Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

The Catholic Church has never been a bastion of morality or moral authority. It's a political animal with the purpose of amassing wealth.

---

The billions of dollars distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities ?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

I don't know about vicious. I think that is a little extreme. Nevertheless, they are rooted in truth.

I don't hate anyone. However, I have reason to make my claims. My claims are self evident. There is no formal public accounting of the funds or activities of the Catholic Church. It's all conducted behind a veil of secrecy. Why would that be? It's that way by design. The Vatican Bank, which controls just a fraction of the Catholic wealth, has a long history of pervasive corruption, and scandal. My claims are backed up by the paltry lack of evidence to support substantial and significant charity for an organization of its size, wealth and capabilities.

If one wants to look into the heart of the Catholic Church, look no further than its pomp and ceremony, elaborately robed clergy, and gilded Cathedrals. All characteristics of what I believe Jesus seemed to condemn in the Sadducees and Pharisees.

Certainly the Catholic Church has and does some charitable things. But, to what extent compared to its overall wealth? What is the percentage of its charity? It's business model would fail without charity. My point is, there no accountability, not even to its parishioners, of its activities or wealth. We've seen that amply demonstrated in the courts. Prove that I'm wrong. You can't because there is no credible information to refute my claims. There is no transparency to the Church, so no one can truly know how significant its charity really is. Clearly there is a lot of evil within the Church to go along with whatever it decides to allocate to charity.

Polycarp I believe in hell. It is separation from the love of God. Hell is failure to love neighbor as yourself.
But the question was personal not rhetorical?
Do you put a principle "no one can enter the kingdom if gay" over the love principle.
I can't be a can't like Seth's father (if the issue is really about being gay. All the issues raised are smoke screens to the key issue gay) I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep.

Waco1947 said:

---

Polycarp I believe in hell. It is separation from the love of God. Hell is failure to love neighbor as yourself.
But the question was personal not rhetorical?
Do you put a principle "no one can enter the kingdom if gay" over the love principle.
I can't be a can't like Seth's father (if the issue is really about being gay. All the issues raised are smoke screens to the key issue gay) I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep.

---

In my post, I clearly stated that the principle you stated above is not true. I do not deny that some make that statement. The Proverbs tell us that differing weights are an abomination. Don't pair all of us who are orthodox with the same brush.

Jinx,

Canon law states that children of a valid or putatively valid marriage are legitimate. A putatively valid marriage is a marriage that at least one partner enters in good faith. In any case, legitimacy is a legal concept dating back to when civil authorities looked to the Church to help determine inheritance. It has no moral or spiritual significance for the child.

Excommunication means you can't receive the sacraments until you repent. It's not intended to be permanent. You don't have to be a member of the true church to go to heaven unless you believe it is the true church.

Unfortunately some bishops and hospital administrators don't understand Church doctrine regarding abortion to save the mother's life. The nun in Phoenix most likely shouldn't have been excommunicated (it depends on the circumstances, so I'd have to research in order to be sure).

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know about vicious. I think that is a little extreme. Nevertheless, they are rooted in truth.

I don't hate anyone. However, I have reason to make my claims. My claims are self evident. There is no formal accounting of the funds or activities of the Catholic Church. It's all conducted behind a veil of secrecy. Why would that be? It's that way be design. The Vatican Bank, which controls just a fraction of the Catholic wealth, has a long history of pervasive corruption, and scandal. My claims are backed up by the paltry lack of evidence to support substantial and significant charity for an organization of its size, wealth and capabilities.

If one wants to look into the heart of the Catholic Church, look no further than its pomp and ceremony, elaborately robed clergy, and gilded Cathedrals. All characteristics of what I believe Jesus seemed to condemn in the Sadducees and Pharisees.

Certainly the Catholic Church has and does some charitable things. But, to what extent compared to its overall wealth? What is the percentage of its charity? It's business model would fail without charity. My point is, there no accountability, not even to its parishioners, of its activities or wealth. We've seen that amply demonstrated in the courts. Prove that I'm wrong. You can't because there is no credible information to refute my claims. There is no transparency to the Church, so no one can truly know how significant its charity really is. Clearly there is a lot of evil within the Church to go along with whatever it decides to allocate to charity.

---

It's estimated that the Church spent $170 billion in America in 2010. 57% went for health care, 28% for colleges, 6% for daily operations, 2.7% for other charities, and the remainder for other purposes including schools. If that's not substantial and significant charity, I don't know what is.

Few churches of any kind are transparent because they're exempt from filing income taxes and annual information returns. If that's a problem, it's a problem with the separation of church and state, not with Catholicism.

Waco1947 said:

---

Polycarp I believe in hell. It is separation from the love of God. Hell is failure to love neighbor as yourself.
But the question was personal not rhetorical?
Do you put a principle "no one can enter the kingdom if gay" over the love principle.
I can't be a can't like Seth's father (if the issue is really about being gay. All the issues raised are smoke screens to the key issue gay) I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep.

---

"no one can enter the kingdom if gay"

Why do you make being gay different from any other sin? No one I know or have ever heard of says that "no one can enter the kingdom if a sinner". Unless, of course, that sin isn't accompanied by fatih and belief in Jesus' atonement (which includes an acknowledgment of that fact that you're a sinner, i.e. repentance and asking for forgiveness)



"I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep."

So, no need of Jesus? Why do you call yourself a Christian again?

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Polycarp I believe in hell. It is separation from the love of God. Hell is failure to love neighbor as yourself.
But the question was personal not rhetorical?
Do you put a principle "no one can enter the kingdom if gay" over the love principle.
I can't be a can't like Seth's father (if the issue is really about being gay. All the issues raised are smoke screens to the key issue gay) I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep.

---

"no one can enter the kingdom if gay"

Why do you make being gay different from any other sin? No one I know or have ever heard of says that "no one can enter the kingdom if a sinner". Unless, of course, that sin isn't accompanied by fatih and belief in Jesus' atonement (which includes an acknowledgment of that fact that you're a sinner, i.e. repentance and asking for forgiveness)



"I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep."

So, no need of Jesus? Why do you call yourself a Christian again?

---

Eph 2:8-9

There are several verses left out of Waco's Bible

I bet it sucks to be coke's kid.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know about vicious. I think that is a little extreme. Nevertheless, they are rooted in truth.

