This is what jinx said, "I think Waco1947 is saying he doesn't think that was a loving choice." as if aborting a child was a loving choice...Waco1947 said:
Fadskier, Jinx gave you a thought answer and you simply dismissand demean her explanation with "and women abort a child out of love?"
You sir are not a gentleman
Child: I think I'm gayWaco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
My guess is that love has very little to do with any aspect of an out-of-wedlock, unplanned pregnancy.fadskier said:and women abort a child out of love?Jinx 2 said:I don't think anybody here is arguing that the father didn't have the right to kick his kid out.fadskier said:So you support personal choice of a woman aborting a fetus but not the personal choice of other parents? Interesting...and yet, hypocritical.Waco1947 said:I do not support parents kicking our children for being gay. I also would tell the youth "It's ok to be gay." Your SBC pastor will say "It's not ok to be gay. It is against God, an abomination and a perversion. Unless you repent and become chaste you are not going to enter the kingdom of God. Now go home and obey your parents. I will tell them to keep demanding your repentance."fadskier said:Do you support the parents kicking out their child? Yes or no?Waco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
I would say "Mom and Dad, he's a child of God and your child. Keep him in your home, love and accept him and learn more about his struggle and orientation."
Now which message do you delivered by your pastor?
You have no idea what my pastor would say, but I assure you that he would not say that someone is going to hell for being gay. Neither I nor my pastor have the authority to condemn or judge someone to hell...that is reserved for God. I don't believe that someone goes to hell for being gay, nor does my pastor, judging by Bible studies that we have been in.
Again, why would I have him speak to a pastor at all?
I think Waco1947 is saying he doesn't think that was a loving choice. Or a just one.
And if your criteria is WWJD, I don't think Jesus would kick a kid out of his house for being openly gay. He's otherwise a good kid--class valdictorian, a student athlete, someone who managed his own college application and admission process.
Doesn't sound like a troublesome kid to me unless his parents are trying to force him to share their religious beliefs, or at least live as if he does (including attending a church that preaches that gay and transgendered people are sinners) until he leaves home. I can't imagine how a loving parent would want a gay son to attend a church week after week where he is verbally battered from the pulpit. Even if he's bright enough to understand the wrong-headedness of that--and he obviously is--it has to hurt.
Finally, supporting a woman's right to make HER own choices doesn't mean YOU would make the same choice. It means you believe strongly enough in separation of church and state and in the rights of individual in a democracy that purports to value personal freedom that you want to make sure, under law, that women have the right to make their own choice about a very personal matter--and that you believe a just government would never seek to dictate such a personal choice for anyone, male or female.
I'd go further: If the government is empowered to force pregnant women to remain pregnant until they give birth or have a miscarriage, why should that same government not be empowered to force a man who keeps fathering children he can't support to have a vasectomy by court order. If you want to intrude into people's reproductive choices because you don't want them to make bad ones, it seems like you'd be in favor of allowing that intrusion when it's in the public interest to stop a guy who can't or won't support the children he fathers from continuing to produce children who must be supported by taxpayers.
This post is repugnant and should be deleted.fadskier said:Child: I think I'm gayWaco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
Waco: It's okay, the Bible is false on it's teaching about homosexuality and your parents are stupid.. Be gay!
Woman: I made a bad decision and had unprotected sex, what should I do? Should I abort?
Waco: Abort that thing...God doesn't care
Man: we have a 6month old and he's a pain in the butt...our lives just aren't the same
Waco: Should have aborted it, but since the child is completely dependent on you, you are allowed personal decision making in what is good for you, so whatever..
Man: But what does the Bible say?
Waco: the Bible was written long ago by these guys who didn't understand today's complex decision making. It's okay. God is love.
Jinx 2 said:My guess is that love has very little to do with any aspect of an out-of-wedlock, unplanned pregnancy.fadskier said:and women abort a child out of love?Jinx 2 said:I don't think anybody here is arguing that the father didn't have the right to kick his kid out.fadskier said:So you support personal choice of a woman aborting a fetus but not the personal choice of other parents? Interesting...and yet, hypocritical.Waco1947 said:I do not support parents kicking our children for being gay. I also would tell the youth "It's ok to be gay." Your SBC pastor will say "It's not ok to be gay. It is against God, an abomination and a perversion. Unless you repent and become chaste you are not going to enter the kingdom of God. Now go home and obey your parents. I will tell them to keep demanding your repentance."fadskier said:Do you support the parents kicking out their child? Yes or no?Waco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
I would say "Mom and Dad, he's a child of God and your child. Keep him in your home, love and accept him and learn more about his struggle and orientation."
Now which message do you delivered by your pastor?
You have no idea what my pastor would say, but I assure you that he would not say that someone is going to hell for being gay. Neither I nor my pastor have the authority to condemn or judge someone to hell...that is reserved for God. I don't believe that someone goes to hell for being gay, nor does my pastor, judging by Bible studies that we have been in.
Again, why would I have him speak to a pastor at all?
I think Waco1947 is saying he doesn't think that was a loving choice. Or a just one.
And if your criteria is WWJD, I don't think Jesus would kick a kid out of his house for being openly gay. He's otherwise a good kid--class valdictorian, a student athlete, someone who managed his own college application and admission process.
Doesn't sound like a troublesome kid to me unless his parents are trying to force him to share their religious beliefs, or at least live as if he does (including attending a church that preaches that gay and transgendered people are sinners) until he leaves home. I can't imagine how a loving parent would want a gay son to attend a church week after week where he is verbally battered from the pulpit. Even if he's bright enough to understand the wrong-headedness of that--and he obviously is--it has to hurt.
Finally, supporting a woman's right to make HER own choices doesn't mean YOU would make the same choice. It means you believe strongly enough in separation of church and state and in the rights of individual in a democracy that purports to value personal freedom that you want to make sure, under law, that women have the right to make their own choice about a very personal matter--and that you believe a just government would never seek to dictate such a personal choice for anyone, male or female.
I'd go further: If the government is empowered to force pregnant women to remain pregnant until they give birth or have a miscarriage, why should that same government not be empowered to force a man who keeps fathering children he can't support to have a vasectomy by court order. If you want to intrude into people's reproductive choices because you don't want them to make bad ones, it seems like you'd be in favor of allowing that intrusion when it's in the public interest to stop a guy who can't or won't support the children he fathers from continuing to produce children who must be supported by taxpayers.
However, the REASON a woman chooses to end a pregnancy is none of your business. Period.
If she's an equal citizen under law, she has the right to make medical decisions, including whether to remain pregnant, for herself.
You may disagree with her choice OR her motives because of your religious belief that abortion = murder. That should not empower you to stop her from making her own choice. SHE is the one who will have to live with the consequences of whatever she decides for the rest of her life.
I'm just paraphrasing what the cursing preacher has said to me. Basically, he has said those things.Jinx 2 said:This post is repugnant and should be deleted.fadskier said:Child: I think I'm gayWaco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
Waco: It's okay, the Bible is false on it's teaching about homosexuality and your parents are stupid.. Be gay!
Woman: I made a bad decision and had unprotected sex, what should I do? Should I abort?
Waco: Abort that thing...God doesn't care
Man: we have a 6month old and he's a pain in the butt...our lives just aren't the same
Waco: Should have aborted it, but since the child is completely dependent on you, you are allowed personal decision making in what is good for you, so whatever..
Man: But what does the Bible say?
Waco: the Bible was written long ago by these guys who didn't understand today's complex decision making. It's okay. God is love.
