How can you hate gays and be a Roman Catholic?

[SUTG]

These seems to be alot of gay-bashing on this board, or at least alot of posters who consider homosexuality to be sinful.


Are any of you who are anti-gay and pro-Catholic? If so, how do you reconcile this belief with the performance of the church? I am referencing all of the child rape, homosexuality, and coverups and tolerance of the rape of children by the church. Isn't is considered homosexuality when a grown man rapes little boys?

[Emo]

No Catholic here, just Christian!

Isn't it considered homosexuality when a grown man rapes little boys?

Is this a trick question?????

[Crow]

These seems to be alot of gay-bashing on this board, or at least alot of posters who consider homosexuality to be sinful.


Are any of you who are anti-gay and pro-Catholic? If so, how do you reconcile this belief with the performance of the church? I am referencing all of the child rape, homosexuality, and coverups and tolerance of the rape of children by the church. Isn't is considered homosexuality when a grown man rapes little boys?
Are you assuming that all Catholics approve of what some of their clergy did? I'm not Catholic, but some of my friends are, and they were outraged.

[Emo]

You did use the word rape, correct? OK, how about sexual abuse, molestation, homosexuality, they all apply.

Oh, wait, make sure you execute these nasty people!

[PureX]

Isn't is considered homosexuality when a grown man rapes little boys?No, it's called pedophilia.

[SUTG]

Are you assuming that all Catholics approve of what some of their clergy did? I'm not Catholic, but some of my friends are, and they were outraged.


Well, the Vatican and alot of high level church officials don't really seem all that concerned. It isn't as if it were just an isolated incident or two, and it isn't as if it were just a local priest. The depth and breadth of involvement of the highest authorities of the church were significant. In fact, Bernard Law gave mass at St. Peters Square after Pope John Paul II passed away. He doesn't seem to have that much against homosexuality, to understate things quite a bit.

Is is possible to be a Roman Catholic and admit that this is all true, or do you have to find another way out of the conundrum?

[Dread Helm]

No, it's called pedophelia. It can also be called Homosexuality because of the fact that they are both of the same sex.

[PureX]

But what SUTG is referring to with priests and children was pedophilia. Adults who sexually molest children are pedophiles. The sex of their victims is more the result of opportunity than of preference.

[Dread Helm]

But what SUTG is referring to with priests and children was pedophilia. Adults who sexually molest children are pedophiles. The sexual preference of their victims is more the result of opportunity than of preference. But they are still Homosexuals, correct?

[Crow]

Well, the Vatican and alot of high level church officials don't really seem all that concerned. It isn't as if it were just an isolated incident or two, and it isn't as if it were just a local priest. The depth and breadth of involvement of the highest authorities of the church were significant. In fact, Bernard Law gave mass at St. Peters Square after Pope John Paul II passed away. He doesn't seem to have that much against homosexuality, to understate things quite a bit.

Is is possible to be a Roman Catholic and admit that this is all true, or do you have to find another way out of the conundrum?
I believe that it's possible.

I would not stay in a church where such tolerance of wickedness by the clergy went on for so long unless I saw significant repentance in the form of defrocking the abusers and their accomplices and making whatever restitution was possible to the victims.

[SUTG]

I would not stay in a church where such tolerance of wickedness by the clergy went on for so long unless I saw significant repentance in the form of defrocking the abusers and their accomplices and making whatever restitution was possible to the victims.


It is good that you would not stay in a chuch with such tolerance of wickedness an, since you are not a Roman Catholic, you do not have to make that choice. But the Catholic church did as little as possible about the situation. For example, Bernard Law being chosen for St. Peter's Mass. Now, there's a guy who isn't too concerned about rape, homosexuality, or pedophilia!

[PureX]

But they are still Homosexuals, correct?A few are, most are not. The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males. Their victims are usually both male and female, depending on access. A lot of pedophiles assault boys simply because it's easier for a grown man to get unsupervised access to boys then to girls. But when they get access, they will usually assault both boy and girls.

[BillyBob]

Are any of you who are anti-gay and pro-Catholic?


I'm anti-Catholic.

[PureX]

It is good that you would not stay in a chuch with such tolerance of wickedness an, since you are not a Roman Catholic, you do not have to make that choice. But the Catholic church did as little as possible about the situation. For example, Bernard Law being chosen for St. Peter's Mass. Now, there's a guy who isn't too concerned about rape, homosexuality, or pedophilia!I agree that the responce of the RCC has been less than stellar. But I think you're making some really gross generalizations. There are millions of RC churches in the United States, and only a tiny fraction of these has been touched by this scandal. I think it's foolish of you to expect all those millions of people to give up their churches because of the tiny fraction of priests that have abused children, or because of the bulligerance of the church leaders.

Lots of religious denominations have had their moments of scandal and petty cover-ups. If you think a church has to be free of sin before people can participate in it, no one will ever join a church.

[SUTG]

There are millions of RC churches in the United States, and only a tiny fraction of these has been touched by this scandal.


Percentagewise, a small fraction of RC churches worldwide (RC child rape is not confined to the US!)


But the significant part is the coverup of repeated abuses and codling of the offenders by the highest levels of the church. From what I know of Roman Catholicism (correct me if I am worng), the higher officials of the church are supposed to be mroe and more "christ-like" all the way up to the Pope who is supposed to be the Vicar (or substitite) of Christ on Earth. This would present a problem, no?

[PureX]

Percentagewise, a small fraction of RC churches worldwide (RC child rape is not confined to the US!)


But the significant part is the coverup of repeated abuses and codling of the offenders by the highest levels of the church. From what I know of Roman Catholicism (correct me if I am worng), the higher officials of the church are supposed to be mroe and more "christ-like" all the way up to the Pope who is supposed to be the Vicar (or substitite) of Christ on Earth. This would present a problem, no?Yeah, it kind of reminds me of the Bush administration rewarding everyone who was involved in encouraging the use of torture and humiliation in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan.