I don't hate anyone. However, I have reason to make my claims. My claims are self evident. There is no formal accounting of the funds or activities of the Catholic Church. It's all conducted behind a veil of secrecy. Why would that be? It's that way be design. The Vatican Bank, which controls just a fraction of the Catholic wealth, has a long history of pervasive corruption, and scandal. My claims are backed up by the paltry lack of evidence to support substantial and significant charity for an organization of its size, wealth and capabilities.

If one wants to look into the heart of the Catholic Church, look no further than its pomp and ceremony, elaborately robed clergy, and gilded Cathedrals. All characteristics of what I believe Jesus seemed to condemn in the Sadducees and Pharisees.

Certainly the Catholic Church has and does some charitable things. But, to what extent compared to its overall wealth? What is the percentage of its charity? It's business model would fail without charity. My point is, there no accountability, not even to its parishioners, of its activities or wealth. We've seen that amply demonstrated in the courts. Prove that I'm wrong. You can't because there is no credible information to refute my claims. There is no transparency to the Church, so no one can truly know how significant its charity really is. Clearly there is a lot of evil within the Church to go along with whatever it decides to allocate to charity.

---

It's estimated that the Church spent $170 billion in America in 2010. 57% went for health care, 28% for colleges, 6% for daily operations, 2.7% for other charities, and the remainder for other purposes including schools. If that's not substantial and significant charity, I don't know what is.

Few churches of any kind are transparent because they're exempt from filing income taxes and annual information returns. If that's a problem, it's a problem with the separation of church and state, not with Catholicism.

---

Estimated - that is my point. You don't really know what they really did spend, nor how substantial in comparison to what they are capable. What did they pay out in court and outside settlements? Where and how are they spending their parishioners money around the world?

I don't think you would give a penny to any other charitable organization that has no transparency, and which refuses to produce audited financial statements and refuses open and full disclosure of their activities. I don't know of any other protestant church organization that operates to that degree of secrecy. Other churches disclose their financial condition and activities to their members and parishioners, either directly or to governing boards or delegations that are elected from the membership/parishioners. Televangelists and the Catholic/Orthodox churches are the only ones I am aware of in the Christian west that operate in such secrecy. Would you give to any other charity that operates without transparency, full disclosure, and accountability?

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't think you would give a penny to any other charitable organization that has no transparency, and which refuses to produce audited financial statements and refuses open and full disclosure of their activities. I don't know of any other protestant church organization that operates to that degree of secrecy. Other churches disclose their financial condition and activities to their members and parishioners, either directly or to governing boards or delegations that are elected from the membership/parishioners. Televangelists and the Catholic/Orthodox churches are the only ones I am aware of in the Christian west that operate in such secrecy. Would you give to any other charity that operates without transparency, full disclosure, and accountability?

---

Every month, our church (St. Jerome - Waco) prints a full statement of it's revenue, expenses, and budget performance and inserts them into the bulletin. All Catholic churches do this.

They do something similar at the diocesan level.

pitchman said:

---

I bet it sucks to be coke's kid.

---

I'll bite ... why is that?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know about vicious. I think that is a little extreme. Nevertheless, they are rooted in truth.

I don't hate anyone. However, I have reason to make my claims. My claims are self evident. There is no formal accounting of the funds or activities of the Catholic Church. It's all conducted behind a veil of secrecy. Why would that be? It's that way be design. The Vatican Bank, which controls just a fraction of the Catholic wealth, has a long history of pervasive corruption, and scandal. My claims are backed up by the paltry lack of evidence to support substantial and significant charity for an organization of its size, wealth and capabilities.

If one wants to look into the heart of the Catholic Church, look no further than its pomp and ceremony, elaborately robed clergy, and gilded Cathedrals. All characteristics of what I believe Jesus seemed to condemn in the Sadducees and Pharisees.

Certainly the Catholic Church has and does some charitable things. But, to what extent compared to its overall wealth? What is the percentage of its charity? It's business model would fail without charity. My point is, there no accountability, not even to its parishioners, of its activities or wealth. We've seen that amply demonstrated in the courts. Prove that I'm wrong. You can't because there is no credible information to refute my claims. There is no transparency to the Church, so no one can truly know how significant its charity really is. Clearly there is a lot of evil within the Church to go along with whatever it decides to allocate to charity.

---

It's estimated that the Church spent $170 billion in America in 2010. 57% went for health care, 28% for colleges, 6% for daily operations, 2.7% for other charities, and the remainder for other purposes including schools. If that's not substantial and significant charity, I don't know what is.

Few churches of any kind are transparent because they're exempt from filing income taxes and annual information returns. If that's a problem, it's a problem with the separation of church and state, not with Catholicism.

---

Estimated - that is my point. You don't really know what they really did spend, nor how substantial in comparison to what they are capable. What did they pay out in court and outside settlements? Where and how are they spending their parishioners money around the world?

I don't think you would give a penny to any other charitable organization that has no transparency, and which refuses to produce audited financial statements and refuses open and full disclosure of their activities. I don't know of any other protestant church organization that operates to that degree of secrecy. Other churches disclose their financial condition and activities to their members and parishioners, either directly or to governing boards or delegations that are elected from the membership/parishioners. Televangelists and the Catholic/Orthodox churches are the only ones I am aware of in the Christian west that operate in such secrecy. Would you give to any other charity that operates without transparency, full disclosure, and accountability?

---

Most Catholic parishes conduct external audits. It's the smaller ones, both Catholic and Protestant, that are less likely to do so. Additionally, canon law requires each diocese to have a finance council composed of non-clergy financial experts.

Every denomination has abusers. No one likes it when church money goes to pay judgments and settlements, but it's better that they be paid rather than not.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx,

Canon law states that children of a valid or putatively valid marriage are legitimate. A putatively valid marriage is a marriage that at least one partner enters in good faith. In any case, legitimacy is a legal concept dating back to when civil authorities looked to the Church to help determine inheritance. It has no moral or spiritual significance for the child.

Excommunication means you can't receive the sacraments until you repent. It's not intended to be permanent. You don't have to be a member of the true church to go to heaven unless you believe it is the true church.

Unfortunately some bishops and hospital administrators don't understand Church doctrine regarding abortion to save the mother's life. The nun in Phoenix most likely shouldn't have been excommunicated (it depends on the circumstances, so I'd have to research in order to be sure).