Speak for yourself, not for Waco or anyone else.
No, sex and having it irresponsibility is what has to do with and out-of-wedlock, unplanned pregnancy.Jinx 2 said:My guess is that love has very little to do with any aspect of an out-of-wedlock, unplanned pregnancy.fadskier said:and women abort a child out of love?Jinx 2 said:I don't think anybody here is arguing that the father didn't have the right to kick his kid out.fadskier said:So you support personal choice of a woman aborting a fetus but not the personal choice of other parents? Interesting...and yet, hypocritical.Waco1947 said:I do not support parents kicking our children for being gay. I also would tell the youth "It's ok to be gay." Your SBC pastor will say "It's not ok to be gay. It is against God, an abomination and a perversion. Unless you repent and become chaste you are not going to enter the kingdom of God. Now go home and obey your parents. I will tell them to keep demanding your repentance."fadskier said:Do you support the parents kicking out their child? Yes or no?Waco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
I would say "Mom and Dad, he's a child of God and your child. Keep him in your home, love and accept him and learn more about his struggle and orientation."
Now which message do you delivered by your pastor?
You have no idea what my pastor would say, but I assure you that he would not say that someone is going to hell for being gay. Neither I nor my pastor have the authority to condemn or judge someone to hell...that is reserved for God. I don't believe that someone goes to hell for being gay, nor does my pastor, judging by Bible studies that we have been in.
Again, why would I have him speak to a pastor at all?
I think Waco1947 is saying he doesn't think that was a loving choice. Or a just one.
And if your criteria is WWJD, I don't think Jesus would kick a kid out of his house for being openly gay. He's otherwise a good kid--class valdictorian, a student athlete, someone who managed his own college application and admission process.
Doesn't sound like a troublesome kid to me unless his parents are trying to force him to share their religious beliefs, or at least live as if he does (including attending a church that preaches that gay and transgendered people are sinners) until he leaves home. I can't imagine how a loving parent would want a gay son to attend a church week after week where he is verbally battered from the pulpit. Even if he's bright enough to understand the wrong-headedness of that--and he obviously is--it has to hurt.
Finally, supporting a woman's right to make HER own choices doesn't mean YOU would make the same choice. It means you believe strongly enough in separation of church and state and in the rights of individual in a democracy that purports to value personal freedom that you want to make sure, under law, that women have the right to make their own choice about a very personal matter--and that you believe a just government would never seek to dictate such a personal choice for anyone, male or female.
I'd go further: If the government is empowered to force pregnant women to remain pregnant until they give birth or have a miscarriage, why should that same government not be empowered to force a man who keeps fathering children he can't support to have a vasectomy by court order. If you want to intrude into people's reproductive choices because you don't want them to make bad ones, it seems like you'd be in favor of allowing that intrusion when it's in the public interest to stop a guy who can't or won't support the children he fathers from continuing to produce children who must be supported by taxpayers.
However, the REASON a woman chooses to end a pregnancy is none of your business. Period.
If she's an equal citizen under law, she has the right to make medical decisions, including whether to remain pregnant, for herself.
You may disagree with her choice OR her motives because of your religious belief that abortion = murder. That should not empower you to stop her from making her own choice. SHE is the one who will have to live with the consequences of whatever she decides for the rest of her life.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on that issue.fadskier said:No, sex and having it irresponsibility is what has to do with and out-of-wedlock, unplanned pregnancy.Jinx 2 said:My guess is that love has very little to do with any aspect of an out-of-wedlock, unplanned pregnancy.fadskier said:and women abort a child out of love?Jinx 2 said:I don't think anybody here is arguing that the father didn't have the right to kick his kid out.fadskier said:So you support personal choice of a woman aborting a fetus but not the personal choice of other parents? Interesting...and yet, hypocritical.Waco1947 said:I do not support parents kicking our children for being gay. I also would tell the youth "It's ok to be gay." Your SBC pastor will say "It's not ok to be gay. It is against God, an abomination and a perversion. Unless you repent and become chaste you are not going to enter the kingdom of God. Now go home and obey your parents. I will tell them to keep demanding your repentance."fadskier said:Do you support the parents kicking out their child? Yes or no?Waco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
I would say "Mom and Dad, he's a child of God and your child. Keep him in your home, love and accept him and learn more about his struggle and orientation."
Now which message do you delivered by your pastor?
You have no idea what my pastor would say, but I assure you that he would not say that someone is going to hell for being gay. Neither I nor my pastor have the authority to condemn or judge someone to hell...that is reserved for God. I don't believe that someone goes to hell for being gay, nor does my pastor, judging by Bible studies that we have been in.
Again, why would I have him speak to a pastor at all?
I think Waco1947 is saying he doesn't think that was a loving choice. Or a just one.
And if your criteria is WWJD, I don't think Jesus would kick a kid out of his house for being openly gay. He's otherwise a good kid--class valdictorian, a student athlete, someone who managed his own college application and admission process.
Doesn't sound like a troublesome kid to me unless his parents are trying to force him to share their religious beliefs, or at least live as if he does (including attending a church that preaches that gay and transgendered people are sinners) until he leaves home. I can't imagine how a loving parent would want a gay son to attend a church week after week where he is verbally battered from the pulpit. Even if he's bright enough to understand the wrong-headedness of that--and he obviously is--it has to hurt.
Finally, supporting a woman's right to make HER own choices doesn't mean YOU would make the same choice. It means you believe strongly enough in separation of church and state and in the rights of individual in a democracy that purports to value personal freedom that you want to make sure, under law, that women have the right to make their own choice about a very personal matter--and that you believe a just government would never seek to dictate such a personal choice for anyone, male or female.
I'd go further: If the government is empowered to force pregnant women to remain pregnant until they give birth or have a miscarriage, why should that same government not be empowered to force a man who keeps fathering children he can't support to have a vasectomy by court order. If you want to intrude into people's reproductive choices because you don't want them to make bad ones, it seems like you'd be in favor of allowing that intrusion when it's in the public interest to stop a guy who can't or won't support the children he fathers from continuing to produce children who must be supported by taxpayers.
However, the REASON a woman chooses to end a pregnancy is none of your business. Period.
If she's an equal citizen under law, she has the right to make medical decisions, including whether to remain pregnant, for herself.
You may disagree with her choice OR her motives because of your religious belief that abortion = murder. That should not empower you to stop her from making her own choice. SHE is the one who will have to live with the consequences of whatever she decides for the rest of her life.
The REASON a woman kills a human life IS my business...just as a REASON for someone committing discrimination, murder, or bullying IS my business even though I am not involved.
My opposition has zero to do with religion. I was anti-abortion before I attended church. It's about responsibility and accepting the consequences of one's actions...consequences that don't deprive someone else of the ability to have life.
Pretty easy to respond to his quotes, and in a way that's less hostile and snarky. Your "paraphrasing" is dishonest. He "basically" did not say the words you put in his mouth.fadskier said:I'm just paraphrasing what the cursing preacher has said to me. Basically, he has said those things.Jinx 2 said:This post is repugnant and should be deleted.fadskier said:Child: I think I'm gayWaco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
Waco: It's okay, the Bible is false on it's teaching about homosexuality and your parents are stupid.. Be gay!
Woman: I made a bad decision and had unprotected sex, what should I do? Should I abort?
Waco: Abort that thing...God doesn't care
Man: we have a 6month old and he's a pain in the butt...our lives just aren't the same
Waco: Should have aborted it, but since the child is completely dependent on you, you are allowed personal decision making in what is good for you, so whatever..