What large institution doesn't cover up their crimes instead of owning up to them and correcting them as quickly as possible? Are you going to stop being an American because the Bush administration has been covering up and supporting the rape, torture, and murder of suspected terrorists?

[Crow]

It is good that you would not stay in a chuch with such tolerance of wickedness an, since you are not a Roman Catholic, you do not have to make that choice. But the Catholic church did as little as possible about the situation. For example, Bernard Law being chosen for St. Peter's Mass.

Yup, Bernard Law is bona fide scum.

I've left other churches for less. And I believe that some Catholics did leave the Catholic church over this, though not many.

I guess that it's hard to leave your church when you've been taught from diaper age that your denomination has a monopoly on Christ.

[Agape4Robin]

I guess the RCC is a breeding ground for homosexuals who deny their urges and use religion to cover it over instead of coming to Christ to heal them. The RCC wants to, at best, call them (murdering) child molesters, I call them homosexuals!

[Aimiel]

The same way that you can be American and hate communism, you simply adjust to the fact that there are people who are stupid, and go on with your life. Not one single Christian hates queers, but those of us who are proclaiming that their queer behavior is unacceptable, and should not be taught in our schools as a 'lifestyle choice' any more than the lifestyle choice of someone who is a serial killer should, are simply against sin being legalized or protected by law.

My daughter asked last night what a serial killer was. I told her it was someone who eats the whole box of cereal, without saving any for anyone else. She's five.

Queer is abnormal. It is wrong. It is 'out-of-sorts' and is improper behavior. When it is accepted as 'normal' it makes those of us who are normal shudder, wondering what will be next to fall to the lie-beral agenda.

[beanieboy]

But they are still Homosexuals, correct?

There are reports of girls being molested by priests as well.

But I think that it came down to not wanting people to decide that the Christian Church is full of nothing but child molesting priests, which it isn't, so they thought that it was better to protect their rep than protect the children.

[beanieboy]

My daughter asked last night what a serial killer was. I told her it was someone who eats the whole box of cereal, without saving any for anyone else. She's five.


So, you lied, rather than tell her that it was a person who kills several people?

Do you really think that knowing that occassionally, there are those who kill 8 or 20 people, instead of just one, is really going to damage your daughter?

[Delmar]

No, it's called pedophilia.

It's both!

[Aimiel]

So, you lied, rather than tell her that it was a person who kills several people?

Do you really think that knowing that occassionally, there are those who kill 8 or 20 people, instead of just one, is really going to damage your daughter?How stupid can you get? You don't tell an innocent child about murder. You jerk. She doesn't even know what death is. Would you tell a five-year-old that having two daddies is normal? Do you really think that it is necessary to begin to erode her conscience before it has a chance to be nourished makes any sense at all? Do you think? The thoughts that you presume to be acceptable are absolutely repulsive. You are one sick individual. Please borrow a clue. :doh:

[Inquisitor]

Is is possible to be a Roman Catholic and admit that this is all true, or do you have to find another way out of the conundrum?

Yes, it is possible to be a Catholic and admit all of that is true.

[Ninjashadow]

How so?

[Inquisitor]

Percentagewise, a small fraction of RC churches worldwide (RC child rape is not confined to the US!)


But the significant part is the coverup of repeated abuses and codling of the offenders by the highest levels of the church. From what I know of Roman Catholicism (correct me if I am worng), the higher officials of the church are supposed to be mroe and more "christ-like" all the way up to the Pope who is supposed to be the Vicar (or substitite) of Christ on Earth. This would present a problem, no?

You misunderstand Catholic doctrine. Christ never promised that the hierarchy of His Church would be impeccable.

[Inquisitor]

How so?

Peter denied Christ three times, Thomas doubted Christ, and do I even need to mention Judas? Why do you think the hierarchy of today's Church would be any different?

[Ninjashadow]

But isn't that the way it's interpreted and the way the heirarchy functions?

[Inquisitor]

But isn't that the way it's interpreted and the way the heirarchy functions?

No. As St. John Chrysostom once said, "The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of rotten bishops." Also, remember, Dante was a devout Catholic author, but he put several popes in The Inferno.

That should give you an idea of how Catholics think on this issue.

[Ninjashadow]

So, basically Catholics have followed leaders (i.e. the Pope) who went to hell? What good is that?

[Ninjashadow]

Matthew 15:14-"If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

If you follow a Pope who goes to hell, you also will go to hell.

[Inquisitor]

So, basically Catholics have followed leaders (i.e. the Pope) who went to hell? What good is that?

And protestants have not followed leaders who may have went to Hell? By my thinking, this would be a losing argument on all sides. I don't know who went to Hell and who didn't (the Catholic Church does not have "anti-saints"), personally. But look at all the early Christians who must have followed Judas, one of the twelve apostles. That's as bad as it gets right there.

So, if you wanna play this game, it's a losing argument on all sides.

[Inquisitor]

Matthew 15:14-"If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

If you follow a Pope who goes to hell, you also will go to hell.

Your second statement does not follow from that passage at all. If a pope taught correct doctrine (i.e., was not a heretic), but was damned for his strictly personal failings (e.g., fornication, murder), I do not see how someone would go to Hell for following him. After all, it would be difficult to call someone whose theology was orthodox "blind" even though his life was rotten.

Judas was never declared a saint, so he could be in Hell. Do you think the early Christians who followed Judas are in Hell?

[Ninjashadow]

But the only "leader" I put any stock in is Jesus. Do you think He went to hell? I don't.

[Ninjashadow]

Your second statement does not follow from that passage at all. If a pope taught correct doctrine (i.e., was not a heretic), but was damned for his strictly personal failings (e.g., fornication, murder), I do not see how someone would go to Hell for following him. After all, it would be difficult to call someone whose theology was orthodox "blind" even though his life was rotten.

You were the one who brought up Dante as saying that several popes and bishops went to hell. As far as I'm concerned, The Inferno is a classical work of fiction, but you seemed to present it as otherwise. The pope is the head of the Catholic Church and is therefore it's leader. If Catholics follow a pope who goes to hell, you, too, will go to hell.