---

How would you feel if you were one of the daughters whose mother's marriage was annulled by the church so Dad could marry his girlfriend--a woman he had an extramarital affair with and left his first marriage to marry?

Honestly, I don't think the girls' parents would have stayed married--they had very different goals in life. The husband wanted an independent woman who would contribute income to the marriage; the wife did not want to work, other than as a volunteer, and wanted to live a very comfortable upper-middle class life--kids in private school, her ability to volunteer there and with local charities- with his support. She had discouraged his ambition of starting his own business because it involved financial risk that she was concerned would jeopardizing their very comfortable life. The other woman was an independent, accomplished professional whose income could support both of them while the husband started his own company.

The wife had no marketable skills and ended up with a part-time job as a preschool teacher at the girls' Catholic school while she earned her teaching credentials. Without alimony and child support, she wouldn't have managed.

I don't blame the Church for this situation, but I know the annulment made both daughters bitter, because they believed it devalued the marriage that had produced them, and that its true purpose was to enable their father to marry another woman with whom he'd had an affair and still remain a member of his church.

Polycarp said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Polycarp I believe in hell. It is separation from the love of God. Hell is failure to love neighbor as yourself.
But the question was personal not rhetorical?
Do you put a principle "no one can enter the kingdom if gay" over the love principle.
I can't be a can't like Seth's father (if the issue is really about being gay. All the issues raised are smoke screens to the key issue gay) I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep.

---

In my post, I clearly stated that the principle you stated above is not true. I do not deny that some make that statement. The Proverbs tell us that differing weights are an abomination. Don't pair all of us who are orthodox with the same brush.

---

Hell is separation from God. That's truth. So what hell are you talking about?

fadskier said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Polycarp I believe in hell. It is separation from the love of God. Hell is failure to love neighbor as yourself.
But the question was personal not rhetorical?
Do you put a principle "no one can enter the kingdom if gay" over the love principle.
I can't be a can't like Seth's father (if the issue is really about being gay. All the issues raised are smoke screens to the key issue gay) I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep.

---

"no one can enter the kingdom if gay"

Why do you make being gay different from any other sin? No one I know or have ever heard of says that "no one can enter the kingdom if a sinner". Unless, of course, that sin isn't accompanied by fatih and belief in Jesus' atonement (which includes an acknowledgment of that fact that you're a sinner, i.e. repentance and asking for forgiveness)



"I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep."

So, no need of Jesus? Why do you call yourself a Christian again?

---

Eph 2:8-9

There are several verses left out of Waco's Bible

---

.
Ain't nothing wrong with my answer. The words are straight from Jesus. "I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep."
I will go with Jesus over Paul on my answer to the gay young man. Is there a problem ranking Jesus ahead of Paul?

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Polycarp I believe in hell. It is separation from the love of God. Hell is failure to love neighbor as yourself.
But the question was personal not rhetorical?
Do you put a principle "no one can enter the kingdom if gay" over the love principle.
I can't be a can't like Seth's father (if the issue is really about being gay. All the issues raised are smoke screens to the key issue gay) I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep.

---

"no one can enter the kingdom if gay"

Why do you make being gay different from any other sin? No one I know or have ever heard of says that "no one can enter the kingdom if a sinner". Unless, of course, that sin isn't accompanied by fatih and belief in Jesus' atonement (which includes an acknowledgment of that fact that you're a sinner, i.e. repentance and asking for forgiveness)



"I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep."

So, no need of Jesus? Why do you call yourself a Christian again?

---

Eph 2:8-9

There are several verses left out of Waco's Bible

---

.
Ain't nothing wrong with my answer. The words are straight from Jesus. "I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep."
I will go with Jesus over Paul on my answer to the gay young man. Is there a problem ranking Jesus ahead of Paul?

---

There you go, twisting the words again. No one said you answer is wrong...although "feeding his sheep" is not a requirement to get into Heaven....neither is loving your neighbor...but whatever. You're giving a very general, generic answer which someone could give to all sins. Not sure what your point is.

Jinx 2 said:

---

How would you feel if you were one of the daughters whose mother's marriage was annulled by the church so Dad could marry his girlfriend--a woman he had an extramarital affair with and left his first marriage to marry?

---

As a child whose parents did obtain an annulment thru the Church, I feel OK, now.

Having said that, any child that has to live thru divorce is going to have some issues to cope with. I didn't understand them until years later. I split nights with both parents. One lived in Hewitt and the other in Woodway. I spent several years bouncing between the two homes on my specified nights. It never really bothered me then. Kids are malleable. My mom moved to another city several years later. At that point when I only had to drive to one house 7 nights a week did I realize the relief and weight off my shoulders.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I don't blame the Church for this situation, but I know the annulment made both daughters bitter, because they believed it devalued the marriage that had produced them, and that its true purpose was to enable their father to marry another woman with whom he'd had an affair and still remain a member of his church.

---

I don't know what, how or why those daughters were told about the annulment. Purely conjecture here, but it would have been shameful, ignorant or both for someone to tell those girls that they were not legitimate.

I'm sorry that they had to live thru that. Divorce sucks. I hope they the can return to the church to get the healing and understanding that they need.

Illegitimacy is not a moral or spiritual state. That is a civil concept. The Church NEVER uses the term Illegitimate for children. They are a gift from God no matter how they are conceived: rape, in vitro, in or out of wedlock.

As Sam mentioned earlier, an annulment only states that at the time of wedding, a defect existed that keep the sacrament of marriage from being valid. It matters not how many children the couple had or how many years they were married.

Some of the potential defects are couples that marry because the girl is pregnant, couples that marry very young, when one of the spouses was drunk at the time of the wedding, or several other factors.

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Polycarp I believe in hell. It is separation from the love of God. Hell is failure to love neighbor as yourself.
But the question was personal not rhetorical?
Do you put a principle "no one can enter the kingdom if gay" over the love principle.
I can't be a can't like Seth's father (if the issue is really about being gay. All the issues raised are smoke screens to the key issue gay) I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep.

---

"no one can enter the kingdom if gay"

Why do you make being gay different from any other sin? No one I know or have ever heard of says that "no one can enter the kingdom if a sinner". Unless, of course, that sin isn't accompanied by fatih and belief in Jesus' atonement (which includes an acknowledgment of that fact that you're a sinner, i.e. repentance and asking for forgiveness)



"I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep."

So, no need of Jesus? Why do you call yourself a Christian again?