Man: But what does the Bible say?
Waco: the Bible was written long ago by these guys who didn't understand today's complex decision making. It's okay. God is love.
Speak for yourself, not for Waco or anyone else.
I've already advocated that as well. However, men are already discriminated against in this issue...if the woman choose to have the child, he is held accountable (as he should be.) However, if she chooses to abort it, he has no say.Jinx 2 said:We are going to have to agree to disagree on that issue.fadskier said:No, sex and having it irresponsibility is what has to do with and out-of-wedlock, unplanned pregnancy.Jinx 2 said:My guess is that love has very little to do with any aspect of an out-of-wedlock, unplanned pregnancy.fadskier said:and women abort a child out of love?Jinx 2 said:I don't think anybody here is arguing that the father didn't have the right to kick his kid out.fadskier said:So you support personal choice of a woman aborting a fetus but not the personal choice of other parents? Interesting...and yet, hypocritical.Waco1947 said:I do not support parents kicking our children for being gay. I also would tell the youth "It's ok to be gay." Your SBC pastor will say "It's not ok to be gay. It is against God, an abomination and a perversion. Unless you repent and become chaste you are not going to enter the kingdom of God. Now go home and obey your parents. I will tell them to keep demanding your repentance."fadskier said:Do you support the parents kicking out their child? Yes or no?Waco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
I would say "Mom and Dad, he's a child of God and your child. Keep him in your home, love and accept him and learn more about his struggle and orientation."
Now which message do you delivered by your pastor?
You have no idea what my pastor would say, but I assure you that he would not say that someone is going to hell for being gay. Neither I nor my pastor have the authority to condemn or judge someone to hell...that is reserved for God. I don't believe that someone goes to hell for being gay, nor does my pastor, judging by Bible studies that we have been in.
Again, why would I have him speak to a pastor at all?
I think Waco1947 is saying he doesn't think that was a loving choice. Or a just one.
And if your criteria is WWJD, I don't think Jesus would kick a kid out of his house for being openly gay. He's otherwise a good kid--class valdictorian, a student athlete, someone who managed his own college application and admission process.
Doesn't sound like a troublesome kid to me unless his parents are trying to force him to share their religious beliefs, or at least live as if he does (including attending a church that preaches that gay and transgendered people are sinners) until he leaves home. I can't imagine how a loving parent would want a gay son to attend a church week after week where he is verbally battered from the pulpit. Even if he's bright enough to understand the wrong-headedness of that--and he obviously is--it has to hurt.
Finally, supporting a woman's right to make HER own choices doesn't mean YOU would make the same choice. It means you believe strongly enough in separation of church and state and in the rights of individual in a democracy that purports to value personal freedom that you want to make sure, under law, that women have the right to make their own choice about a very personal matter--and that you believe a just government would never seek to dictate such a personal choice for anyone, male or female.
I'd go further: If the government is empowered to force pregnant women to remain pregnant until they give birth or have a miscarriage, why should that same government not be empowered to force a man who keeps fathering children he can't support to have a vasectomy by court order. If you want to intrude into people's reproductive choices because you don't want them to make bad ones, it seems like you'd be in favor of allowing that intrusion when it's in the public interest to stop a guy who can't or won't support the children he fathers from continuing to produce children who must be supported by taxpayers.
However, the REASON a woman chooses to end a pregnancy is none of your business. Period.
If she's an equal citizen under law, she has the right to make medical decisions, including whether to remain pregnant, for herself.
You may disagree with her choice OR her motives because of your religious belief that abortion = murder. That should not empower you to stop her from making her own choice. SHE is the one who will have to live with the consequences of whatever she decides for the rest of her life.
The REASON a woman kills a human life IS my business...just as a REASON for someone committing discrimination, murder, or bullying IS my business even though I am not involved.
My opposition has zero to do with religion. I was anti-abortion before I attended church. It's about responsibility and accepting the consequences of one's actions...consequences that don't deprive someone else of the ability to have life.
You are, of course, free to try to outlaw abortion in your state and in the country as a whole. If you succeed, you will simply drive women online to order Plan B pills or into other states or countries where women's rights to determine their own fates without government interference are acknowledged and respected.
But what it really sounds like you want to do is punish women for "having sex and having it irresponsibly." What about men who do the same?
You fabricated all these dialogues and in the meantime did not answer Is the gay child going to hell according to your interpretation of the Bible?fadskier said:Child: I think I'm gayWaco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
Waco: It's okay, the Bible is false on it's teaching about homosexuality and your parents are stupid.. Be gay!
Woman: I made a bad decision and had unprotected sex, what should I do? Should I abort?
Waco: Abort that thing...God doesn't care
Man: we have a 6month old and he's a pain in the butt...our lives just aren't the same
Waco: Should have aborted it, but since the child is completely dependent on you, you are allowed personal decision making in what is good for you, so whatever..
Man: But what does the Bible say?
Waco: the Bible was written long ago by these guys who didn't understand today's complex decision making. It's okay. God is love.
I have no say in who goes to hell. The only people that I think might be in hell are those who deny Christ and have no personal relationship with him. God decides who that is. If you are a child of God, all sins are forgiven..and one sin is no greater than another.Waco1947 said:You fabricated all these dialogues and in the meantime did not answer Is the gay child going to hell according to your interpretation of the Bible?fadskier said:Child: I think I'm gayWaco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
Waco: It's okay, the Bible is false on it's teaching about homosexuality and your parents are stupid.. Be gay!
Woman: I made a bad decision and had unprotected sex, what should I do? Should I abort?
Waco: Abort that thing...God doesn't care
Man: we have a 6month old and he's a pain in the butt...our lives just aren't the same
Waco: Should have aborted it, but since the child is completely dependent on you, you are allowed personal decision making in what is good for you, so whatever..
Man: But what does the Bible say?
Waco: the Bible was written long ago by these guys who didn't understand today's complex decision making. It's okay. God is love.
No, pretty much what you have said to me in various threads.Waco1947 said:You fabricated all these dialogues and in the meantime did not answer Is the gay child going to hell according to your interpretation of the Bible?fadskier said:Child: I think I'm gayWaco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
Waco: It's okay, the Bible is false on it's teaching about homosexuality and your parents are stupid.. Be gay!
Woman: I made a bad decision and had unprotected sex, what should I do? Should I abort?
Waco: Abort that thing...God doesn't care
Man: we have a 6month old and he's a pain in the butt...our lives just aren't the same
Waco: Should have aborted it, but since the child is completely dependent on you, you are allowed personal decision making in what is good for you, so whatever..
Man: But what does the Bible say?
Waco: the Bible was written long ago by these guys who didn't understand today's complex decision making. It's okay. God is love.
Ok. How many billions of dollars were distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities? Does anyone really know, other than the elite within the church? Certainly they give something, in order to justify the fleecing of its parishioners. The Church no doubt is one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest institution in the world. There is no transparency to the Catholic Church. I wonder why?Canada2017 said:TexasScientist said:The Catholic Church has never been a bastion of morality or moral authority. It's a political animal with the purpose of amassing wealth.Sam Lowry said:America is not a Catholic country. Our laws and opinions for and against contraception have never been based on Catholic dogma. I'm not even sure why we're talking about Catholicism. As for the Church and its moral authority, I really don't think any sort of atonement will improve your opinion unless you understand what the Church teaches and why.Jinx 2 said:The Church does, however, teach that use of contraception is immoral. Coke Bear calls NFP a "moral" form of family planning. But most Americans and most Catholics do not believe a woman or couple's decision to use an effective form of contraception is immoral.Sam Lowry said:
What I'm saying is, the Church doesn't teach that desire is unvirtuous or that women who've had sex are impure. Your description of the doctrine is incorrect. You may think the actual Catholic (and Protestant) teachings about contraception are incorrect too, but that's another issue.