[Inquisitor]

But the only "leader" I put any stock in is Jesus. Do you think He went to hell? I don't.

Hmmm, that's interesting... and very unbiblical. Jesus, after all, appointed twelve apostles to lead His Church. The apostles, in turn, appointed leaders, too. That's all in the Bible. So your ecclesiology is completely at odds with the Bible.

[Inquisitor]

You were the one who brought up Dante as saying that several popes and bishops went to hell. As far as I'm concerned, The Inferno is a classical work of fiction, but you seemed to present it as otherwise.

No, I did not present the Inferno as anything but a work of fiction. It's just that it's a thoroughly orthodox work of fiction.


The pope is the head of the Catholic Church and is therefore it's leader. If Catholics follow a pope who goes to hell, you, too, will go to hell.

Complete non sequitur.

[Ninjashadow]

Yeah, but Jesus appointed those apostles to go out and be leaders. If He was not a "leader" then He could not, in fact, have done that. I worship the person who died for my sins and I follow Him.

[Ninjashadow]

No, I did not present the Inferno as anything but a work of fiction. It's just that it's a thoroughly orthodox work of fiction.

Then I misunderstood.



Complete non sequitur.

Does the pope have any influence over the doctrines of the Catholic faith?

[Inquisitor]

Yeah, but Jesus appointed those apostles to go out and be leaders. If He was not a "leader" then He could not, in fact, have done that. I worship the person who died for my sins and I follow Him.

In your earlier statement, you said that Jesus was the only *leader* you put stock in. Now you're admitting that Jesus appointed apostles to be *leaders*, too. Very curious, no? :think:

[Inquisitor]

Then I misunderstood.

Thank you for admitting this.


Does the pope have any influence over the doctrines of the Catholic faith?

The pope clarifies and defines dogma. But, the fact remains, your statement about my going to Hell, although it could be true (i.e., I could go to Hell), is a complete non sequitur.

[Ninjashadow]

I never said that there weren't any other leaders, just that He's the only one I put stock. He died for my sins, no one else did. He was perfect, no one else was. His appointed leaders were sinners just like you and I. Jesus was not a sinner and spoke the truth.

[Ninjashadow]

Thank you for admitting this.



The pope clarifies and defines dogma. But, the fact remains, your statement about my going to Hell, although it could be true (i.e., I could go to Hell), is a complete non sequitur.

I never said that you (the specific you) are going to hell. I said that those who followed the teachings of popes who went to hell, went to hell. The you I used was a general you.

[Ninjashadow]

My point is that if a pope is the leader and you (general you) follow his teachings, then you would go to hell if he goes to hell.

[Lighthouse]

So, basically Catholics have followed leaders (i.e. the Pope) who went to hell? What good is that?
Now that's what I'm talkin' about!

[Inquisitor]

I never said that there weren't any other leaders, just that He's the only one I put stock. He died for my sins, no one else did. He was perfect, no one else was. His appointed leaders were sinners just like you and I. Jesus was not a sinner and spoke the truth.

But if you're not following the leaders Jesus appointed, then one might argue that you're not following Jesus's leadership.

Jesus said "he who hears you hears me," did he not?

Think of it this way. Imagine the Church as an army. God, of course, is at the very top. He's like the Commander-in-Chief. Significantly below Him you have Generals, colonels, lieutenants, etc. Now, imagine what would happen if the lowest ranks of the army suddenly all decided that they were going to only obey the Commander-in-Chief, but not the folks appointed by the Commander-in-Chief (which technically would be a contradiction, b/c the C-i-C would want you to obey his appointees, of course), and none of these underlings could agree on what the Commander-in-Chief actually wanted them to do. As you could imagine, the result would (quite predictably) be complete and utter chaos. Well, this is basically how protestantism works.

[Inquisitor]

My point is that if a pope is the leader and you (general you) follow his teachings, then you would go to hell if he goes to hell.

And my point is that your statement is still a complete non sequitur. I've already stated why I do not think this follows from the Bible verse you quoted. So, stating it over and over does nobody any good.

[Ninjashadow]

But if you're not following the leaders Jesus appointed, then one might argue that you're not following Jesus's leadership.

Jesus said "he who hears you hears me," did he not?

Think of it this way. Imagine the Church as an army. God, of course, is at the very top. He's like the Commander-in-Chief. Significantly below Him you have Generals, colonels, lieutenants, etc. Now, imagine what would happen if the lowest ranks of the army suddenly all decided that they were going to only obey the Commander-in-Chief, but not the folks appointed by the Commander-in-Chief (which technically would be a contradiction, b/c the C-i-C would want you to obey his appointees, of course), and none of these underlings could agree on what the Commander-in-Chief actually wanted them to do. As you could imagine, the result would (quite predictably) be complete and utter chaos. Well, this is basically how protestantism works.

The problem with that scenario is that CiC (Jesus) is perfect were as the generals and whatnot are not perfect and can misconstrue what Jesus says. If you listen to what Jesus said, you won't get the "orders" wrong.

[Ninjashadow]

And my point is that your statement is still a complete non sequitur. I've already stated why I do not think this follows from the Bible verse you quoted. So, stating it over and over does nobody any good.

:doh:

Ok, then you think that you (again, general you) will go not go to hell, even if your leader does?

[Inquisitor]

:doh:

Ok, then you think that you (again, general you) will go not go to hell, even if your leader does?

I think that I will not necessarily go to Hell just b/c the leaders may go to Hell. I don't believe anyone alive has the assurance of salvation.

[Ninjashadow]

Let me put it this way then:

Let's say the pope is a Scout Leader and the catholics are scouts. The SL takes you on a hike into the woods. And, being good little scouts, you follow him believing that he will not lead you astray. So, he leads you into the woods and lo and behold he unwittingly leads you all into a bear cave where you are mauled and killed. The scouts followed the leader because the scouts trusted him, but he still lead them astray. Am I getting through to you?

[Lighthouse]

Inquisitor must be a democrat, because he sure is a jackass.

