolutely can see the pragmatic value (and concrete success!) of this system.

It's just that today, for Catholics living in modern democratic nations, it seems essentially useless. I guess the hierarchy can be maintained by drawing strength from the Believers in third-world countries, but that seems so cynical that you would think it would drive away all the educated, informed Catholics in first-world nations.

To Catholics the presence of the Pope is simply "right" and moral. It's not a matter of worldly pragmatism, but a matter of right and wrong (to Catholics at least).

Why is splintering a bad thing?

In Hinduism, and I'm only using this as an example because it illustrates my point and it's something I know well enough to talk about, there is no central governing body of the faith. The traditions that get passed down are by and large the traditions parents teach to their kids, as well the holy books. The individual priests are generally trained in the traditions taught to their teachers. There's virtually no oversight.

As a result, if you pull any 10 Hindus off the street and ask for a detailed explanation of their faith, you're probably going to get about 20 different answers.

So having a unified, agreed upon doctrine doesn't really seem all that important. At least from my perspective.
I did not say it was a bad thing but the idea of there only being one truth clashes with the idea that there are many versions of the "truth" now some of this clash can be over come but Christianity is bogged down by a lot of other authoritarian messages that make it even harder to overcome

Why is splintering a bad thing?

In Hinduism, and I'm only using this as an example because it illustrates my point and it's something I know well enough to talk about, there is no central governing body of the faith. The traditions that get passed down are by and large the traditions parents teach to their kids, as well the holy books. The individual priests are generally trained in the traditions taught to their teachers. There's virtually no oversight.

As a result, if you pull any 10 Hindus off the street and ask for a detailed explanation of their faith, you're probably going to get about 20 different answers.

So having a unified, agreed upon doctrine doesn't really seem all that important. At least from my perspective.

Well, the Catholic perspective is that doctrinal unity must be preserved. As you said, 10 Hindus might have 20 different ideas about religion, it is no surprise that 1 Hindu and 1 Christian would have different ideas about religion.

And what other basis of belief do you have besides Scripture? Does it really matter? Jesus claimed to be the son of a false (in your opinion) and frabricated god made up by Jewish scholars.

Ah, UB! You're back. Good. Perhaps you can address this point then.

I did not say it was a bad thing but the idea of there only being one truth clashes with the idea that there are many versions of the "truth" now some of this clash can be over come but Christianity is bogged down by a lot of other authoritarian messages that make it even harder to overcome

Taking it all as parables and stories linked to morals of the times is so much simpler...

Good thing, because in my youth, I fucked a lot of Catholic high school girls...

College girls myself, but I'm equally thankful.

or the 90% of Catholics who don't follow Church dogma on contraception period.

Good thing, because in my youth, I fucked a lot of Catholic high school girls...

Well, the Catholic perspective is that doctrinal unity must be preserved. As you said, 10 Hindus might have 20 different ideas about religion, it is no surprise that 1 Hindu and 1 Christian would have different ideas about religion.

My question then is why doctrinal unity must be preserved. And not only that, why doctrinal unity in relation to a particular version of your scripture must be preserved (I use You in the non-specific sense, as I'm unaware of your religion).

My question then is why doctrinal unity must be preserved. And not only that, why doctrinal unity in relation to a particular version of your scripture must be preserved (I use You in the non-specific sense, as I'm unaware of your religion).

I'm not Catholic, but if I were Catholic I would argue that doctrinal unity must be preserved because that is how best to please God. I'm sure you have heard of this argument before.

I'm not Catholic, but if I were Catholic I would argue that doctrinal unity must be preserved because that is how best to please God. I'm sure you have heard of this argument before.

I'd then ask what the basis of that belief is. And I have heard that argument before, though generally poorly executed.

horray for morons

My question then is why doctrinal unity must be preserved. And not only that, why doctrinal unity in relation to a particular version of your scripture must be preserved (I use You in the non-specific sense, as I'm unaware of your religion).

Because, according to Christianity, there is only so many things you can do or believe wrong before you are denied an eternal reward. So we must keep the dogma streamlined to make sure as many people as possible learn about the 'One true way' (tm). If everybody had his own version of faith, then you'd loose many people to some wrong path.

Remember that we only get one chance at living. We can't come back to do it again if we screw up.

Because, according to Christianity, there is only so many things you can do or believe wrong before you are denied an eternal reward.

Gee, that's not what I was taught.

"For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but shall have eternal life." John 3 v16.

All you have to do is believe.

I guess that explains all those American Catholics on the Pill.Americans or just US Americans?

Americans or just US Americans?

Generally, people call US Americans 'Americans', Canadian Americans 'Canadian', Mexico Americans 'Mexican', etc...

Americans or just US Americans?

US Americans - colloquially, we call them Americans here.