There are different estimates of the failure rate of NFP, depending on who's doing the numbers and which method or combination of methods you're talking about. Planned Parenthood calls it between 12% and 24%. Assuming that's accurate, the better methods are only slightly less effective than the Pill, which according to Quash's link has a failure rate of 9%. I'm not arguing that NFP is the optimal method in terms of pregnancy prevention. I find it advantageous for its lack of harmful side effects, both medical and moral.
Trying to impose the Church's view that God should and must make the decision regarding whether every single sex act will result in a pregnancy is not congruent with separation of church and state. While I disagree with your beliefs, they would not bother me nearly so much if the Church has not and did not still advocate their implementation as government policy with the force of law.
Sadly, what it's taken to end that, in Ireland at least, is evidence of the fact that the Church was perfectly willing to police the bedrooms of its members, but not its priests or of its institutions for children or for unwed mothers. A vigorous interest in life in the womb becomes considerably less credible when people learn that the children of unwed mothers who weren't sold away from their mothers in Irish institutions were starved, abused, received abysmal medical treatment, and were dumped in mass graves after they died of curable childhood illnesses, all because they were considered inferior children of sin, and that mothers who bore children out of wedlock were essentially enslaved. THAT is why Ireland voted itself out from under canon law--because it protects the Church and covers over the sins of its priests, nuns and employees, while condemning married couples for wanting to have sex without fear of a pregnancy resulting. If Church officials and members would acknowledge and atone for this level of hypocrisy and actually do something about it instead of doing everything it possibly can to avoid the criminal consequences that should result from such abuse or paying child support (in the cases of priests who fathered children), that would make things a little better. But, instead, the Church demands a level of morality from ordinary parishioners it does not require of its leaders.
So, IMO, the Church has certainly lost any moral authority it might assert to non-Catholics, and Catholics, rather than preaching to protestants about the immorality of contraception, should be demanding that priests and Church leadership be accountable for THEIR sins instead of holding the rest of the world accountable while excusing, ignoring and hiding their own transgressions.
The billions of dollars distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities ?
So your against the Bible's clear teaching I Corinthians 6: 9 do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.fadskier said:I have no say in who goes to hell. The only people that I think might be in hell are those who deny Christ and have no personal relationship with him. God decides who that is. If you are a child of God, all sins are forgiven..and one sin is no greater than another.Waco1947 said:You fabricated all these dialogues and in the meantime did not answer Is the gay child going to hell according to your interpretation of the Bible?fadskier said:Child: I think I'm gayWaco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
Waco: It's okay, the Bible is false on it's teaching about homosexuality and your parents are stupid.. Be gay!
Woman: I made a bad decision and had unprotected sex, what should I do? Should I abort?
Waco: Abort that thing...God doesn't care
Man: we have a 6month old and he's a pain in the butt...our lives just aren't the same
Waco: Should have aborted it, but since the child is completely dependent on you, you are allowed personal decision making in what is good for you, so whatever..
Man: But what does the Bible say?
Waco: the Bible was written long ago by these guys who didn't understand today's complex decision making. It's okay. God is love.
Do they trust Jesus as their savior?Waco1947 said:So your against the Bible's clear teaching I Corinthians 6: 9 do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.fadskier said:I have no say in who goes to hell. The only people that I think might be in hell are those who deny Christ and have no personal relationship with him. God decides who that is. If you are a child of God, all sins are forgiven..and one sin is no greater than another.Waco1947 said:You fabricated all these dialogues and in the meantime did not answer Is the gay child going to hell according to your interpretation of the Bible?fadskier said:Child: I think I'm gayWaco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
Waco: It's okay, the Bible is false on it's teaching about homosexuality and your parents are stupid.. Be gay!
Woman: I made a bad decision and had unprotected sex, what should I do? Should I abort?
Waco: Abort that thing...God doesn't care
Man: we have a 6month old and he's a pain in the butt...our lives just aren't the same
Waco: Should have aborted it, but since the child is completely dependent on you, you are allowed personal decision making in what is good for you, so whatever..
Man: But what does the Bible say?
Waco: the Bible was written long ago by these guys who didn't understand today's complex decision making. It's okay. God is love.
Have we hit billions yet in legal settlements to deal with child sexual abuse charges and the small percentage of child support claims from women who have borne the children of priests? The Church hold some parishioners accountable (or allows them to buy their way out of a problem with a costly annulment that may leave behind some kids de-legitmized by the church, like 2 of my daughters' classmates were), but has worked very hard to obfuscate investigation and prosecution of members of the priesthood who have abused or fathered children. This would not bother me nearly so much had the church not been so mean-spirited and punitive in its condemnation of gay people, women who have sex out of wedlock (and these are not people who have taken a religious vow of celibacy, mind you), abused children (whose immortal souls or mortal lives weren't valued by the priests who victimized them beyond their use to the priest) and children of priests who never really had a father. A church that holds parishioners to a high standard behavior under penalty of eternal damnation or separation from God that can be meted out by its priests should also hold those priests to an even higher standard and not cover up for them and send them from parish to parish to parish to leave a trail of damaged kids when their tendencies and weaknesses manifest themselves.TexasScientist said:Ok. How many billions of dollars were distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities? Does anyone really know, other than the elite within the church? Certainly they give something, in order to justify the fleecing of its parishioners. The Church no doubt is one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest institution in the world. There is no transparency to the Catholic Church. I wonder why?Canada2017 said:TexasScientist said:The Catholic Church has never been a bastion of morality or moral authority. It's a political animal with the purpose of amassing wealth.Sam Lowry said:America is not a Catholic country. Our laws and opinions for and against contraception have never been based on Catholic dogma. I'm not even sure why we're talking about Catholicism. As for the Church and its moral authority, I really don't think any sort of atonement will improve your opinion unless you understand what the Church teaches and why.Jinx 2 said:The Church does, however, teach that use of contraception is immoral. Coke Bear calls NFP a "moral" form of family planning. But most Americans and most Catholics do not believe a woman or couple's decision to use an effective form of contraception is immoral.Sam Lowry said:
What I'm saying is, the Church doesn't teach that desire is unvirtuous or that women who've had sex are impure. Your description of the doctrine is incorrect. You may think the actual Catholic (and Protestant) teachings about contraception are incorrect too, but that's another issue.
There are different estimates of the failure rate of NFP, depending on who's doing the numbers and which method or combination of methods you're talking about. Planned Parenthood calls it between 12% and 24%. Assuming that's accurate, the better methods are only slightly less effective than the Pill, which according to Quash's link has a failure rate of 9%. I'm not arguing that NFP is the optimal method in terms of pregnancy prevention. I find it advantageous for its lack of harmful side effects, both medical and moral.
Trying to impose the Church's view that God should and must make the decision regarding whether every single sex act will result in a pregnancy is not congruent with separation of church and state. While I disagree with your beliefs, they would not bother me nearly so much if the Church has not and did not still advocate their implementation as government policy with the force of law.