[Inquisitor]

The problem with that scenario is that CiC (Jesus) is perfect were as the generals and whatnot are not perfect and can misconstrue what Jesus says. If you listen to what Jesus said, you won't get the "orders" wrong.

Yes, the CiC (Jesus) is perfect. And yes, the generals (Church hierarchy) are not perfect. But the fact remains that the CiC still appointed generals and wants the underlings to follow them.

Also, before I go to bed now, let me point to these words:

"And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required." (Luke 12:48)

This suggests to me that Christ may, in fact, expect more from those who He appoints as leaders. So, if those (rightful) leaders should fall and go to Hell, those who followed them and are not culpable for those failings or errors, may be spared b/c less may be required of them. At least that's one possible interpretation, and it seems reasonable when one goes and reads the entire context of the passage:

47 And that servant, who knew the will of his lord and prepared not himself and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

48 But he that knew not and did things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.

[Inquisitor]

Let me put it this way then:

Let's say the pope is a Scout Leader and the catholics are scouts. The SL takes you on a hike into the woods. And, being good little scouts, you follow him believing that he will not lead you astray. So, he leads you into the woods and lo and behold he unwittingly leads you all into a bear cave where you are mauled and killed. The scouts followed the leader because the scouts trusted him, but he still lead them astray. Am I getting through to you?

I actually understood your point the first time, and this analogy does not help your case in the least bit.

Perhaps the Scout Leader is simply your rightful leader, you do not know he is leading you astray (read the scripture verse I posted above; "he who knew not...")--even though he IS your rightful leader--and you are not held accountable, or as accountable, for his errors and/or personal failings. That's what I'm trying to get across.

[Ninjashadow]

Yes, the CiC (Jesus) is perfect. And yes, the generals (Church hierarchy) are not perfect. But the fact remains that the CiC still appointed generals and wants us to follow them.

Also, before I go to bed now, let me point to these words:

"And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required." (Luke 12:48)

This suggests to me that Christ may, in fact, expect more from those who He appoints as leaders. So, if those (rightful) leaders should fall and go to Hell, those who followed them and are not culpable for those failings or errors, may be spared b/c less may be required of them. At least that's one possible interpretation, and it seems reasonable when one goes and reads the entire context of the passage:

So, what your saying is that you aren't assured of your salvation, but God may go lenient on you becuase you didn't think for yourself and followed unsound teachings?

What about John 12: 26? I think Jesus spells it out pretty clearly when He said, "Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servent will also be. My Father will honor the one who serves me."

I think that says pretty clearly that we are to follow Jesus and if we follow Him God will honor us.

[Inquisitor]

So, what your saying is that you aren't assured of your salvation, but God may go lenient on you becuase you didn't think for yourself and followed unsound teachings?

What about John 12: 26? I think Jesus spells it out pretty clearly when He said, "Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servent will also be. My Father will honor the one who serves me."

I think that says pretty clearly that we are to follow Jesus and if we follow Him God will honor us.

Read the scripture I posted from Luke. That's actually even more clear in making my point. He who does not know will be beaten w/fewer stripes, possibly a reference to purgatory. It at least points to an idea of there being levels of culpability.

Your quote, however, does not contradict the fact that we should still follow the rightful leaders of the Church. It's just that the leaders should be leading us to the ultimate leader, who is Christ.

[Ninjashadow]

I actually understood your point the first time, and this analogy does not help your case in the least bit.

Perhaps the Scout Leader is simply your rightful leader, you do not know he is leading you astray (read the scripture verse I posted above; "he who knew not...")--even though he IS your rightful leader--and you are not held accountable, or as accountable, for his errors and/or personal failings. That's what I'm trying to get across.

So, your whole argument is, "if you're stupid and can't think for yourself, God will go easy on you."

[Inquisitor]

So, what your saying is that you aren't assured of your salvation, but God may go lenient on you becuase you didn't think for yourself and followed unsound teachings?

1. Yes, I am saying that we are not assured of our salvation.

2. Yes, God may be more lenient with those who fell astray while at least following the rightful leaders or who had less of a way of knowing sound teachings. Read Luke 12:48 on this where it talks about those who are beaten w/fewer stripes.

[Inquisitor]

So, your whole argument is, "if you're stupid and can't think for yourself, God will go easy on you."

Read Luke 12:47-48 for what I am saying. The more you are given, the more will be expected from you. That's all I am saying, and that's straight from scripture.

[Ninjashadow]

Read the scripture I posted from Luke. That's actually even more clear in making my point. He who does not know will be beaten w/fewer stripes, possibly a reference to purgatory. It at least points to an idea of there being levels of culpability.

I think you are misunderstanding the verse. I think it refers to those who don't have the capacity to know. The verse goes on to say that those who are "entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Someone who is "entrusted" with greater intelligence will have much more asked, but those who are "slow" or cannot understand will not be as severely punished. Just because you don't think for yourself doesn't mean God is going to go easy on you.



Your quote, however, does not contradict the fact that we should still follow the rightful leaders of the Church. It's just that the leaders should be leading us to the ultimate leader, who is Christ.

But the verse does not say, "follow those who I have appointed and you will be honored by God."

[Frank Ernest]

1. Yes, I am saying that we are not assured of our salvation.
John 3:16-18. Yes, we are.

2. Yes, God may be more lenient with those who fell astray while at least following the rightful leaders or who had less of a way of knowing sound teachings. Read Luke 12:48 on this where it talks about those who are beaten w/fewer stripes.
How could following "rightful" leaders cause someone to go astray? We are to study, learn and know the commandments and do them. Blind faith in an earthly leader doesn't cut it as Luke 12:47-48 says.

[SteveT]

John 3:16-18 teaches assurance???

"[16] For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. [18] He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

If you cease to believe, doesn't 3:18 teach clearly you are condemned?