---

Eph 2:8-9

There are several verses left out of Waco's Bible

---

.
Ain't nothing wrong with my answer. The words are straight from Jesus. "I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep."
I will go with Jesus over Paul on my answer to the gay young man. Is there a problem ranking Jesus ahead of Paul?

---

There you go, twisting the words again. No one said you answer is wrong...although "feeding his sheep" is not a requirement to get into Heaven....neither is loving your neighbor...but whatever. You're giving a very general, generic answer which someone could give to all sins. Not sure what your point is.

---

My point is your theology lands gays in hell. My theology lands them in the loving arms of God.
Your theology is Pauline driven I Corinthians 6:9.
My theology is Jesus driven
"You shall love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself." Feed his sheep is the task of discipleship. It's how one lives a life of faith.
Condemning gays is not Jesus sheep. It's the opposite. It's confemning them for being themselves.

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Polycarp I believe in hell. It is separation from the love of God. Hell is failure to love neighbor as yourself.
But the question was personal not rhetorical?
Do you put a principle "no one can enter the kingdom if gay" over the love principle.
I can't be a can't like Seth's father (if the issue is really about being gay. All the issues raised are smoke screens to the key issue gay) I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep.

---

"no one can enter the kingdom if gay"

Why do you make being gay different from any other sin? No one I know or have ever heard of says that "no one can enter the kingdom if a sinner". Unless, of course, that sin isn't accompanied by fatih and belief in Jesus' atonement (which includes an acknowledgment of that fact that you're a sinner, i.e. repentance and asking for forgiveness)



"I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep."

So, no need of Jesus? Why do you call yourself a Christian again?

---

Eph 2:8-9

There are several verses left out of Waco's Bible

---

.
Ain't nothing wrong with my answer. The words are straight from Jesus. "I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep."
I will go with Jesus over Paul on my answer to the gay young man. Is there a problem ranking Jesus ahead of Paul?

---

There you go, twisting the words again. No one said you answer is wrong...although "feeding his sheep" is not a requirement to get into Heaven....neither is loving your neighbor...but whatever. You're giving a very general, generic answer which someone could give to all sins. Not sure what your point is.

---

My point is your theology lands gays in hell. My theology lands them in the loving arms of God.
Your theology is Pauline driven I Corinthians 6:9.
My theology is Jesus driven
"You shall love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself." Feed his sheep is the task of discipleship. It's how one lives a life of faith.
Condemning gays is not Jesus sheep. It's the opposite. It's confemning them for being themselves.

---

You know nothing of my theology...just what you THINK or WANT it to be. The fact is we are all condemned to hell unless we accept Christ as our savior. If you've done that, then you are Heaven bound.

Why does that anger you so much?

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Polycarp I believe in hell. It is separation from the love of God. Hell is failure to love neighbor as yourself.
But the question was personal not rhetorical?
Do you put a principle "no one can enter the kingdom if gay" over the love principle.
I can't be a can't like Seth's father (if the issue is really about being gay. All the issues raised are smoke screens to the key issue gay) I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep.

---

"no one can enter the kingdom if gay"

Why do you make being gay different from any other sin? No one I know or have ever heard of says that "no one can enter the kingdom if a sinner". Unless, of course, that sin isn't accompanied by fatih and belief in Jesus' atonement (which includes an acknowledgment of that fact that you're a sinner, i.e. repentance and asking for forgiveness)



"I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep."

So, no need of Jesus? Why do you call yourself a Christian again?

---

Eph 2:8-9

There are several verses left out of Waco's Bible

---

.
Ain't nothing wrong with my answer. The words are straight from Jesus. "I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep."
I will go with Jesus over Paul on my answer to the gay young man. Is there a problem ranking Jesus ahead of Paul?

---

There you go, twisting the words again. No one said you answer is wrong...although "feeding his sheep" is not a requirement to get into Heaven....neither is loving your neighbor...but whatever. You're giving a very general, generic answer which someone could give to all sins. Not sure what your point is.

---

My point is your theology lands gays in hell. My theology lands them in the loving arms of God.
Your theology is Pauline driven I Corinthians 6:9.
My theology is Jesus driven
"You shall love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself." Feed his sheep is the task of discipleship. It's how one lives a life of faith.
Condemning gays is not Jesus sheep. It's the opposite. It's confemning them for being themselves.

---

You know nothing of my theology...just what you THINK or WANT it to be. The fact is we are all condemned to hell unless we accept Christ as our savior. If you've done that, then you are Heaven bound.

Why does that anger you so much?

---

Saying that you accept Christ as your savior is nothing more than believing in a magical incantation unless it changes your life over the course of time. That was the point of several of Jesus' parables, and it was why James wrote that faith without works is dead. So I object when I hear people say that salvation is about accepting Jesus as your savior. That's not wrong, but it's only partly right, and the part that gets left out makes all the difference.

bubbadog said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Polycarp I believe in hell. It is separation from the love of God. Hell is failure to love neighbor as yourself.
But the question was personal not rhetorical?
Do you put a principle "no one can enter the kingdom if gay" over the love principle.
I can't be a can't like Seth's father (if the issue is really about being gay. All the issues raised are smoke screens to the key issue gay) I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep.

---

"no one can enter the kingdom if gay"

Why do you make being gay different from any other sin? No one I know or have ever heard of says that "no one can enter the kingdom if a sinner". Unless, of course, that sin isn't accompanied by fatih and belief in Jesus' atonement (which includes an acknowledgment of that fact that you're a sinner, i.e. repentance and asking for forgiveness)



"I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep."

So, no need of Jesus? Why do you call yourself a Christian again?

---

Eph 2:8-9

There are several verses left out of Waco's Bible

---

.
Ain't nothing wrong with my answer. The words are straight from Jesus. "I will love the kid, I will tell him God loves him and he will enter the kingdom of God By living God, neighbor and self and feeding his sheep."
I will go with Jesus over Paul on my answer to the gay young man. Is there a problem ranking Jesus ahead of Paul?

---

There you go, twisting the words again. No one said you answer is wrong...although "feeding his sheep" is not a requirement to get into Heaven....neither is loving your neighbor...but whatever. You're giving a very general, generic answer which someone could give to all sins. Not sure what your point is.