Sadly, what it's taken to end that, in Ireland at least, is evidence of the fact that the Church was perfectly willing to police the bedrooms of its members, but not its priests or of its institutions for children or for unwed mothers. A vigorous interest in life in the womb becomes considerably less credible when people learn that the children of unwed mothers who weren't sold away from their mothers in Irish institutions were starved, abused, received abysmal medical treatment, and were dumped in mass graves after they died of curable childhood illnesses, all because they were considered inferior children of sin, and that mothers who bore children out of wedlock were essentially enslaved. THAT is why Ireland voted itself out from under canon law--because it protects the Church and covers over the sins of its priests, nuns and employees, while condemning married couples for wanting to have sex without fear of a pregnancy resulting. If Church officials and members would acknowledge and atone for this level of hypocrisy and actually do something about it instead of doing everything it possibly can to avoid the criminal consequences that should result from such abuse or paying child support (in the cases of priests who fathered children), that would make things a little better. But, instead, the Church demands a level of morality from ordinary parishioners it does not require of its leaders.
So, IMO, the Church has certainly lost any moral authority it might assert to non-Catholics, and Catholics, rather than preaching to protestants about the immorality of contraception, should be demanding that priests and Church leadership be accountable for THEIR sins instead of holding the rest of the world accountable while excusing, ignoring and hiding their own transgressions.
The billions of dollars distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities ?
Yes, He's my Lord and Savior. Now answer I Corinthians 6:9fadskier said:Do they trust Jesus as their savior?Waco1947 said:So your against the Bible's clear teaching I Corinthians 6: 9 do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.fadskier said:I have no say in who goes to hell. The only people that I think might be in hell are those who deny Christ and have no personal relationship with him. God decides who that is. If you are a child of God, all sins are forgiven..and one sin is no greater than another.Waco1947 said:You fabricated all these dialogues and in the meantime did not answer Is the gay child going to hell according to your interpretation of the Bible?fadskier said:Child: I think I'm gayWaco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
Waco: It's okay, the Bible is false on it's teaching about homosexuality and your parents are stupid.. Be gay!
Woman: I made a bad decision and had unprotected sex, what should I do? Should I abort?
Waco: Abort that thing...God doesn't care
Man: we have a 6month old and he's a pain in the butt...our lives just aren't the same
Waco: Should have aborted it, but since the child is completely dependent on you, you are allowed personal decision making in what is good for you, so whatever..
Man: But what does the Bible say?
Waco: the Bible was written long ago by these guys who didn't understand today's complex decision making. It's okay. God is love.
TexasScientist said:Ok. How many billions of dollars were distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities? Does anyone really know, other than the elite within the church? Certainly they give something, in order to justify the fleecing of its parishioners. The Church no doubt is one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest institution in the world. There is no transparency to the Catholic Church. I wonder why?Canada2017 said:TexasScientist said:The Catholic Church has never been a bastion of morality or moral authority. It's a political animal with the purpose of amassing wealth.Sam Lowry said:America is not a Catholic country. Our laws and opinions for and against contraception have never been based on Catholic dogma. I'm not even sure why we're talking about Catholicism. As for the Church and its moral authority, I really don't think any sort of atonement will improve your opinion unless you understand what the Church teaches and why.Jinx 2 said:The Church does, however, teach that use of contraception is immoral. Coke Bear calls NFP a "moral" form of family planning. But most Americans and most Catholics do not believe a woman or couple's decision to use an effective form of contraception is immoral.Sam Lowry said:
What I'm saying is, the Church doesn't teach that desire is unvirtuous or that women who've had sex are impure. Your description of the doctrine is incorrect. You may think the actual Catholic (and Protestant) teachings about contraception are incorrect too, but that's another issue.
There are different estimates of the failure rate of NFP, depending on who's doing the numbers and which method or combination of methods you're talking about. Planned Parenthood calls it between 12% and 24%. Assuming that's accurate, the better methods are only slightly less effective than the Pill, which according to Quash's link has a failure rate of 9%. I'm not arguing that NFP is the optimal method in terms of pregnancy prevention. I find it advantageous for its lack of harmful side effects, both medical and moral.
Trying to impose the Church's view that God should and must make the decision regarding whether every single sex act will result in a pregnancy is not congruent with separation of church and state. While I disagree with your beliefs, they would not bother me nearly so much if the Church has not and did not still advocate their implementation as government policy with the force of law.
Sadly, what it's taken to end that, in Ireland at least, is evidence of the fact that the Church was perfectly willing to police the bedrooms of its members, but not its priests or of its institutions for children or for unwed mothers. A vigorous interest in life in the womb becomes considerably less credible when people learn that the children of unwed mothers who weren't sold away from their mothers in Irish institutions were starved, abused, received abysmal medical treatment, and were dumped in mass graves after they died of curable childhood illnesses, all because they were considered inferior children of sin, and that mothers who bore children out of wedlock were essentially enslaved. THAT is why Ireland voted itself out from under canon law--because it protects the Church and covers over the sins of its priests, nuns and employees, while condemning married couples for wanting to have sex without fear of a pregnancy resulting. If Church officials and members would acknowledge and atone for this level of hypocrisy and actually do something about it instead of doing everything it possibly can to avoid the criminal consequences that should result from such abuse or paying child support (in the cases of priests who fathered children), that would make things a little better. But, instead, the Church demands a level of morality from ordinary parishioners it does not require of its leaders.
So, IMO, the Church has certainly lost any moral authority it might assert to non-Catholics, and Catholics, rather than preaching to protestants about the immorality of contraception, should be demanding that priests and Church leadership be accountable for THEIR sins instead of holding the rest of the world accountable while excusing, ignoring and hiding their own transgressions.
The billions of dollars distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities ?
False. There is only one unforgivable sin. Once again, you interpret the Bible to mean what YOU want it to mean.Waco1947 said:Yes, He's my Lord and Savior. Now answer I Corinthians 6:9fadskier said:Do they trust Jesus as their savior?Waco1947 said:So your against the Bible's clear teaching I Corinthians 6: 9 do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.fadskier said:I have no say in who goes to hell. The only people that I think might be in hell are those who deny Christ and have no personal relationship with him. God decides who that is. If you are a child of God, all sins are forgiven..and one sin is no greater than another.Waco1947 said:You fabricated all these dialogues and in the meantime did not answer Is the gay child going to hell according to your interpretation of the Bible?fadskier said:Child: I think I'm gayWaco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
Waco: It's okay, the Bible is false on it's teaching about homosexuality and your parents are stupid.. Be gay!
Woman: I made a bad decision and had unprotected sex, what should I do? Should I abort?
Waco: Abort that thing...God doesn't care
Man: we have a 6month old and he's a pain in the butt...our lives just aren't the same
Waco: Should have aborted it, but since the child is completely dependent on you, you are allowed personal decision making in what is good for you, so whatever..
Man: But what does the Bible say?
Waco: the Bible was written long ago by these guys who didn't understand today's complex decision making. It's okay. God is love.
You're avoiding aren't you? You don't want to condemn your own child to hell. You don't want your pastor preaching verse to him. I don't blame you.
But it is lots of anti gay parents suddenly become pro gay.
Waco1947 said:
I would, however, never allow you to speak to one of my family members. You twist God's word to mean what you want.