[SteveT]

"[23] For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
[24] As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.
[25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
[26] that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
[27] that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
[28] Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
[29] For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church,
[30] because we are members of his body.
[31] "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
[32] This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church" Eph 5

In light of this, on what basis would you suppose Christ would allow the "scout leader" heads of the church to lead the church astray? In other words, what is the scriptural basis for supposing Christ would stand by and allow Satan to rape His bride? IMHO, Christ is more likely to strike down the mistaken leader than to allow him to mislead the church.

"And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. " Jer 3:15

"I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, says the LORD." Jer 23:4

[Inquisitor]

I think you are misunderstanding the verse. I think it refers to those who don't have the capacity to know. The verse goes on to say that those who are "entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Someone who is "entrusted" with greater intelligence will have much more asked, but those who are "slow" or cannot understand will not be as severely punished. Just because you don't think for yourself doesn't mean God is going to go easy on you.

1. I think you are misunderstanding the verse, which illustrates the need for a Church to interpret scriptures.

2. How do you know that "entrusted" simply means greater intelligence? It could also mean authority and/or knowledge, not just intelligence. The pope, for example, has a divine mandate, access to the Vatican archives, and access to the brightest theologians in the world. He's definitely been "entrusted" with more than the both of us combined. From reading that verse, I imagine God will require a great deal from him.


But the verse does not say, "follow those who I have appointed and you will be honored by God."

Did I say that the verse said that? No. So you're completely missing my point in posting that verse.

[Clete]

Isn't is considered homosexuality when a grown man rapes little boys?

Yes, of course it is. And chances are those who commit such crimes have been victims of the same crime themselves. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times; homos reproduce by molesting children. If you execute homos you will virtually end child molestation which in turn will virtually end homosexuality, which in turn will mean very very few homos being executed. The swift, painful and public execution of anyone convicted of being a homo is easily the most merciful policy possible. It just so happens that it was God's idea first. Imagine that! :shocked:


Resting in Him,
Clete

[Aimiel]

I think that I will not necessarily go to Hell just b/c the leaders may go to Hell. I don't believe anyone alive has the assurance of salvation.Thinking will get you into trouble, every time. Thinking is leaning upon your own understanding. The Word of God says that those who seek and search for Him will find Him, but only when they do so with all of their hearts. The Holy Spirit is called, "The Earnest of Our Inheritance," for a reason, that reason is, He is the 'down-payment' on our inheritance with The Lord, the largest part of which is being totally 'in' His Presence all of the time. We will be like Him, and we will see Him as He is, nothing hidden. It is possible to know Him, else Jesus would not warn us that many will come before Him on Judgement Day, saying, "Lord, Lord..." only to hear Him say, "Depart from Me. I never knew you." He knows and is known by those who seek and find Him. Until you do, all you're doing is practicing, and with God, practice is called 'religion.' Christianity isn't a religion, it is a relationship. Seek, ask, knock; keep doing so until you get answered by The Lord.

[SUTG]

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times; homos reproduce by molesting children.


An interesting hypothesis, to say the least. On your view, whence came the First Homosexual?

[Clete]

An interesting hypothesis, to say the least. On your view, whence came the First Homosexual?

Who knows? What difference does it make? I'm not saying that all homos were molested, just the overwhelmingly vast majority of them. Actually the more society accepts them the more will enter into the pervertion for other reasons. The fact remains however that nearly all homos were molested while between 5 and 8 years of age. And that's not merely a hypothesis. It's quite well documented and most of the leaders in the homo community don't deny it. In fact NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) has adopted the well known fact as their montra, which says "Sex before eight, or it's too late!"

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Ninjashadow]

1. I think you are misunderstanding the verse, which illustrates the need for a Church to interpret scriptures.

2. How do you know that "entrusted" simply means greater intelligence? It could also mean authority and/or knowledge, not just intelligence. The pope, for example, has a divine mandate, access to the Vatican archives, and access to the brightest theologians in the world. He's definitely been "entrusted" with more than the both of us combined. From reading that verse, I imagine God will require a great deal from him.

Sure, it could mean many things, but you seemed to be saying that it could only mean that God will go easier on those who cannot think for themselves. I'm sure that the Pope has access to the Vatican archives, but what's the point of searching documents that are already in error and trying to learn from them?



Did I say that the verse said that? No. So you're completely missing my point in posting that verse.

:bang:

[SUTG]

And chances are those who commit such crimes (as child rape) have been victims of the same crime themselves.

Is it usually by other priests?


So, so far, it seems like your "theory" consists of the following:

- Almost all homos were abused as children
- Without homos you would have virtually no child molestation
- Child molestation is the cause of homos
- If scoiety accepts homos, that will make more homos


Is your theory published in any journals? I'd like to see the whole thing laid out so I could evaluate it.

Since you seem to be very up on alot of social statistics, do you have a number for the Percentage of hetereosuxuals that have been molested?

[Inquisitor]

Sure, it could mean many things, but you seemed to be saying that it could only mean that God will go easier on those who cannot think for themselves. I'm sure that the Pope has access to the Vatican archives, but what's the point of searching documents that are already in error and trying to learn from them?


1. I never said the verse is referring to ppl who "cannot think for themselves." Those are your words.

2. The Pope has access to more than just the Vatican archives. Don't be stupid.

[Ninjashadow]

1. I never said the verse is referring to ppl who "cannot think for themselves." Those are your words.

You most certainly did. You said that the verse in Luke was saying that those people who follow leaders who go to hell will be punished less severely because they "didn't know any better." That implies that they were not thinking for themselves.

2. The Pope has access to more than just the Vatican archives. Don't be stupid.

You obviously don't know what you believe. You've claimed in other posts that Catholicism is the one true religion, yet when I said that the Vatican archives were in error your response was, "Well, he has access to others as well." Then you agree with me that the archives are in error. Great!!

[Clete]

Is it usually by other priests?


So, so far, it seems like your "theory" consists of the following:

- Almost all homos were abused as children
- Without homos you would have virtually no child molestation
- Child molestation is the cause of homos
- If society accepts homos, that will make more homos

Child molestation is not THE cause it is simply the largest contributing factor by far. Much as smoking is the largest contributing factor to lung cancer. It doesn't mean it is THE cause of lung cancer or that people who have never smoked will not get it.
And any occurrence that a society tolerates will increase in frequency. The law is the great teacher. If a behavior is decriminalized it will become more and more common in the society until it reaches an equilibrium with what the society is willing or able tolerance. This is simple common sense. If you need a study to confirm such a thing, you just being willfully ignorant.