---

My point is your theology lands gays in hell. My theology lands them in the loving arms of God.
Your theology is Pauline driven I Corinthians 6:9.
My theology is Jesus driven
"You shall love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself." Feed his sheep is the task of discipleship. It's how one lives a life of faith.
Condemning gays is not Jesus sheep. It's the opposite. It's confemning them for being themselves.

---

You know nothing of my theology...just what you THINK or WANT it to be. The fact is we are all condemned to hell unless we accept Christ as our savior. If you've done that, then you are Heaven bound.

Why does that anger you so much?

---

Saying that you accept Christ as your savior is nothing more than believing in a magical incantation unless it changes your life over the course of time. That was the point of several of Jesus' parables, and it was why James wrote that faith without works is dead. So I object when I hear people say that salvation is about accepting Jesus as your savior. That's not wrong, but it's only partly right, and the part that gets left out makes all the difference.

---

I agree, but works don't get you in. The thief on the cross had no works...he had only faith. Granted, your life should show a change, but we are not to judge that change.

Jinx 2 said:

---

How would you feel if you were one of the daughters whose mother's marriage was annulled by the church so Dad could marry his girlfriend--a woman he had an extramarital affair with and left his first marriage to marry?

Honestly, I don't think the girls' parents would have stayed married--they had very different goals in life. The husband wanted an independent woman who would contribute income to the marriage; the wife did not want to work, other than as a volunteer, and wanted to live a very comfortable upper-middle class life--kids in private school, her ability to volunteer there and with local charities- with his support. She had discouraged his ambition of starting his own business because it involved financial risk that she was concerned would jeopardizing their very comfortable life. The other woman was an independent, accomplished professional whose income could support both of them while the husband started his own company.

The wife had no marketable skills and ended up with a part-time job as a preschool teacher at the girls' Catholic school while she earned her teaching credentials. Without alimony and child support, she wouldn't have managed.

I don't blame the Church for this situation, but I know the annulment made both daughters bitter, because they believed it devalued the marriage that had produced them, and that its true purpose was to enable their father to marry another woman with whom he'd had an affair and still remain a member of his church.

---

It's impossible to say how I'd feel. There are all kinds of reactions, from relief to resentment, depending on the circumstances and the people involved.

The Church is in a lose/lose position with something like this. If they never allow re-marriage, some people hate it. If they grant annulments, some people hate that. I believe annulment is a biblical solution, but like anything else it is subject to abuse.

bubbadog said:

---

I understand what it says, but it's just an ex post facto rationale the Church can use for couples when one or both partners don't want to be marries and divorce is not an option. The whole "defect" argument would be laughable if the Church didn't employ it with such certainty and solemnity.

When you get down to it, annulment is a bit like the practice of temporary "pleasure marriages" in Islam, whereby a man can have a long weekend getaway with his mistress without technically cheating on his wife. They're both shams that undermine a principle of the law while outwardly claiming to support it.

---

I can understand your point from an outsider (and critic) looking in. Annulments are not handed out like candy in the church. It can take up to a year and half or longer to obtain one. I have a friend that has been going thru the process for about 8 months. He hates the wait; however, he understands the reward.

The Church has to declare with certainty, otherwise it doesn't have authority. Some "defects" are easier to rectify like a defect of form - when a Catholic marries outside the Church without a dispensation.

The tribunal takes their role very seriously. A canon lawyer is assigned to defend the "marriage" at the hearing. It is a painful and difficult take. I highly disagree with the notion that an annulment is similar to a "pleasure marriage."

I have attached a link from Catholic.com that explains the annulment process.

So what happens to a child or infant that dies before proffesion of faith? Or what happens to the person raised and living in a different culture around the world? Are they condemned to hell?

TexasScientist said:

---

So what happens to a child or infant that dies before proffesion of faith? Or what happens to the person raiseded and living in a different culture around the world? Are they condemned to hell?

---

If you are asking what I believe, I do not believe an infant can go to hell. I think someone has to hear the word of God first and then reject it. I would give the same answer to someone of a different culture.

Coke Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

I understand what it says, but it's just an ex post facto rationale the Church can use for couples when one or both partners don't want to be marries and divorce is not an option. The whole "defect" argument would be laughable if the Church didn't employ it with such certainty and solemnity.

When you get down to it, annulment is a bit like the practice of temporary "pleasure marriages" in Islam, whereby a man can have a long weekend getaway with his mistress without technically cheating on his wife. They're both shams that undermine a principle of the law while outwardly claiming to support it.

---

I can understand your point from an outsider (and critic) looking in. Annulments are not handed out like candy in the church. It can take up to a year and half or longer to obtain one. I have a friend that has been going thru the process for about 8 months. He hates the wait; however, he understands the reward.

Well, yeah, because the reward is a divorce that you don't have to call a divorce. That's the real bottom line.

The Church has to declare with certainty, otherwise it doesn't have authority. Some "defects" are easier to rectify like a defect of form - when a Catholic marries outside the Church without a dispensation.

Marrying "outside" without a dispensation is a whole other can of doctrinal worms. I hadn't thought to open it, but since you did, I'll talk about it. I understand the Church's need and desire to keep people within the Catholic fold and not have the faith diluted by marriage to outsiders. That was an issue all the way back to the patriarchs of Israel, and a reason why the covenant passed through Jacob rather than Esau, who had married a Canaanite. It's still an issue in Orthodox, Conservative and some Reform Jewish congregations today.

On the other hand, Catholicism instills a rather unecumenical belief that Protestants aren't full-fledged Christians. We try to pretend that belief doesn't exist when we work together on common ends, such as aid to the poor and to refugees, but it never goes away. Two of my kids went to Catholic School, and I saw it first-hand. My wife and I liked both the quality of the education and the religious environment. But there were also times when it just ran the kids into a wall of isolation. Only about 5 percent of the kids in the school were Protestant; I actually liked for my kids to learn what it was like to be a small minority within a given community -- something they weren't likely to encounter elsewhere in our society. I remember when the older kid was in second grade and most of her classmates were using the time devoted to religious instruction to prepare for first communion. The 2-3 Protestant kids were kept behind with one of the young nuns for a separate activity. (In my experience, the young nuns, at least among the Dominican order, are most likely to be the fanatics.) One day the "left behind" kids were told to write a prayer and draw something to accompany it. I remember with a sense of heartbreak seeing the prayer she had written: "Dear God, I am not a Catholic but please love me anyway." I actually talked to the principal about it; the nuns had not looked at this prayer and realized they needed to offer any assurance that Jesus loves ALL the little children equally. The principal was -- how should I put this? -- not very helpful. We dutifully went to attend the First Communion service at the cathedral. I helped the principal pick up the programs from the pews afterward. The programs had a prominent notice that Protestants were not allowed to receive communion; I wish I remembered the exact wording, but the message expressed regret for this policy due to what the Protestants had done.