Interesting question. If a man inseminates a woman, should he be held responsible for the resulting pregnancy if she aborts? If she doesn't abort, he could be compelled to pay child support. If she aborts, has he in any way contributed to the abortion? Maybe they'll explore this in Handmaid's Tale.Jinx 2 said:We are going to have to agree to disagree on that issue.fadskier said:No, sex and having it irresponsibility is what has to do with and out-of-wedlock, unplanned pregnancy.Jinx 2 said:My guess is that love has very little to do with any aspect of an out-of-wedlock, unplanned pregnancy.fadskier said:and women abort a child out of love?Jinx 2 said:I don't think anybody here is arguing that the father didn't have the right to kick his kid out.fadskier said:So you support personal choice of a woman aborting a fetus but not the personal choice of other parents? Interesting...and yet, hypocritical.Waco1947 said:I do not support parents kicking our children for being gay. I also would tell the youth "It's ok to be gay." Your SBC pastor will say "It's not ok to be gay. It is against God, an abomination and a perversion. Unless you repent and become chaste you are not going to enter the kingdom of God. Now go home and obey your parents. I will tell them to keep demanding your repentance."fadskier said:Do you support the parents kicking out their child? Yes or no?Waco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
I would say "Mom and Dad, he's a child of God and your child. Keep him in your home, love and accept him and learn more about his struggle and orientation."
Now which message do you delivered by your pastor?
You have no idea what my pastor would say, but I assure you that he would not say that someone is going to hell for being gay. Neither I nor my pastor have the authority to condemn or judge someone to hell...that is reserved for God. I don't believe that someone goes to hell for being gay, nor does my pastor, judging by Bible studies that we have been in.
Again, why would I have him speak to a pastor at all?
I think Waco1947 is saying he doesn't think that was a loving choice. Or a just one.
And if your criteria is WWJD, I don't think Jesus would kick a kid out of his house for being openly gay. He's otherwise a good kid--class valdictorian, a student athlete, someone who managed his own college application and admission process.
Doesn't sound like a troublesome kid to me unless his parents are trying to force him to share their religious beliefs, or at least live as if he does (including attending a church that preaches that gay and transgendered people are sinners) until he leaves home. I can't imagine how a loving parent would want a gay son to attend a church week after week where he is verbally battered from the pulpit. Even if he's bright enough to understand the wrong-headedness of that--and he obviously is--it has to hurt.
Finally, supporting a woman's right to make HER own choices doesn't mean YOU would make the same choice. It means you believe strongly enough in separation of church and state and in the rights of individual in a democracy that purports to value personal freedom that you want to make sure, under law, that women have the right to make their own choice about a very personal matter--and that you believe a just government would never seek to dictate such a personal choice for anyone, male or female.
I'd go further: If the government is empowered to force pregnant women to remain pregnant until they give birth or have a miscarriage, why should that same government not be empowered to force a man who keeps fathering children he can't support to have a vasectomy by court order. If you want to intrude into people's reproductive choices because you don't want them to make bad ones, it seems like you'd be in favor of allowing that intrusion when it's in the public interest to stop a guy who can't or won't support the children he fathers from continuing to produce children who must be supported by taxpayers.
However, the REASON a woman chooses to end a pregnancy is none of your business. Period.
If she's an equal citizen under law, she has the right to make medical decisions, including whether to remain pregnant, for herself.
You may disagree with her choice OR her motives because of your religious belief that abortion = murder. That should not empower you to stop her from making her own choice. SHE is the one who will have to live with the consequences of whatever she decides for the rest of her life.
The REASON a woman kills a human life IS my business...just as a REASON for someone committing discrimination, murder, or bullying IS my business even though I am not involved.
My opposition has zero to do with religion. I was anti-abortion before I attended church. It's about responsibility and accepting the consequences of one's actions...consequences that don't deprive someone else of the ability to have life.
You are, of course, free to try to outlaw abortion in your state and in the country as a whole. If you succeed, you will simply drive women online to order Plan B pills or into other states or countries where women's rights to determine their own fates without government interference are acknowledged and respected.
But what it really sounds like you want to do is punish women for "having sex and having it irresponsibly." What about men who do the same?
fadskier said:No, pretty much what you have said to me in various threads.Waco1947 said:You fabricated all these dialogues and in the meantime did not answer Is the gay child going to hell according to your interpretation of the Bible?fadskier said:Child: I think I'm gayWaco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
Waco: It's okay, the Bible is false on it's teaching about homosexuality and your parents are stupid.. Be gay!
Woman: I made a bad decision and had unprotected sex, what should I do? Should I abort?
Waco: Abort that thing...God doesn't care
Man: we have a 6month old and he's a pain in the butt...our lives just aren't the same
Waco: Should have aborted it, but since the child is completely dependent on you, you are allowed personal decision making in what is good for you, so whatever..
Man: But what does the Bible say?
Waco: the Bible was written long ago by these guys who didn't understand today's complex decision making. It's okay. God is love.
An illegitimate institution should have no standing to delegitimize anyone.Sam Lowry said:
A couple points of fact, if I may. There's no such thing as being delegitimized by the church. Also, being excommunicated doesn't mean you're going to hell.
My point is that giving back a penance compared to the enormous wealth the Church amasses is part of their business model. It keeps people like you engaged, and giving of your money and time. I think it would be shocking how little the Church gives back as a percentage of its income, much less overall wealth. Our public and news media becomes enraged when it is exposed how little charities such as Red Cross give back. I would speculate those charities most criticized would pale up against the Catholic Church. Can you tell me how much of the Church's wealth or income is given back to the homeless and hungry?Canada2017 said:TexasScientist said:Ok. How many billions of dollars were distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities? Does anyone really know, other than the elite within the church? Certainly they give something, in order to justify the fleecing of its parishioners. The Church no doubt is one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest institution in the world. There is no transparency to the Catholic Church. I wonder why?Canada2017 said:TexasScientist said:The Catholic Church has never been a bastion of morality or moral authority. It's a political animal with the purpose of amassing wealth.Sam Lowry said:America is not a Catholic country. Our laws and opinions for and against contraception have never been based on Catholic dogma. I'm not even sure why we're talking about Catholicism. As for the Church and its moral authority, I really don't think any sort of atonement will improve your opinion unless you understand what the Church teaches and why.Jinx 2 said:The Church does, however, teach that use of contraception is immoral. Coke Bear calls NFP a "moral" form of family planning. But most Americans and most Catholics do not believe a woman or couple's decision to use an effective form of contraception is immoral.Sam Lowry said:
What I'm saying is, the Church doesn't teach that desire is unvirtuous or that women who've had sex are impure. Your description of the doctrine is incorrect. You may think the actual Catholic (and Protestant) teachings about contraception are incorrect too, but that's another issue.
There are different estimates of the failure rate of NFP, depending on who's doing the numbers and which method or combination of methods you're talking about. Planned Parenthood calls it between 12% and 24%. Assuming that's accurate, the better methods are only slightly less effective than the Pill, which according to Quash's link has a failure rate of 9%. I'm not arguing that NFP is the optimal method in terms of pregnancy prevention. I find it advantageous for its lack of harmful side effects, both medical and moral.
Trying to impose the Church's view that God should and must make the decision regarding whether every single sex act will result in a pregnancy is not congruent with separation of church and state. While I disagree with your beliefs, they would not bother me nearly so much if the Church has not and did not still advocate their implementation as government policy with the force of law.