Is your theory published in any journals? I'd like to see the whole thing laid out so I could evaluate it.
First of all I don't believe you and secondly it is not my theory. The fact that you call it that is proof that you are not interesting in evaluating anything.

Since you seem to be very up on a lot of social statistics, do you have a number for the Percentage of heterosexuals that have been molested?
I never said I was "very up on a lot of social statistics". I've read articles and books on the issue and have heard many such things from people whom I trust. I also remember looking at studies dealing with the increase in homosexuality while in a first year psychology course in college. It was very interesting to note how it spread EXACTLY the same as an infectious disease, only much, much slower of course.
Further, I have posted threads on this board showcasing how virtually every serial murderer that has ever existed is guilty of sodomy, often with small children. And I have also posted information that was compiled by psychologists and sociologist about how to turn children into everything from an alcoholic to a homo to a sociopath.
As for specific statistics, the latest I've heard (less than 6 moths ago) homos make up no more than 4% (that's a very generous figure, it's probably more like 2%) of the total population with nearly all of that concentrated in high population areas (i.e. they don't live on farms or out in the country, they nearly all live in the city because that's the only place it would be possible to live the lifestyle most of them live). Better than 9 of 10 have been sexually abused as children, usually by someone they know who is a member of the same sex, although this number is dropping. Among fomos (female homos) in particular, teens homosexual experimentation is somewhat common although still not the norm by any means.
AIDS is still nearly impossible for a straight, non drug using male to get. To my knowledge there is still not one single case of AIDS that was not directly caused by a homo or was caused by someone who got it from a homo. In other words, if you get AIDS, you got it directly from a homo who had it or else a homo gave it to someone who wasn't a homo and you got it from him, usually by sharing a drug needle. The odds of a straight, non drug using male of getting breast cancer (which does happen) is greater than his chances of getting AIDS. AIDS is clearly a homo disease just as lung cancer is a smoker's disease. To say anything else is simply misleading (at best).
Now, I've said all this from memory, I don't collect stats on homos, I'm simply not that interested in it to do so. But I pay attention and I do have a good memory. You will not be able to refute a single thing I've said here, of that I am certain.
If you are interesting here are links to a couple threads with more info. Perhaps you'll find them interesting...

59 Ways to Ruin a Child! (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16057)

The Homosexual Lifestyle (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16091)

The thread in which I list all the homo serial killers has apparently been pruned from the site (that happens from time to time to older threads). But if you are interested you can go to the following website which has a history of all the serial killers. You'll be astonished to find out that basically all of them where homos to one degree or another.

History of Serial Killers (http://carpenoctem.tv/killers/)

Warning! Do not go to the above site unless you're an adult who can handle learning details about what these filth bags are guilty of. If you do go to the site, notice the common characteristics that serial killers share in common with the list given about homosexuals in the 59 Ways to Ruin a Child thread.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Delmar]

Who knows? What difference does it make? I'm not saying that all homos were molested, just the overwhelmingly vast majority of them. Actually the more society accepts them the more will enter into the pervertion for other reasons. The fact remains however that nearly all homos were molested while between 5 and 8 years of age. And that's not merely a hypothesis. It's quite well documented and most of the leaders in the homo community don't deny it. In fact NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) has adopted the well known fact as their montra, which says "Sex before eight, or it's too late!"

Resting in Him,
Clete
and the ever popular... recruit, recruit, 10% is not enough! Not that I but that 10% figure. Hey it's not my chant!

[Inquisitor]

You most certainly did. You said that the verse in Luke was saying that those people who follow leaders who go to hell will be punished less severely because they "didn't know any better." That implies that they were not thinking for themselves.

Another non sequitur. Not knowing any better does not imply, necessarily, that someone was unable to think for themselves. Perhaps, for example, said person simply did not have access to all of the information, and thus did not "know any better."



You obviously don't know what you believe. You've claimed in other posts that Catholicism is the one true religion, yet when I said that the Vatican archives were in error your response was, "Well, he has access to others as well." Then you agree with me that the archives are in error. Great!!

Your use of logic is stunningly flawed here. My saying that the Pope has access to more than the Vatican archives does NOT imply that I think the documents in the Vatican archives are flawed. My point was that, even if one thought the Vatican documents were flawed (and in no way can you conclude that I think they are), it would be stupid to suggest that the Pope does not have better access to information than everybody else. So your "point," if you can call it that, is yet another non sequitur.

Do any of your conclusions ever follow from your premises? Constructing a proper syllogism must be a completely alien concept to you. Furthermore, what does any of this have to do w/the original topic of this thread, or even the topic we were originally discussing?

[Ninjashadow]

Another non sequitur. Not knowing any better does not imply, necessarily, that someone was unable to think for themselves. Perhaps, for example, said person simply did not have access to all of the information, and thus did not "know any better."

The information is right there in the Bible. If someone wants to know about it they can READ it for themselves. Just because they are to lazy to think for themselves and read if for themselves does NOT give them an excuse. I really doubt that when God judges us He is going to allow the, "Well, the Pope said so!" excuse.

Your use of logic is stunningly flawed here. My saying that the Pope has access to more than the Vatican archives does NOT imply that I think the documents in the Vatican archives are flawed. My point was that, even if one thought the Vatican documents were flawed (and in no way can you conclude that I think they are), it would be stupid to suggest that the Pope does not have better access to information than everybody else. So your "point," if you can call it that, is yet another non sequitur.

No it's not flawed, I just don't think you have the capacity to understand it. I only conclude that you felt they were flawed because you didn't say, "no, they're not flawed," but merely said, "he has access to other stuff, too." That's called avoiding the allegation. When that is done it's usually because the avoider cannot argue the allegation.

