[TeemFilla]

You're late, this has already been posted Lonestar.

[Alexeryy]

Yep 1 percent of Christians in India oppressing the other 99.

[wiweimeli]

It's a stupid ignorant thing to do by the local RC overthere. And eventhough the RCC is doing a lot of stupid things lately it's still a bit silly to claim that the entire RCC is therefore stupid and silly. There may be other reasons, but that's not one of them.

I have heard a lot of ignorant wannabe atheists lately claim that the god particle showed that there was no god, b/c there was now a god-particle instead.
Anyway, the RCC really needs some major organizational structuring. Unfortunately it'll never allow that. The RCC doctrine is a rope around it's own neck. Only if they will reject some old church teachings (which are now sacred, and will therefore never change!) the church can't change and will therefore not survive.

Protestant churches do not have this problem b/c every church is local in protestantism. If a church doesn't evolve with time (which is a christian thing to do!) then the local church will just be replaced by another one.

The basic problem is just that humans are mainly conversative.
People don't like it to have their way of life and thinking change.
In the hypotethical situation where neo-Darwinism would be proven wrong by scientists and replaced by a new scientific theory, even then large majorities of todays scholars and scientist will reject that and Darwinism will live long after the scientific death of it. That's how we humans work and think. Only a few prefer change over stability. (and thanks to those few we are where we are today!)

But never make this silly mistake to think that 'you' are smarter or more enlightened b/c you follow a 'post modern' teaching while others follow a more dated teaching. You're just lucky for now. The real question is: will you be able to adopt or change if humanity progresses beyond your system?

[GotActichwicy]

Protestant churches do not have this problem b/c every church is local in protestantism. If a church doesn't evolve with time (which is a christian thing to do!) then the local church will just be replaced by another one.

Evolving with time is a christian thing to do? The thing about progress is it's all in the mind of the believer. Every individual has their own idea about what progress is. Likewise every generation also has their own idea about what progress is. But the truth is that every individual and every generation must start from the beginning. The progress that other individuals have made does nothing for the individual. Should future generations not have to grow closer to God the same as previous ones? Should they just be born with a higher status?

[Preegovesem]

Evolving with time is a christian thing to do? The thing about progress is it's all in the mind of the believer. Every individual has their own idea about what progress is. Likewise every generation also has their own idea about what progress is. But the truth is that every individual and every generation must start from the beginning. The progress that other individuals have made does nothing for the individual. Should future generations not have to grow closer to God the same as previous ones? Should they just be born with a higher status?

the gospel is clear about adopting to the culture. 'be a greek with the greek and a jew with the jews' and 'obey the laws of the king', etc.
Also Peter says to not be hated by others b/c you're interfering with their affairs.

Of course christians have always done a good job ignoring what their most important teachers (the Bible writers that is) told them. Jesus told us to not hate our enemies and slaughter them.... what did we do?

The many many many wrongs of christianity are not b/c of the christian doctrine but b/c of the christians, who are themselves nothing more then humans. And humans are like.... stopping progression

[tinetttstation]

How would you propose that the RCC ought to change their organization?

you know the answers I'll give....
The entire hierarchy should be gone. in christianity there aren't levels of hierarchy, we can learn from eachother of course, and some may know mroe then others, but in the end christianity is the faith of an individual. It's between 1 human and God.
Where there's hierarchy there's corruption and power and politics.

Which ones would you like to see go, Robert? All of them.

What makes you believe that human nature now is superior to human nature 500 years ago? Nothing, I didn't say such a thing.
Times are changing and so are cultures. Christianity is too often thought to be a moral answer on any whickd culture, but it is not.
Do you think that Paul thought slavery was good? No, he said that God had meant all to be equal, men and women, rich and poor, slaves and masters. Yet when a slave came to his door he send him back. And he asked women to accept the rule of their husbands. Not b/c he approved slavery or sexism. No, only b/c christianity isn't about having a moral judgement on any culture, but about spreading the gospel. If Paul would have liberated the slaves and the women, the gospel would have been lost for the men and the slavemasters.

But in the end I'm glad to live in this day and this culture.
Despite our arrogant attitude (humanity in general) we also care for eachother, we don't abuse women and slaves anymore. We respect the right of the individual. I think that's a good thing.

[lidya-sggf]

the gospel is clear about adopting to the culture. 'be a greek with the greek and a jew with the jews' and 'obey the laws of the king', etc.
Also Peter says to not be hated by others b/c you're interfering with their affairs.

I don't know what this has to do with believing that successive generations progress. Let's say a majority of a future generation is satanist. Does that mean christians should adopt satanistic doctrine? You completely sidestepped my point. The idea that future generations progress is all in your head. Where did you get this idea?
Of course christians have always done a good job ignoring what their most important teachers (the Bible writers that is) told them. Jesus told us to not hate our enemies and slaughter them.... what did we do? And did you realize that those people believed in progressivism? They believed that their generation had gained enlightenment, and that they knew better than early christians.
The many many many wrongs of christianity are not b/c of the christian doctrine but b/c of the christians, who are themselves nothing more then humans. And humans are like.... stopping progression Where do you get the idea that stopping 'progress' is inherently bad? "Progress" is just a word for what you believe and you've attached a positive word to it. But you've asssumed in the first place that you should know better than previous generations.