Sadly, what it's taken to end that, in Ireland at least, is evidence of the fact that the Church was perfectly willing to police the bedrooms of its members, but not its priests or of its institutions for children or for unwed mothers. A vigorous interest in life in the womb becomes considerably less credible when people learn that the children of unwed mothers who weren't sold away from their mothers in Irish institutions were starved, abused, received abysmal medical treatment, and were dumped in mass graves after they died of curable childhood illnesses, all because they were considered inferior children of sin, and that mothers who bore children out of wedlock were essentially enslaved. THAT is why Ireland voted itself out from under canon law--because it protects the Church and covers over the sins of its priests, nuns and employees, while condemning married couples for wanting to have sex without fear of a pregnancy resulting. If Church officials and members would acknowledge and atone for this level of hypocrisy and actually do something about it instead of doing everything it possibly can to avoid the criminal consequences that should result from such abuse or paying child support (in the cases of priests who fathered children), that would make things a little better. But, instead, the Church demands a level of morality from ordinary parishioners it does not require of its leaders.
So, IMO, the Church has certainly lost any moral authority it might assert to non-Catholics, and Catholics, rather than preaching to protestants about the immorality of contraception, should be demanding that priests and Church leadership be accountable for THEIR sins instead of holding the rest of the world accountable while excusing, ignoring and hiding their own transgressions.
The billions of dollars distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities ?
Fella you are beyond bitter.
Catholic Charities has been aiding the poor world wide for a very long time. Even here in northern Colorado they are one of the very few agencies that routinely aid the homeless and hungry . In the fall and winter I volunteer at the local homeless service center. Part of the budget is provided by Catholic Charities. They also provide the relief mission in Greeley and Fort Collins.
Fleece the parishioners ? chuckle
Never fear fella, you are too 'clever' to be fleeced by the 'elite' involved with Catholic Charities.
I guess you refer to the Bible that is chock full of errors and contradictions. The Bible that in part was compiled over the span of centuries, selectively from scraps of texts written from decades of repeated oral tales, by some with a religious agenda. Doesn't every preacher standing in the pulpit interpret it to mean what they want it to mean?fadskier said:False. There is only one unforgivable sin. Once again, you interpret the Bible to mean what YOU want it to mean.Waco1947 said:Yes, He's my Lord and Savior. Now answer I Corinthians 6:9fadskier said:Do they trust Jesus as their savior?Waco1947 said:So your against the Bible's clear teaching I Corinthians 6: 9 do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.fadskier said:I have no say in who goes to hell. The only people that I think might be in hell are those who deny Christ and have no personal relationship with him. God decides who that is. If you are a child of God, all sins are forgiven..and one sin is no greater than another.Waco1947 said:You fabricated all these dialogues and in the meantime did not answer Is the gay child going to hell according to your interpretation of the Bible?fadskier said:Child: I think I'm gayWaco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
Waco: It's okay, the Bible is false on it's teaching about homosexuality and your parents are stupid.. Be gay!
Woman: I made a bad decision and had unprotected sex, what should I do? Should I abort?
Waco: Abort that thing...God doesn't care
Man: we have a 6month old and he's a pain in the butt...our lives just aren't the same
Waco: Should have aborted it, but since the child is completely dependent on you, you are allowed personal decision making in what is good for you, so whatever..
Man: But what does the Bible say?
Waco: the Bible was written long ago by these guys who didn't understand today's complex decision making. It's okay. God is love.
You're avoiding aren't you? You don't want to condemn your own child to hell. You don't want your pastor preaching verse to him. I don't blame you.
But it is lots of anti gay parents suddenly become pro gay.
Sam, if your parents have been married for 18 years and you and your sister are 14 and 9 when their marriage is annulled (Mom was a Methodist who didn't convert, but attended mass, raised her daughters as Catholic and was an active volunteer at their Catholic school, as she had devoted herself to raising them full-time), and the Church annuls your marriage, you aren't "delegitimized" under civil law, but you appear to be under canon law, as the assertion in an annulment is that it wasn't a true marriage in the church.Sam Lowry said:
A couple points of fact, if I may. There's no such thing as being delegitimized by the church. Also, being excommunicated doesn't mean you're going to hell.
TexasScientist said:My point is that giving back a penance compared to the enormous wealth the Church amasses is part of their business model. It keeps people like you engaged, and giving of your money and time. I think it would be shocking how little the Church gives back as a percentage of its income, much less overall wealth. Our public and news media becomes enraged when it is exposed how little charities such as Red Cross give back. I would speculate those charities most criticized would pale up against the Catholic Church. Can you tell me how much of the Church's wealth or income is given back to the homeless and hungry?Canada2017 said:TexasScientist said:Ok. How many billions of dollars were distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities? Does anyone really know, other than the elite within the church? Certainly they give something, in order to justify the fleecing of its parishioners. The Church no doubt is one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest institution in the world. There is no transparency to the Catholic Church. I wonder why?Canada2017 said:TexasScientist said:The Catholic Church has never been a bastion of morality or moral authority. It's a political animal with the purpose of amassing wealth.Sam Lowry said:America is not a Catholic country. Our laws and opinions for and against contraception have never been based on Catholic dogma. I'm not even sure why we're talking about Catholicism. As for the Church and its moral authority, I really don't think any sort of atonement will improve your opinion unless you understand what the Church teaches and why.Jinx 2 said:The Church does, however, teach that use of contraception is immoral. Coke Bear calls NFP a "moral" form of family planning. But most Americans and most Catholics do not believe a woman or couple's decision to use an effective form of contraception is immoral.Sam Lowry said:
What I'm saying is, the Church doesn't teach that desire is unvirtuous or that women who've had sex are impure. Your description of the doctrine is incorrect. You may think the actual Catholic (and Protestant) teachings about contraception are incorrect too, but that's another issue.
There are different estimates of the failure rate of NFP, depending on who's doing the numbers and which method or combination of methods you're talking about. Planned Parenthood calls it between 12% and 24%. Assuming that's accurate, the better methods are only slightly less effective than the Pill, which according to Quash's link has a failure rate of 9%. I'm not arguing that NFP is the optimal method in terms of pregnancy prevention. I find it advantageous for its lack of harmful side effects, both medical and moral.
Trying to impose the Church's view that God should and must make the decision regarding whether every single sex act will result in a pregnancy is not congruent with separation of church and state. While I disagree with your beliefs, they would not bother me nearly so much if the Church has not and did not still advocate their implementation as government policy with the force of law.
Sadly, what it's taken to end that, in Ireland at least, is evidence of the fact that the Church was perfectly willing to police the bedrooms of its members, but not its priests or of its institutions for children or for unwed mothers. A vigorous interest in life in the womb becomes considerably less credible when people learn that the children of unwed mothers who weren't sold away from their mothers in Irish institutions were starved, abused, received abysmal medical treatment, and were dumped in mass graves after they died of curable childhood illnesses, all because they were considered inferior children of sin, and that mothers who bore children out of wedlock were essentially enslaved. THAT is why Ireland voted itself out from under canon law--because it protects the Church and covers over the sins of its priests, nuns and employees, while condemning married couples for wanting to have sex without fear of a pregnancy resulting. If Church officials and members would acknowledge and atone for this level of hypocrisy and actually do something about it instead of doing everything it possibly can to avoid the criminal consequences that should result from such abuse or paying child support (in the cases of priests who fathered children), that would make things a little better. But, instead, the Church demands a level of morality from ordinary parishioners it does not require of its leaders.
So, IMO, the Church has certainly lost any moral authority it might assert to non-Catholics, and Catholics, rather than preaching to protestants about the immorality of contraception, should be demanding that priests and Church leadership be accountable for THEIR sins instead of holding the rest of the world accountable while excusing, ignoring and hiding their own transgressions.
The billions of dollars distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities ?
Fella you are beyond bitter.