Do any of your conclusions ever follow from your premises? Constructing a proper syllogism must be a completely alien concept to you.

Sure they do. You just can't follow simple logic.

Furthermore, what does any of this have to do w/the original topic of this thread, or even the topic we were originally discussing?

You made a statement and I wanted some clarification and you certainly did that. There you go trying to change the subject again. :nono:

[Jujubee]

Just because the raper is gay or whatever dosen't mena the victim is...

[Lighthouse]

Just because the raper is gay or whatever dosen't mena the victim is...
Though being raped at such a young age can, and will most likely, lead to such confusion that the victim ends up at least struggling with homosexuality, if not committing the crime.

[Inquisitor]

The information is right there in the Bible. If someone wants to know about it they can READ it for themselves. Just because they are to lazy to think for themselves and read if for themselves does NOT give them an excuse. I really doubt that when God judges us He is going to allow the, "Well, the Pope said so!" excuse.


Oh, yeah, the information is just all in the Bible... That makes it easy. The Bible isn't exactly obvious in terms of its correct interpretation, you know.



No it's not flawed, I just don't think you have the capacity to understand it. I only conclude that you felt they were flawed because you didn't say, "no, they're not flawed," but merely said, "he has access to other stuff, too." That's called avoiding the allegation. When that is done it's usually because the avoider cannot argue the allegation.


No. I have the capacity to understand what you're saying and it's flawed. The reason I did not go into defending the Vatican archives is b/c there is simply a lot of material in those archives, and it would take several whole threads--actually an entirely new message board--to go into all of that. Furthermore, the Vatican archives, from my understanding, also contain documents from various heretical groups that, obviously, no Catholic would defend. So, basically, I just wanted to stear things back to the subject of the thread and not get bogged down with some other discussion, which appears to be your MO.

[Troll Bait]

Oh, yeah, the information is just all in the Bible... That makes it easy. The Bible isn't exactly obvious in terms of its correct interpretation, you know.

My dear Leo-clone, unless people have no reading comprehension at all, the Bible should be fairly easy to understand. And, I know that not all protestant denominations agree on everything. But, get several protestants together and ask them what the basic tenets of Christianity are and I'll bet you get the same answer from each one of them.

No. I have the capacity to understand what you're saying and it's flawed. The reason I did not go into defending the Vatican archives is b/c there is simply a lot of material in those archives, and it would take several whole threads--actually an entirely new message board--to go into all of that. Furthermore, the Vatican archives, from my understanding, also contain documents from various heretical groups that, obviously, no Catholic would defend. So, basically, I just wanted to stear things back to the subject of the thread and not get bogged down with some other discussion, which appears to be your MO.

One reason that protestants don't believe the catholic church is right is because we don't believe in putting a man on equal footing or above Christ. When people worship the creature instead of the creator, the church will fall. And, the pope, like all men is the creature as opposed to the creator.

[Inquisitor]

My dear Leo-clone, unless people have no reading comprehension at all, the Bible should be fairly easy to understand.

Not really. The Bible was never intended as a catechism and it was never intended to be taken alone.


But, get several protestants together and ask them what the basic tenets of Christianity are and I'll bet you get the same answer from each one of them.

And that would prove what?


One reason that protestants don't believe the catholic church is right is because we don't believe in putting a man on equal footing or above Christ. When people worship the creature instead of the creator, the church will fall. And, the pope, like all men is the creature as opposed to the creator.

Who's putting a man on equal footing with, or above, Christ? This is a total straw man argument.

[Troll Bait]

Not really. The Bible was never intended as a catechism and it was never intended to be taken alone.

Who says that the Bible was never intended to be taken alone? The catholic church? :think:

And that would prove what?

Just that protestants aren't so divided as people seem to think they are. Most protestants tend to agree on the major issues of belief. The things that they disagree on are not major issues.

Who's putting a man on equal footing with, or above, Christ? This is a total straw man argument.

Aren't some of the pope's titles His Holiness, the Pope; Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ; Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles; Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church; and Patriarch Of The West? Those titles sound pretty uppity to me. Sounds like someone is placing a man on a pedestal.

[PureX]

Yes, of course it is. And chances are those who commit such crimes have been victims of the same crime themselves. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times; homos reproduce by molesting children. If you execute homos you will virtually end child molestation which in turn will virtually end homosexuality, which in turn will mean very very few homos being executed. The swift, painful and public execution of anyone convicted of being a homo is easily the most merciful policy possible. It just so happens that it was God's idea first. Imagine that! How is it that you aren't choking to death on all that ignorance and bigotry?

Homosexuality has no more to do pedophilia than heterosexuality does. But of course that reality doesn't help you ratify your sick, twisted, demonization of homosexuals, so I'm sure it'll mean nothing to you. You're certainly not going to let a little reality get in the way of some good hate-mongering, right? Oh, and be sure to spew your ignorance and hatred in Jesus' name. I'm sure he'll be rewarding you for it later on.

[SOTK]

These seems to be alot of gay-bashing on this board, or at least alot of posters who consider homosexuality to be sinful.

I'm not anti-gay. I'm anti-abomination.

[Lighthouse]

SOTK-
There's nothing gay about homosexuality.

[SOTK]

:darwinsm:

[Lighthouse]

:eek:

Can you believe I got attacked for that remark on another board? And threatened with banishment? It's not like I used the word faggot.*shrug*

[Clete]

Just because the raper is gay or whatever dosen't mena the victim is...
Quite right! In fact the majority of child molestation victims do not become homos; there is quite a bit more to it than that(see my thread on 59 Ways to Ruin a Child). While it is clearly true that practically all homos have been sexually abused, thank the Lord that it doesn't follow that the reverse it true.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

How is it that you aren't choking to death on all that ignorance and bigotry?

Homosexuality has no more to do pedophilia than heterosexuality does. But of course that reality doesn't help you ratify your sick, twisted, demonization of homosexuals, so I'm sure it'll mean nothing to you. You're certainly not going to let a little reality get in the way of some good hate-mongering, right? Oh, and be sure to spew your ignorance and hatred in Jesus' name. I'm sure he'll be rewarding you for it later on.