I mean: at one level I understand the exclusivity, and Catholics aren't the only ones who practice closed communion. (Wesleyans understand it as Christ's table, not the church's, and note that not even Judas was excluded from the last supper.) On another level, my reaction is: **** that. They can do what they want, and I can tell them to **** themselves when they preach that Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians are schismatics who don't embrace the truth. That kind of bull**** just gives people like Texas Scientist more ammunition.



The tribunal takes their role very seriously. A canon lawyer is assigned to defend the "marriage" at the hearing. It is a painful and difficult take. I highly disagree with the notion that an annulment is similar to a "pleasure marriage."

I have attached a link from Catholic.com that explains the annulment process.

Not to push the comparison too far, but there are formal procedures for "pleasure marriages," too. I became acquainted with some of them this morning during a google search. I'm sure the tribunals take annulment seriously. That wasn't my point. The point was that both annulments and pleasure marriages are formalized ways of getting around the focus and intent of religious doctrine so that believers can do something that goes against what the doctrine was meant to promote.

---

bubbadog said:

---

Well, yeah, because the reward is a divorce that you don't have to call a divorce. That's the real bottom line.

---

Well have to agree to disagree here. After a fair amount of studying, I can find a distinction.

bubbadog said:

---

Marrying "outside" without a dispensation is a whole other can of doctrinal worms. I hadn't thought to open it, but since you did, I'll talk about it. I understand the Church's need and desire to keep people within the Catholic fold and not have the faith diluted by marriage to outsiders. That was an issue all the way back to the patriarchs of Israel, and a reason why the covenant passed through Jacob rather than Esau, who had married a Canaanite. It's still an issue in Orthodox, Conservative and some Reform Jewish congregations today.

---

Catholics are free to marry whom ever they like. When someone becomes baptized into the Catholic faith they are required to follow all the rules. One of the rules is having your wedding in a church, preferably a Catholic church. The reason for this is because the Church views marriage as a sacrament. Dispensations are given for those who want to marry is another faiths church. Having said that, generally a priest or deacon will be present.

Because this sacrament is held so sacred, the Church requires 6 months notification and preparation with the couple to ensure that they understand what they are entering. In a Catholic marriage, the couple actually "marries" each other by stating the vows to one another. The priest is the witness to this marriage.

bubbadog said:

---

On the other hand, Catholicism instills a rather unecumenical belief that Protestants aren't full-fledged Christians. We try to pretend that belief doesn't exist when we work together on common ends, such as aid to the poor and to refugees, but it never goes away. Two of my kids went to Catholic School, and I saw it first-hand. My wife and I liked both the quality of the education and the religious environment. But there were also times when it just ran the kids into a wall of isolation. Only about 5 percent of the kids in the school were Protestant; I actually liked for my kids to learn what it was like to be a small minority within a given community -- something they weren't likely to encounter elsewhere in our society. I remember when the older kid was in second grade and most of her classmates were using the time devoted to religious instruction to prepare for first communion. The 2-3 Protestant kids were kept behind with one of the young nuns for a separate activity. (In my experience, the young nuns, at least among the Dominican order, are most likely to be the fanatics.) One day the "left behind" kids were told to write a prayer and draw something to accompany it. I remember with a sense of heartbreak seeing the prayer she had written: "Dear God, I am not a Catholic but please love me anyway." I actually talked to the principal about it; the nuns had not looked at this prayer and realized they needed to offer any assurance that Jesus loves ALL the little children equally. The principal was -- how should I put this? -- not very helpful. We dutifully went to attend the First Communion service at the cathedral. I helped the principal pick up the programs from the pews afterward. The programs had a prominent notice that Protestants were not allowed to receive communion; I wish I remembered the exact wording, but the message expressed regret for this policy due to what the Protestants had done.

I mean: at one level I understand the exclusivity, and Catholics aren't the only ones who practice closed communion. (Wesleyans understand it as Christ's table, not the church's, and note that not even Judas was excluded from the last supper.) On another level, my reaction is: **** that. They can do what they want, and I can tell them to **** themselves when they preach that Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians are schismatics who don't embrace the truth. That kind of bull**** just gives people like Texas Scientist more ammunition.

---

Wow - that's a lot to unpack here, but I'll try in bullet point ...

• Catholicism preaches that Protestants ARE Christian. It recognizes them as separated brethren, but still as Christians. (She will exclude JW's, Mormons, and Oneness Pentecostals.)

• I'm sorry to hear that you felt somewhat ostracized in your children's school. Some schools are better than others at presenting this teaching. They should have been allowed to attend mass, line up for Communion with their arms crossed and received a blessing from the priest.

• Unhelpful principal: Sorry to hear about this as well. Sometimes educators (like many others) fail to explain the faith. It's sad that it was the principal in this instance.

• Communion: Because Catholics believe, as you know, that the bread and wine become the ACTUAL Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, the Church requires all recipients be Catholic, FULLY accept all dogmas of the faith AND are free from all mortal sin. She requires this not be be exclusive; however, out of complete charity for the soul of those people. When you ready in 1 Cor 11:27-30 ...
Why whoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.... the Church doesn't want anyone to put their sole into jeopardy.

• Bulletin announcement: That church should have framed much better. It has nothing because of something Protestants have done. It's sad that they phrased it like that.

• "F-that" paragraph: The Church will state that all Protestant faiths have truth. She will argue that the Catholic church has the fullness of truth and grace because it has all seven sacraments that Christ instituted.

• Schismatics: I never heard the Church necessarily preach that Protestants are schismatics. But ask yourself, if they are not in agreement with the Church on some dogmas and doctrines, are they in schism with the church?

bubbadog said:

---

Not to push the comparison too far, but there are formal procedures for "pleasure marriages," too. I became acquainted with some of them this morning during a google search. I'm sure the tribunals take annulment seriously. That wasn't my point. The point was that both annulments and pleasure marriages are formalized ways of getting around the focus and intent of religious doctrine so that believers can do something that goes against what the doctrine was meant to promote.