Americans or just US Americans?

I think you're looking for "I'm a prick."

Generally, people call US Americans 'Americans', Canadian Americans 'Canadian', Mexico Americans 'Mexican', etc...

Well, only reasonable, sensible, honest people.

Because, according to Christianity, there is only so many things you can do or believe wrong before you are denied an eternal reward. So we must keep the dogma streamlined to make sure as many people as possible learn about the 'One true way' (tm). If everybody had his own version of faith, then you'd loose many people to some wrong path.

Remember that we only get one chance at living. We can't come back to do it again if we screw up.

Which makes it all that much worse that punishment is for eternity when the transgression is finite and made by flawed humans.

http://www.youdontevenrealize.com/pictures/whereyourgod.gif

Generally, people call US Americans 'Americans', Canadian Americans 'Canadian', Mexico Americans 'Mexican', etc...Generally, people call South/Latin Americans Americans as well. And talking about Catholics, South/Latin America comes to mind pretty prominently.

Your statement reflects the injustice of our time; why is it more acceptable to make a statement defaming a Christian denomination than it is to express the same sentiments, only about Islam or Judaism?

Especially when most religions -- at least the derviations and branches of the Abrahamic religions -- insist that theirs is the One True Way. Islam -- "no God but Allah", Judaism -- "the chosen people", etc.

Seems to me that it doesn't matter who says it, it's only going to further the division between the people of Earth. Bad enough to have some guy in a funny hat saying "WE'RE THE BEST MOTHERFUCKERS HERE!", but then two other guys in slightly less funny hats say "BULLSHIT, THAT'S US!!!"

I think the Catholics come in for the majority of the criticism and defamation because their particular brand of arrogance is gilded in so much ostentatious wealth -- enough wealth to make Solomon blush -- and they have as much in common with Christ's apostles as a butterfly wing-flap has in common with a hurricane. Then they say things like "we have the only line back to the original Apostles!" and none of the apostles' rag-tag, regular-guy-as-servant-of-the-Master humility. They forget that much of their Dogma is man-made, yet calling The Pope supreme and infallible contrvenes the very notion of original sin, being that we're ALL flawed and fall short of the glory of God. There's hubris, and then there's HUBRIS!.

It's stuff like this that makes it very easy to understand agnosticism.

Generally, people call South/Latin Americans Americans as well. And talking about Catholics, South/Latin America comes to mind pretty prominently.

Not that it matters. After all, there's no Biblical God, so Catholicism is just as wrong as Protestantism.

Still, simply insulting christianity would not result in a massive riot.

That really depends on where the insult happened. Try some kind of disruptive insult or even presence in the darker corners of the Bible Belt, and see how humble and other-cheeky a redneck who's "got rilijin" will be.

Generally, people call South/Latin Americans Americans as well.

No they don't.

Actually, that last step was the only way to stop the bickering (for a few hundread years at least, damn you Schism!). If he wasn't THE definitive answer, you'd still have people claiming "Yeah, but Mary wasn't really a virgin" and go on to spread some heretical version of the dogma.

Sure, that clause was abused (and I mean in a big way) but it would have been worse as far as the number of different christian branches if it wasn't there in the beginning.

Nowadays: feel free to ridicule our system of governance.

Uh...that's actually the case. Arguments over the definition of "virgin" are not uncommon.

Because, according to Christianity, there is only so many things you can do or believe wrong before you are denied an eternal reward. So we must keep the dogma streamlined to make sure as many people as possible learn about the 'One true way' (tm). If everybody had his own version of faith, then you'd loose many people to some wrong path.

Remember that we only get one chance at living. We can't come back to do it again if we screw up.

Says the non-Hindu.

Says the non-Hindu.

Hehehe. It took me a while of reading through the entirety of his post to get what you meant. Reincarnation ftw.

Wow organized religion is annoying.

I would LOVE to see a crusade formed entirely of Atheists, who would use the power of science to destroy the vatican, mecca, wailing wall and a bunch of other religious sites.

It would be a laugh! Who's up for it? meet me in Rome next week, bring your own device, based on your sect of science ( physisists bring a railgun, chemists bring some thermite, biologists cloen some mamoths, doctors can be medics, phycologists use mind control.) Damn this would make a great mmorpg.

Wow organized religion is annoying.

I would LOVE to see a crusade formed entirely of Atheists, who would use the power of science to destroy the vatican, mecca, wailing wall and a bunch of other religious sites.

It would be a laugh! Who's up for it? meet me in Rome next week, bring your own device, based on your sect of science ( physisists bring a railgun, chemists bring some thermite, biologists cloen some mamoths, doctors can be medics, phycologists use mind control.) Damn this would make a great mmorpg.