Catholic Charities has been aiding the poor world wide for a very long time. Even here in northern Colorado they are one of the very few agencies that routinely aid the homeless and hungry . In the fall and winter I volunteer at the local homeless service center. Part of the budget is provided by Catholic Charities. They also provide the relief mission in Greeley and Fort Collins.
Fleece the parishioners ? chuckle
Never fear fella, you are too 'clever' to be fleeced by the 'elite' involved with Catholic Charities.
I think what the verses are saying (at least to me) is that if one commits these sins without repentance, then they could go to hell.TexasScientist said:I guess you refer to the Bible that is chock full of errors and contradictions. The Bible that in part was compiled over the span of centuries, selectively from scraps of texts written from decades of repeated oral tales, some with a religious agenda. Doesn't every preacher standing in the pulpit interpret it to mean what they want it to mean?fadskier said:False. There is only one unforgivable sin. Once again, you interpret the Bible to mean what YOU want it to mean.Waco1947 said:Yes, He's my Lord and Savior. Now answer I Corinthians 6:9fadskier said:Do they trust Jesus as their savior?Waco1947 said:So your against the Bible's clear teaching I Corinthians 6: 9 do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.fadskier said:I have no say in who goes to hell. The only people that I think might be in hell are those who deny Christ and have no personal relationship with him. God decides who that is. If you are a child of God, all sins are forgiven..and one sin is no greater than another.Waco1947 said:You fabricated all these dialogues and in the meantime did not answer Is the gay child going to hell according to your interpretation of the Bible?fadskier said:Child: I think I'm gayWaco1947 said:
Fadskier, if one of your children came out of the closet would you want them to talk to me as their pastor or your SBC pastor? And why?
Waco: It's okay, the Bible is false on it's teaching about homosexuality and your parents are stupid.. Be gay!
Woman: I made a bad decision and had unprotected sex, what should I do? Should I abort?
Waco: Abort that thing...God doesn't care
Man: we have a 6month old and he's a pain in the butt...our lives just aren't the same
Waco: Should have aborted it, but since the child is completely dependent on you, you are allowed personal decision making in what is good for you, so whatever..
Man: But what does the Bible say?
Waco: the Bible was written long ago by these guys who didn't understand today's complex decision making. It's okay. God is love.
You're avoiding aren't you? You don't want to condemn your own child to hell. You don't want your pastor preaching verse to him. I don't blame you.
But it is lots of anti gay parents suddenly become pro gay.
Waco1947 said:
Fadskier said "Did I say the pastor would set him straight on doctrine? I don't believe I said that. I think I said almost the opposite. A pastor is the spiritual leader of the church? Christ is the head of the church. I am the spiritual leader of my family.
To answer your question, I would have no problem with my child talking to my current preacher. I would, however, never allow you to speak to one of my family members. You twist God's word to mean what you want. You can preach about God's love and acceptance without leaving out his expectations, commandments and consequences of sin."
'Consequences of sin' which are? Going to hell for being an unrepentant, practicing gay.
That's what you and your pastor will say if your gay son said, "Am I going to hell because I am gay and unrepentant and practicing." How about just a bit honesty here?
The Catholic Church has historically done a good job of running schools, hospitals and charities, and I looked to that as an example for our Methodist church during the years we attended there.Canada2017 said:TexasScientist said:My point is that giving back a penance compared to the enormous wealth the Church amasses is part of their business model. It keeps people like you engaged, and giving of your money and time. I think it would be shocking how little the Church gives back as a percentage of its income, much less overall wealth. Our public and news media becomes enraged when it is exposed how little charities such as Red Cross give back. I would speculate those charities most criticized would pale up against the Catholic Church. Can you tell me how much of the Church's wealth or income is given back to the homeless and hungry?Canada2017 said:TexasScientist said:Ok. How many billions of dollars were distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities? Does anyone really know, other than the elite within the church? Certainly they give something, in order to justify the fleecing of its parishioners. The Church no doubt is one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest institution in the world. There is no transparency to the Catholic Church. I wonder why?Canada2017 said:TexasScientist said:The Catholic Church has never been a bastion of morality or moral authority. It's a political animal with the purpose of amassing wealth.Sam Lowry said:America is not a Catholic country. Our laws and opinions for and against contraception have never been based on Catholic dogma. I'm not even sure why we're talking about Catholicism. As for the Church and its moral authority, I really don't think any sort of atonement will improve your opinion unless you understand what the Church teaches and why.Jinx 2 said:The Church does, however, teach that use of contraception is immoral. Coke Bear calls NFP a "moral" form of family planning. But most Americans and most Catholics do not believe a woman or couple's decision to use an effective form of contraception is immoral.Sam Lowry said:
What I'm saying is, the Church doesn't teach that desire is unvirtuous or that women who've had sex are impure. Your description of the doctrine is incorrect. You may think the actual Catholic (and Protestant) teachings about contraception are incorrect too, but that's another issue.
There are different estimates of the failure rate of NFP, depending on who's doing the numbers and which method or combination of methods you're talking about. Planned Parenthood calls it between 12% and 24%. Assuming that's accurate, the better methods are only slightly less effective than the Pill, which according to Quash's link has a failure rate of 9%. I'm not arguing that NFP is the optimal method in terms of pregnancy prevention. I find it advantageous for its lack of harmful side effects, both medical and moral.
Trying to impose the Church's view that God should and must make the decision regarding whether every single sex act will result in a pregnancy is not congruent with separation of church and state. While I disagree with your beliefs, they would not bother me nearly so much if the Church has not and did not still advocate their implementation as government policy with the force of law.
Sadly, what it's taken to end that, in Ireland at least, is evidence of the fact that the Church was perfectly willing to police the bedrooms of its members, but not its priests or of its institutions for children or for unwed mothers. A vigorous interest in life in the womb becomes considerably less credible when people learn that the children of unwed mothers who weren't sold away from their mothers in Irish institutions were starved, abused, received abysmal medical treatment, and were dumped in mass graves after they died of curable childhood illnesses, all because they were considered inferior children of sin, and that mothers who bore children out of wedlock were essentially enslaved. THAT is why Ireland voted itself out from under canon law--because it protects the Church and covers over the sins of its priests, nuns and employees, while condemning married couples for wanting to have sex without fear of a pregnancy resulting. If Church officials and members would acknowledge and atone for this level of hypocrisy and actually do something about it instead of doing everything it possibly can to avoid the criminal consequences that should result from such abuse or paying child support (in the cases of priests who fathered children), that would make things a little better. But, instead, the Church demands a level of morality from ordinary parishioners it does not require of its leaders.
So, IMO, the Church has certainly lost any moral authority it might assert to non-Catholics, and Catholics, rather than preaching to protestants about the immorality of contraception, should be demanding that priests and Church leadership be accountable for THEIR sins instead of holding the rest of the world accountable while excusing, ignoring and hiding their own transgressions.
The billions of dollars distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities ?
Fella you are beyond bitter.
Catholic Charities has been aiding the poor world wide for a very long time. Even here in northern Colorado they are one of the very few agencies that routinely aid the homeless and hungry . In the fall and winter I volunteer at the local homeless service center. Part of the budget is provided by Catholic Charities. They also provide the relief mission in Greeley and Fort Collins.
Fleece the parishioners ? chuckle
Never fear fella, you are too 'clever' to be fleeced by the 'elite' involved with Catholic Charities.
You are the one making the incredibly vicious accusations.
Back up your own claims. Or is it more self gratifying to hate without reason ?
In addition....name me just 2 non governmental organizations that do MORE for the poor world wide than Catholic Charities.
I've never even heard of one that comes anywhere close.