---

Once again, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure that I met someone who was allow to be married in the church that went into the marriage with the express desire to end it with an annulment.

This discussion may be playing out, but I'll just add a couple more things.

I know that Catholics and Protestants have different views of the sacraments. There are also differences among some Protestant denominations on this. Methodists recognize two sacraments: baptism and holy communion.

Jesus certainly affirmed marriage as given from God. In John's gospel his ministry begins with his attendance of a wedding (and Cana is no mere stroll from Nazareth). But I see nothing that requires marriage to be a sacrament. I have no problem with Catholics viewing it that way, as long as they don't try to insist that this view is the only correct one. To me, that's one of those differences like the way Catholics and Protestants depict crucifixes. A Catholic crucifix always has Jesus on it, in order to emphasize his suffering. Valid point. Protestant crucifixes always depict an empty cross, to emphasize that Jesus' suffering wasn't the end. Also a valid point.

In terms of communion, I hear your rationale, but I'm not buying it. To me, a closed table is just wrong, and that criticism applies equally to the Protestant denominations that follow this practice. I can't tell you how often I've encountered the attitude among people who haven't been properly brought up in the church -- seekers, homeless persons, souls who have been damaged by churches instead of helped -- that they are unworthy to approach the table that commemorates Christ's sacrifice and love for all. They've somehow gotten it into their head that communion is only for those who are fully part of the community -- the elect, the saved, whatever you want to call it. When they hear that not even Judas was excluded, although Jesus fully knew what he was about to do, it comes at them like an epiphany. I believe the Catholic Church has misapplied the scripture you cited from Corinthians. The "unworthy manner" to which Paul refers is actually about the failure of some of the Corinthians to treat others as equally beloved and important members of the body of Christ. They weren't sharing just wine and bread (the notion of transubstantiation was utterly irrelevant to the "love feasts" in Paul's churches); they were sharing a full meal. The wealthier members were following more of the practice of Greco-Roman banquets, where the A-list guests got the best food and drink, and the C- and D-list guests got much less. In other words, they're mimicking Roman society, which was heavily stratified into pecking orders. Such is antithetical to Paul's teaching that all members are parts of the same body -- the analogy he develops much more explicitly just a few chapters later -- and so there can be no distinctions among Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female (and of course rich or poor). Ironically for the Catholic Church's point of view, it's not lack of full membership or inculcation that makes one unworthy; according to Paul, it was the denial of the full membership of others.

Having said all that, I want to emphasize my love for the Catholic Church and much of Catholic practice. It has been noted by scholars that Jesus had much more in common with the Pharisees than differences. But because the gospels were written after 70 AD, when the only groups remaining from the swirl of pre-Diaspora Judaism were the Pharisees and the Jesus followers, these two groups began to emphasize their points of difference rather than the far greater weight of views and practices they held in common.

That's sort of where I am with the Catholic Church. I have emphasized what I think they get wrong, and some of it is REALLY wrong. But there is much more that I love and admire:

the greater sense of equality you see among participants at Catholic masses, where all are truly welcome (many Protestant churches are a LONG way from achieving that)
the ethic of life that, while not yet perfectly consistent, is much more so than I see in most Protestant churches
the social teachings of the church and the way those are acted out. Protestants more often preach and practice charity for the poor as doing individual good works, and of course that's wonderful so far as it goes. Catholics go a bit further and insisting that it is a matter of theology -- that caring for the poor is the theological response of the entire community to scripture's insistence that all human interactions must flow from the recognition that all human beings are made in the image of God and must, therefore, be treated as equally beloved members of the beloved community. Protestantism, with its rise that mirrored the rise of individualistic Western capitalism, has lost some of this communal ethic, to its detriment. Not only that, I sometimes find outright hostility among some Protestants to the idea that Christianity is practiced as a community. To such poorly catechized Protestants, such an idea sounds dangerously socialistic. It is perhaps not surprising that, in the most materialistic and consumer-driven society in the history of the world, that Protestants might have unwittingly promoted a form of religious syncretism that treats Jesus like a commodity: "I got my Jesus, now you go and get some Jesus so you can be saved, too." The Catholic view is much more organic, more community-centered than individualistic, and in my opinion much closer to what Jesus taught and Paul preached. (Y'all screwed up, btw, not making Paul the first pope instead of Peter.)

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

The Catholic Church has never been a bastion of morality or moral authority. It's a political animal with the purpose of amassing wealth.

---

The billions of dollars distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities ?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

Clearly there is a lot of evil within the Church to go along with whatever it decides to allocate to charity.

---

Wrong....completely wrong.

There was is no evil within the Catholic Church. There have been a few bad individuals throughout the years.....but no more than with any other large organization.

And the good the Church has done throughout the years is massive.

Please tell me which atheist organizations have aided the world's poor anything approaching Catholic Charities ?

You can't because there arent any.

Over and over you attempt to mock or demean other people's faith . Amusing at times because you always declare your biases as ' true ' .

Hate to break it to ya fella....but merely because it's your opinion.....doesn't make it 'true'.

My family deeply enjoys our faith, the Catholic Church and the various social work through the Church.

Enjoy your atheism fella......it's all fine.

Fadskier "You know nothing of my theology...just what you THINK or WANT it to be. The fact is we are all condemned to hell unless we accept Christ as our savior. If you've done that, then you are Heaven bound.

Why does that anger you so much?" End

"I know nothing of your theology?"
That's silly. You have flung it at me over several pages.
You're a literal Bible believing Christian I guess because you quote scripture. When o counter with a scripture that clearly states at least to you and your literal (I Corinthian 6:9)
That gays do NOT enter the kingdom of heaven suddenly your Mr Non Judgmental. You can't have it both ways.
I don't interpret I Corinthians saying what literalist think it says because it includes sodom which many here have probably committed and greed and slander.
Fad you skate all around it but in general you think gays go to hell except of course if sin or daughter is gay then .... well.
PS Same for abortion. When it gets personal you get quishie on your moral certitude.

Waco1947 said:

---

Fadskier "You know nothing of my theology...just what you THINK or WANT it to be. The fact is we are all condemned to hell unless we accept Christ as our savior. If you've done that, then you are Heaven bound.