I'm not saying that previous generations were any better, as they believed similar to you. I'm saying that every generation believes that there is something special about them. There isn't. Every generation starts in the same place.

[easypokergonj]

Religion is the bane of humanity.

[Oriesssedleli419]

The entire hierarchy should be gone. in christianity there aren't levels of hierarchy, we can learn from eachother of course, and some may know mroe then others, but in the end christianity is the faith of an individual. It's between 1 human and God.
Where there's hierarchy there's corruption and power and politics. "Let us not give up the habit of meeting with one another."

We need each other, Robert. Nobody can pull the cart alone, and if you're going to try - it's just going to destroy you. Christianity is not designed to work as individuals, we are the Body of Christ. We need each other.

As for the heirarchy - Timothy is pretty clear that there exists a heirarchy of episcopai, (bishops), presbyteroi, (priests) and deacons. The threefold structure is biblical.

All of them So you'd throw out the Nicaean Creed? The Athanasian Creed?

Nothing, I didn't say such a thing. Then why not keep the old?

Times are changing and so are cultures. If the culture is not getting better, what is the imperative to change?

Christianity is too often thought to be a moral answer on any whickd culture, but it is not. Well, I'm a bit disappointed. You were a Christian, once, Robert. I remember. We used to write back and forth on these matters.

Do you think that Paul thought slavery was good? No, he said that God had meant all to be equal, men and women, rich and poor, slaves and masters. Yet when a slave came to his door he send him back. And he asked women to accept the rule of their husbands. Not b/c he approved slavery or sexism. No, only b/c christianity isn't about having a moral judgement on any culture, but about spreading the gospel. If Paul would have liberated the slaves and the women, the gospel would have been lost for the men and the slavemasters. Exactly. Which is why the Church should continue to teach that homosexuality is sinful. The Church never capitulated and taught that slavery was good, just because that is what the cultures of those times believed. Neither should the Church capitulate on their fundamental teachings just because of what society in general believes.

But in the end I'm glad to live in this day and this culture. Sure, for now. This world is only temporary, Robert. If you live for this world, you'll die with it as well.

I think that's a good thing. Better than Christ?

[excholza]

"Let us not give up the habit of meeting with one another."

We need each other, Robert. Nobody can pull the cart alone, and if you're going to try - it's just going to destroy you. Christianity is not designed to work as individuals, we are the Body of Christ. We need each other.

I didn't say we don't.
self-quote: "we can learn from eachother of course, and some may know mroe then others"
But getting together is something completely different then having a full-scale world size feudalistic hierarchy.

As for the heirarchy - Timothy is pretty clear that there exists a heirarchy of episcopai, (bishops), presbyteroi, (priests) and deacons. The threefold structure is biblical.

different positions is not the same as a hierarchy.
We also have deacons, elders, etc. in our church, but it's not a hierarchy.

So you'd throw out the Nicaean Creed? The Athanasian Creed?

As having authority? yes.

Then why not keep the old?

old generations make as much errors as new generations. Keeping old traditional texts as doctrine piles up the errors of the past. The RCC has clear examples of wrong doctrines of the past that the church can't get around now b/c they're authoritive now: Mary always a virgin, celibate, anti conception, to name just a few.
The first is based on a translation error in the first version of the Vulgate, for crying out loud, it has been corrected in the later versions, but the doctrine remains b/c it has been set one day and can never be changed after that.

So now the RCC is not only dealing with the errors of todays generation, but also with the errors of the past generations. Use the past as a point of reference but never as an authorized source. Never, b/c the people of the past made as many errors as the people now. And even the most holy pope was only a fallable human being.

If the culture is not getting better, what is the imperative to change?

be a greek with the greek and a jew with the jews.
Why? b/c we have a message for them. Not a moral legal bunch of rules.

Well, I'm a bit disappointed. You were a Christian, once, Robert. I remember. We used to write back and forth on these matters.

Christianity isn't about morals but about salvation.
It's not about trying to be a better man, but about acknowledging that you're a fallable man.
It's not about having faith in yourself to stop sinning, but about having faith in Christ.
It's not about telling other people about how wrong they are, but about how they can find help in Christ.
And everytime someone puts a focus on the first part of the above phrases, he's becoming a stand in the way for the 2nd part of the phrases, either for himself or for others.

Exactly. Which is why the Church should continue to teach that homosexuality is sinful.

Thanks to people like you non-christians think that christianity is all about being against gays. I bet you talk more about homosexuality then about Jesus Christ.
Thanks to people like you the gospel is a lost case for most gay people. If Paul would have been like you then no rich people and male humans would have been in the church today.

