How about a third option, in that I fully understand the snow job you're trying to pull here, and don't like it one bit. The problem is that I do understand. As a Christian, we have an obligation to get it right, and getting it wrong about what Christ teaches is a serious problem. Do you not realize that I'm a convert, Robert? Yes, I understand the atheists and agnostics and what many of them do believe. Because I was one of them myself. My purpose is straightforward, to make sure that people who do encounter Christianity encounter the truth. Nothing more or less. Truth is the most important thing. Telling an atheist that Christ thinks he's an ok fellow, and that he really doesn't need Jesus to make his life better, how is that going to motivate anyone to believe in Him? Wouldn't they be happier staying where they are, if Christianity is just a bunch of watered-down bullshit. People crave, then and now, the real deal. Jesus gave that to them. Our duty is to carry on his mission here. Heirarchy simply means that you have a structure, that you have a division of labor and that you assign the task of overseeing to the elders. Which you do do. Why can't you simply admit that you were bullshitting us by saying "we don't have a heirarchy". Yes you do. You have elders and you have deacons. What do you have to gain by denying what is obvious? So not only do you have a heirarchy within the church, but your synod has a structure similar to the Catholic church. What would happen to a church that defied the rules of the synod? And if I'm not mistaken - depending on where you are in Europe - your church isn't even free. If the state passes laws, your church is bound to those laws. They can't defy the laws even at the cost of remaining true to what Christ teaches. America is very, very different. There's no 'state church' here. Fine, then. If you love Him more, state that Christ teaches that homosexuality is sinful. I was an atheist Robert, you're just blowing the usual bullshit up my ass. "Oh no, we don't tell anybody that they are sinners", bullcrap. People sin. Everyone sins. I sin, you sin, and we are all in need of redemption and repentence. You may think that you're doing people a favor by telling them that they are a-ok, but you're not. When people are sick, does it help them if they go to a doctor and he says, "no you're fine"? People who are sick need a doctor who is willing to tell them how it really is and get them the help they really need. Ok, so why do you believe that Christ died and rose again? That's right there in the Nicaean Creed. It's right there in that 'ancient document' that you say has no validity. Then you are not a Christian Robert. Christ is the Son of God, because he really did die on the cross. He really did suffer, die and was buried, and rose again. As true as Caesar crossing the rubicon. Do you believe this, Robert? That he really did die, or is it just some bullshit story that Christians made up? From what I can see, you would toss out Christ altogether and leave what? 20th century Northern European culture? Why not simply go to a rave if that's what you want? You can get that in many other places. Insofar as they corroborate with the Faith. I agree, I believe there are room for improvements, and I don't believe that just because it's always been done this way, that it is the best way of doing things. However, I also believe that if it was done a particular way, that it was done this way for a reason. The Catholic church has made some tremendous changes over the last 50 years, probably some of the most substantial in the last 500 years, maybe longer. The establishment of the Ordiniariate, is the first time we've seen anything like it. We're finally getting a new english translation of scripture - it would be nice to have a faithful translation to replace my Douay-Rheims, which is rather old. I don't believe the church should stand still. However, I do believe that the doctrine of the church is correct. We shouldn't be capitulating and changing doctrine because the world believes us to be wrong. That includes things like contraception, homosexuality, divorce, etc. And I'm not just tossing that at you, we have serious internal problems over these particular issues. A huge part of it is that people, our people, are not taught the catechesis to understand why. Bullcrap. If I want to 'rethink it', then why bother reading it? You read it to understand it, not change it to read what you prefer it to read. I was blown away when I first got my hands on the Gospel, just how much bullcrap people like you had stuffed my head about it. **** was real - yo. Jesus didn't talk about this pansy-ass bullcrap. Jesus didn't put up with it. Jesus was hardcore man, "leave your father and your mother", "store up for yourself treasures in heaven", "leave, come and follow me". Jesus rebuked Judas for preaching the bullshit we all hear, "why didn't you sell the perfume to the poor", because he ****ing understood that everything has it's proper time. He's the Son of God, and this was his anointing before being given up as a sacrifice, for all of our sins. I don't know how you can read that and not be blown away by the fact that he put up with all that bullshit people lay on each other and cut right to it to the core of the matter. We