Why does that anger you so much?" End

"I know nothing of your theology?"
That's silly. You have flung it at me over several pages.
You're a literal Bible believing Christian I guess because you quote scripture. When o counter with a scripture that clearly states at least to you and your literal (I Corinthian 6:9)
That gays do NOT enter the kingdom of heaven suddenly your Mr Non Judgmental. You can't have it both ways.
I don't interpret I Corinthians saying what literalist think it says because it includes sodom which many here have probably committed and greed and slander.
Fad you skate all around it but in general you think gays go to hell except of course if sin or daughter is gay then .... well.
PS Same for abortion. When it gets personal you get quishie on your moral certitude.

---

Where did I say that I believe the Bible to be all literal?

I appreciate your lying about me because you know you have been called out for false teaching. Nowhere do I say that gays automatically go to Hell and no where do I say that someone who has aborted a baby goes to hell. Do you lie all the time? You curse AND you lie.

Where did I get "quishie" on abortion?

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

The Catholic Church has never been a bastion of morality or moral authority. It's a political animal with the purpose of amassing wealth.

---

The billions of dollars distributed to the worlds poor via Catholic Charities ?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

Clearly there is a lot of evil within the Church to go along with whatever it decides to allocate to charity.

---

Wrong....completely wrong.

There was is no evil within the Catholic Church. There have been a few bad individuals throughout the years.....but no more than with any other large organization.

And the good the Church has done throughout the years is massive.

Please tell me which atheist organizations have aided the world's poor anything approaching Catholic Charities ?

You can't because there arent any.

Over and over you attempt to mock or demean other people's faith . Amusing at times because you always declare your biases as ' true ' .

Hate to break it to ya fella....but merely because it's your opinion.....doesn't make it 'true'.

My family deeply enjoys our faith, the Catholic Church and the various social work through the Church.

Enjoy your atheism fella......it's all fine.

It takes a tremendous amount of chutzpah to say "There was no evil within the Catholic Church" when a report detailing sexual abuse by 300 priests is about to come out, Cardinal McCarrick, who preyed on young men seeking to enter the priesthood, was just forced to resign, and a mass grave at Tuam care home for unwed mothers and babies in Ireland was discovered last year.

The Church is a human institition, and like all human institutions, has both good and evil people in its midst and always has had.

The statement "There was no evil within the Catholic Church" defines the problem with the Church's failure to address that evil: Church officials and some members refused to see, hear or speak of the evil. That doesn't mean there was none. It does mean there was an enormous amount of denial, aided by a very conscious institutional effort to sweep the evidence under the rug and obfuscate access to it.

---

Canada "There was is no evil within the Catholic Church. There have been a few bad individuals throughout the years.....but no more than with any other large organization"
The Medieval Age called. They left this message
Aaron Edwards
93.8k views 10 items
You might say the Catholic Church was the glue that held medieval Europe together. Unfortunately, that glue got a kick out of instigating campaigns of terror and death in the name of the big man on the throne in the sky. Executions ordered by popes or carried out in his name by Church authorities were not a civilized affair. Indeed, Vatican execution methods often involved long stretches of humiliation and torture in the build up to some of the most horrific deaths you can fathom. Heretical thoughts were serious business to Church leaders, so they dealt with them in the most serious ways they could. That seriousness brought about sadism and terror that's still a black mark against the intuition.

Who was persecuted? Jews, Muslims, accused witches, and really anyone who didn't conform to the Church's beliefs. Catholic Inquisition executions were often carried out by and at the discretion of friars or other minor religious authorities, acting on behalf of popes or monarchs. So, better not to piss off anyone associated with the Church, lest they elect to slice you to ribbons in the name of God. During this time you also had executions in Papal States, over which the Vatican held dominion.

Some free advice: if you end up time traveling to Europe between, say, the fall of Rome and 1700 or so, try not to piss off any Catholics. If you, it's possible one of these brutal execution methods awaits you.

Aaron Jones

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada "There was is no evil within the Catholic Church. There have been a few bad individuals throughout the years.....but no more than with any other large organization"
The Medieval Age called. They left this message
Aaron Edwards
93.8k views 10 items
You might say the Catholic Church was the glue that held medieval Europe together. Unfortunately, that glue got a kick out of instigating campaigns of terror and death in the name of the big man on the throne in the sky. Executions ordered by popes or carried out in his name by Church authorities were not a civilized affair. Indeed, Vatican execution methods often involved long stretches of humiliation and torture in the build up to some of the most horrific deaths you can fathom. Heretical thoughts were serious business to Church leaders, so they dealt with them in the most serious ways they could. That seriousness brought about sadism and terror that's still a black mark against the intuition.

Who was persecuted? Jews, Muslims, accused witches, and really anyone who didn't conform to the Church's beliefs. Catholic Inquisition executions were often carried out by and at the discretion of friars or other minor religious authorities, acting on behalf of popes or monarchs. So, better not to piss off anyone associated with the Church, lest they elect to slice you to ribbons in the name of God. During this time you also had executions in Papal States, over which the Vatican held dominion.

Some free advice: if you end up time traveling to Europe between, say, the fall of Rome and 1700 or so, try not to piss off any Catholics. If you, it's possible one of these brutal execution methods awaits you.

Aaron Jones

---

Waco - I will not sit here and claim that the Catholic Church hasn't had her issues over the last two thousand years. She has. The Church has had her fair share of sinners. She has faced them and is better and stronger. Quite frankly, I feel that it's a testament to "the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

Having said that, I do not know who this Aaron Jones person is that you quote. What authority does he speak? As a historian or theologian or apologist? He regurgitating false accusations on the Spanish Inquisitions. Even Protestant scholars today have read the extensive records about that period and they now realize that England and Germany spread false propaganda to discredit the church's authority.

The accused could only be tortured for 10 or 15 minutes and never more than once a day. During the 350 year period, less than 3000 people were executed by the state for heresy. Records show that because people were treated better in the Church's prisons, civil criminals would often make declarations of heresy to be transferred there.

Why were the Spanish Inquisitions started? Because Spain had finally rid the Iberian peninsula of Muslims after 700 years of oppression. The state instituted the Inquisitions. The Church interrogated the "heretics." Spain, which was a Catholic country, wanted to insure that the Muslims were gone. Sadly, some innocent Jews were persecuted in this.

Were their methods right? I'd say no. I don't think that torture is the right thing to do. Sadly, hundreds of years later, our government has been using torture to obtain information. Studies have shown that torture doesn't reveal truth. It only gives what the torturers want to hear.