Linguists bring a dictionary and a typing manual....:rolleyes:

:p

:p

Okay, yeah, that was a bit bitchy of me. I have a pet peeve about the misspelling of "physics" and similar words. It ain't rocket science (see, cause THAT's chemistry and astrophysics).

Okay, yeah, that was a bit bitchy of me. I have a pet peeve about the misspelling of "physics" and similar words. It ain't rocket science (see, cause THAT's chemistry and astrophysics).

And general physics...

I'm not Catholic, but if I were Catholic I would argue that doctrinal unity must be preserved because that is how best to please God. I'm sure you have heard of this argument before.
I'd then ask what the basis of that belief is. And I have heard that argument before, though generally poorly executed.

Faith, of course. Look, I don't want to get into a religious debate with you on this subject, since I am neither Catholic nor any other sort of Christian, but I do want to demonstrate to you that there are other viewpoints out there that aren't pantheistic/decentralized like Hinduism - who is to say that Catholics must adhere to decentralized pantheism rather than doctrinal unity?

Your statement reflects the injustice of our time; why is it more acceptable to make a statement defaming a Christian denomination than it is to express the same sentiments, only about Islam or Judaism?

Bravo. Well said. Go read "Persecution" by David Limbaugh for further enlightenment. Perhaps there IS hope for this world.

As a fellow Catholic, I must humbly ask you to make a point rather than sit there on your high horse feeling superior.



Not quite. http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

My point is that other Christian denominations have done little to no scholarly work established in academic tradition to prove any of their claims about Christianity.

They have done a wonderful job of acting like clowns on an altar and knocking people down on television.

Sadly the mainstream Catholic churches outside of continental Europe have decided to imitate this behavior in order to try and win the shameful "popularity" contest in religion.

No they don't.

Yes they do.

Uh...that's actually the case. Arguments over the definition of "virgin" are not uncommon.

I know, but you got my point, no?

Says the non-Hindu.
:p

However, the question was about why Catholic want an unified dogma so I answere as a Catholic.

If you ask me why Hindu don't care about an unified dogma, I'll find a way to bring reincarnation in the mix.

Wow organized religion is annoying.

I would LOVE to see a crusade formed entirely of Atheists, who would use the power of science to destroy the vatican, mecca, wailing wall and a bunch of other religious sites.

It would be a laugh! Who's up for it? meet me in Rome next week, bring your own device, based on your sect of science ( physisists bring a railgun, chemists bring some thermite, biologists cloen some mamoths, doctors can be medics, phycologists use mind control.) Damn this would make a great mmorpg.

Hit any of the three you mention, and I will lead an army of Jewish scientists armed with +5 holy railguns, sacred thermite, golems, and our superweapon - Jewish guilt!

Or I could just hire Mossad to send ninjews to break up your meeting.

Or Islam. ESPECIALLY Islam.

whats that supposed to mean?

I know, but you got my point, no?

Oui, I did that thing.

No they don't.Yes they do.

Bravo. Well said. Go read "Persecution" by David Limbaugh for further enlightenment. Perhaps there IS hope for this world.Not as long abrahamic religions exist.

Bravo. Well said. Go read "Persecution" by David Limbaugh for further enlightenment. Perhaps there IS hope for this world.

No, Myo, no! *shakes finger*
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-limbaugh101101.shtml

Hope to skip out of the war in 'Nam so you can have a boil removed from your ass?
http://www.pedisurg.com/PtEduc/Pilonidal_Cyst.htm
http://pssht.com/biography/rush_limbaugh.html
http://www.nndb.com/people/428/000022362/
He avoided service by having his physician certify his medical unfitness due to an "inoperable pilonidal cyst" and "a football knee from high school." He played one year of varsity football in high school, and his coach, Ryland Meyr, said later he remembered no injuries to Limbaugh. Those who loathe Limbaugh sometimes describe his pilonidal cyst as "a boil on his butt", but that is an oversimplification. A pilonidal cyst is a chronic collection of pus or an abnormal draining passage leading to an abscess, located in the opening between the buttocks muscles. It is susceptible to infection, which can be dangerous on a war front, so pilonidal cysts have long been (and still are) legitimate grounds for exemption from military service. The peculiar thing is that Limbaugh denies he ever had a pilonidal cyst, dismissing it as "internet bull", though the record is plain.
:D
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/02/11_Limbaugh.html
http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.htm

David, brother Jacob to Esau?
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/174601.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/080875.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/040667.htm
http://www.stanguthrie.com/2005/05/qa-david-limbaugh-on-faith-and.html

Hope for what, Myo?
Enlightenment really has little to do with the Limblob family.
Further, allegiance 'twixt ANYONE and a twisted fuckhead like "Spongebaugh" Dobson isn't providing hope at all.
*shakes head*