The Church never capitulated and taught that slavery was good, just because that is what the cultures of those times believed.

I'm not asking you to say that homosexuality is good, just adopt to it. The homosexuality of our times isn't the same as the homosexuality of Paul's time, or of Old Testament times. You can't copy and paste lines from ancient times to our times. Neither with slavery, neither with emancipation nor with homosexuality.

Neither should the Church capitulate on their fundamental teachings just because of what society in general believes.

So that's the fundamental teaching according to you?
See what happens when christians start to focus on the moral, they drift away from the real fundamental teaching: we are all sinners and should have faith in Christ, who must renew us.
Now it's all: "Renew yourself into my interpertation of the laws"

Sure, for now. This world is only temporary, Robert. If you live for this world, you'll die with it as well.
Better than Christ?

With whom was Jesus always arguing? With the sinners? No, with the know-all law preachers!

[TaliaJack]

FWIW, I don't think Paul thought there was anything inherently wrong in slavery. It was just what was the deal in his time. God sent the Holy Spirit so His revelation would continue for when we were ready for it. So while we weren't ready to acknowledge slavery was against God's will in Paul's time (even with the lessons of Exodus and Jesus being the new Moses leading us to freedom), we were ready in the time of William Wilberforce and Fredrick Douglas. He continues to make His purpose known if we are just open to it.

And Ben, the Papal Bulls Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex said that slavery was alright as long as not done to fellow Christians.

[car.insur]

Thanks Slow . That means a lot! Your heart is in the right place (well, when you aren't threatening to beat up people ) and that counts more than all the historical learning one can do about religion and God.

[bgsavings]

And Ben, the Papal Bulls Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex said that slavery was alright as long as not done to fellow Christians. If it was good, clearly they would not have made the distinction between Christians and non Christians. It was tolerated, in the sense that it was understood to be an evil. Paul even clarifies and says - "if you can go, then go". But he stops short from commanding the slaves to leave.

[PZXjoe]

FWIW, I don't think Paul thought there was anything inherently wrong in slavery. It was just what was the deal in his time. God sent the Holy Spirit so His revelation would continue for when we were ready for it. So while we weren't ready to acknowledge slavery was against God's will in Paul's time (even with the lessons of Exodus and Jesus being the new Moses leading us to freedom), we were ready in the time of William Wilberforce and Fredrick Douglas. He continues to make His purpose known if we are just open to it.

And Ben, the Papal Bulls Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex said that slavery was alright as long as not done to fellow Christians.

You don't really know if most christians will own slaves in the future or not. Oh and we had to fight a war and kill our own brothers to end slavery. Is that what you call the Holy Spirit in action? Do you think that Paul would have told people to kill to end slavery?

[ThzinChang]

According to the Christian Bible, yes. You 'Mercans should try reading it.

I don't think you have read it carefully.

Even Paul who was politically mister "don't rock the boat" said that there was no difference between slave and free and that slaves who can get free should.

JM
edit: Imran's reply is better

[hieklyintinee]

Yeah, the truth does that frequently.

[Anakattawl]

Do you believe that everyone accepts the Holy Spirit when freely offered? Or do you think that some people reject what the Spirit is trying to tell them?
.

Yes people sometimes reject what the Holy Spirit is telling them. But you don't need the Holy Spirit to tell you that slavery is wrong unless you don't have a conscience. And if you don't have a conscience then you won't listen to the Holy Spirit anyway. I think that the Holy Spirit is more concerned with spiritual matters. 1 John 5:19 says that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. This was written after Jesus was crucified. I don't see anything in the Bible that says that it's different today. It isn't, and it won't be until the second advent. The fact that slavery is illegal now isn't a spiritual matter.

[mvjvz]

When he didn´t bow to these demands, the catholic church invoked a paragraph within the indian penalty code regarding blasphemy, accusing him of blasphemy and hurting religious feelings And where did this penal code come from? I wonder if Blackcat will report that this particular code has been used by the Hindus to shut down Catholic churches. Oddly enough I don't see that being reported on Apolyton.

[DoctorDeryOne]

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

I disagree

[cefunonge]

Yes people sometimes reject what the Holy Spirit is telling them. But you don't need the Holy Spirit to tell you that slavery is wrong unless you don't have a conscience. And if you don't have a conscience then you won't listen to the Holy Spirit anyway. I think that the Holy Spirit is more concerned with spiritual matters. 1 John 5:19 says that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. This was written after Jesus was crucified. I don't see anything in the Bible that says that it's different today. It isn't, and it won't be until the second advent. The fact that slavery is illegal now isn't a spiritual matter.

Slavery is against God's will. The Spirit doesn't just inform us on personal spiritual matters. I think describing it that way would shock Jesus to the core. The Spirit guides us on what is right and what is wrong. That means more than simply personal spiritual matters, but also injustices in our world. Jesus called out more than few injustices going on in 1st Century Palestine among the Jewish religious leaders and the Roman occupiers.