only get one shot, Robert. And we have to get it right. So, you bring them up and are unwilling to defend your statements? Lame. Man, I was a protestant. I never would have put up with being called out and just letting it slide. Speaks volumes. Perhaps, the 'errors' that you are speaking of, are errors because you haven't taken the time to do your homework, Robert. There hasn't been a prior teaching of the Church that's been shown to be false. There have been plenty of serious issues (hence all the ecumenical councils), that have hammered out much of the theology, and doubtless, there will be more to come. Or did the church never have false teachings? Has the church never made an error? No pope ever said something ex cathedra without making an error? Are you 100% sure about that? My point is that you're not salty at all, you've lost it. Salt is bitter. Salt that's no longer bitter, isn't salt anymore, and isn't giving you what you need. That means preaching the Law. People must be aware of the Law to know what is or is not sin. That means teaching that homosexuality is sinful, and preaching morals. The Law is all about morality. You seem confused on this point. You are right that the Law in itself isn't enough, that we need Christ in order to live in accordance to the law - but that doesn't mean we don't need the Law at all. We need the Law to understand what it is that God wants and expects of us. Robert, that's *exactly* what you are doing when you say that Christ doesn't preach morality and that homosexuality isn't sinful. You're giving people an out, when that this precisely the opposite of what Christ says. Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the Cross, the debt of our sins has been paid through His blood. By acknowledging, confessing and repenting my sins, Christ offers me eternal life. Depends on the sin. If I sin against the holy spirit and do not repent, then yes, I will be among the lost. You're right, I can't confess everything, I don't even know all the ways that my sin hurts other people. But in absolution, Christ offers me forgiveness for my sins. Confession isn't for God's sake, it's for mine. Matthew 5:19-20 His own words. Jesus is real, man. He doesn't put up with this half-assed bullshit. He wants all of you, or nothing. Unless one is convicted of sin, then there is no need for repentence. Look at what Paul preached to the Romans, to the Jews and to the Gentiles. Did Paul say, "I'm sure you are perfectly fine people who have no need for God in your lives, but just to be on the safe side? No. All right there. Paul didn't believe in I'm OK, and you're OK. I was on the other side Robert. I became convicted when I read what Christ had to say, that he understood, better than anyone else, what I'm really like. And he still gave himself up to die on the cross. Nobody forced salvation on me, but I had excellent teachers who taught me about Christ. And they did not pull punches. Had I been told what you say here, I'd still be an atheist. What's the point? Read acts, it's interesting to see how Paul (and others) to the Jews always bases the gospel on the Thora. But when Paul is speaking to the gentiles he's using another road to get to the gospel. He's not first teaching them the thora, making them accept it, and then bring the gospel. Jesus himself was an outcast and an annoying person. Good is not necessarily Nice, Robert. Same with Love. The best love kicks you in the ass and tells you work harder. It's really the central point of all this... When I can read Corinthians instead, which does just that? And it's not my idea, it's what scripture teaches. I list that one because that's the one you're covering for, and the one that you seem frightened to preach against. Sin is sin. Sodomy isn't more frightful than say murder, etc. If we can preach that murder is an evil then we can also preach that Sodomy is an evil too. It's like asking why everyone in an AA meeting is an alcoholic. Why I'm bringing it up with you is because it's the one you're afraid to preach against. And I'll keep preaching against it in the hopes that some will turn away. People did that for me, the least I can do is repay the favor. No. Now answer mine. Why do you believe they are different? Does Jesus say that homosexuality in Moses' time is different from homosexuality in his, and in ours? Nope. Doesn't work that way, Robert. You say that Christ is a liar. Right, that's because Jesus, the Son of God, explains that the OT was the beginners handbook and the Gospels the advanced manual. Rather than permitting divorce, he condemns it saying that marriage is for life, and so on. He takes the OT and explains why it didn't go as far as it should. True, there are issues where one can have legitimate disagreement. I regard the perpetual virginity as one of these since while it is Catholic doctrine, I don't see why anyone who isn't Catholic ought to be bound by it. Contraception is a whole different ball of wax. It's never been a Catholic-only teaching, until 1932, all the protestants were in agreement, Luther and all the reformers were in agreement, etc. Ok. You should have said that then. Yeah, it would, Robert. If it didn't cost you anything you'd be doing as I do. But it would and you're not willing to pay that price. Matthew 7:21