:thumb:

[Agape4Robin]

Who says that the Bible was never intended to be taken alone? The catholic church? :think:



Just that protestants aren't so divided as people seem to think they are. Most protestants tend to agree on the major issues of belief. The things that they disagree on are not major issues.



Aren't some of the pope's titles His Holiness, the Pope; Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ; Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles; Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church; and Patriarch Of The West? Those titles sound pretty uppity to me. Sounds like someone is placing a man on a pedestal.
Don't forget "Holy Father"! :rolleyes:

[Inquisitor]

Who says that the Bible was never intended to be taken alone? The catholic church?

The Bible itself, actually. It does, after all, say to hold fast to tradition.

Just that protestants aren't so divided as people seem to think they are. Most protestants tend to agree on the major issues of belief. The things that they disagree on are not major issues.

Oh, so if protestants disagree on something, then it's not a major issue of belief? Is this your criterion for a dogma to be classified as a "major issue of belief"? I'm not satisfied. Furthermore, it says a lot about protestantism if prots are so willing to found whole new denominations over issues they tell the rest of the world are not "major issues of belief." Consumer based religion, anyone?

Aren't some of the pope's titles His Holiness, the Pope; Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ; Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles; Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church; and Patriarch Of The West? Those titles sound pretty uppity to me. Sounds like someone is placing a man on a pedestal.

One of the Pope's other titles is "Servant of the Servants of God (Servus Servorum Dei)," but my favorite has always been "Pontifex Maximus." Of course, you'll notice that, with the titles mentioned (and especially with the first one I mentioned), none of these titles put the Pope above our Lord, no matter how "uppity" you find said titles to be. So you're going to have to build a better case for your earlier statement (alleging that Catholics put a man above Christ) than that.

[Aimiel]

The Bible itself, actually. It does, after all, say to hold fast to tradition.
It also says: "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man."

You're keeping people out of The Kingdom, and not even entering yourself.

[Inquisitor]

It also says: "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man."

You're keeping people out of The Kingdom, and not even entering yourself.

1. You need to do something about your Mullet Christ avatar.

2. I've never asserted that we use tradition to make the word of God of none effect. So it's a moot point.

[Agape4Robin]

1. You need to do something about your Mullet Christ avatar.

2. I've never asserted that we use tradition to make the word of God of none effect. So it's a moot point.
Ooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh....................attack his avatar........ :baby:

Not only tradition, but you guys even make up things not even taught by Christ or Paul. Ya know, like purgatory! :chuckle:

Mary is no longer a virgin, she had other children. :rolleyes:

The rosary is nothing more than vain repetition. :yawn:

[Inquisitor]

Ooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh....................attack his avatar........ :baby:

He threatened me w/eternal damnation, I attacked his avatar. Seems fair to me.


Not only tradition, but you guys even make up things not even taught by Christ or Paul. Ya know, like purgatory! :chuckle:


1. Purgatory is in the Bible. It's just that the prots ripped the Deuterocanonicals out.

2. Whether or not Jesus had brothers (he didn't) is irrelevant to this conversation.

3. The Rosary is repetitious, but it isn't vain. You clearly do not understand the rosary and reflecting on the mysteries, etc.

[Agape4Robin]

He threatened me w/eternal damnation, I attacked his avatar. Seems fair to me.



1. Purgatory is in the Bible. It's just that the prots ripped the Deuterocanonicals out.

2. Whether or not Jesus had brothers (he didn't) is irrelevant to this conversation.

3. The Rosary is repetitious, but it isn't vain. You clearly do not understand the rosary and reflecting on the mysteries, etc.
As it pertains to purgatory, who says? The catholic church? :LoJo:

No brothers or sisters? Then explain Matthew 13:53-58. :think:

Yeah, ok.....the rosary is repetitious but not vain? :chuckle: That is actually taken from pagan worship. When Constantine made christianity the official religion, he found that the people would not give up their pagan traditions, so they began to be incorporated into "the church" as well as sun god worship, infant baptism and a host of other "traditions".

[Inquisitor]

As it pertains to purgatory, who says? The catholic church? :LoJo:

Yes, and the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret scriptures. You don't.


Yeah, ok.....the rosary is repetitious but not vain? :chuckle: That is actually taken from pagan worship. When Constantine made christianity the official religion, he found that the people would not give up their pagan traditions, so they began to be incorporated into "the church" as well as sun god worship, infant baptism and a host of other "traditions".

Now you're just regurgitating the genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter whether or not certain traditions are similar to, or in fact came from, paganism. You have to evaluate the rituals and traditions themselves. You fundies never grasp this point, but it's a fundamental principle of logic.

Furthermore, the same "reasoning" can be used against all of Christianity. I'm sure some of the secularists here could enlighten us all on how similar Jesus was to Zoroaster and how the trinity is similar to other pagan traditions (which put special significance on threes). By attacking Catholicism in this way, you have just opened yourself up to the exact same line of attack, but you don't even realize it.

[Agape4Robin]

Yes, and the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret scriptures. You don't.



Now you're just regurgitating the genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter whether or not certain traditions are similar to, or in fact came from, paganism. You have to evaluate the rituals and traditions themselves. You fundies never grasp this point, but it's a fundamental principle of logic.

Furthermore, the same "reasoning" can be used against all of Christianity. I'm sure some of the secularists here could enlighten us all on how similar Jesus was to Zoroaster and how the trinity is similar to other pagan traditions (which put special significance on threes). By attacking Catholicism in this way, you have just opened yourself up to the exact same line of attack, but you don't even realize it.
I do have the authority to interpret scripture. Paul says so. The catholic church doesn't want you to because they know that if you did, you would see that they are full of :cow: crap. Besides, since the invention of the printing press, more people have access to the truth, not a "church" who wants a monopoly on God. :rolleyes:

You still didn't explain Matthew 13:53-58. :think:

[Inquisitor]

In regards to that Jesus' brothers thing, in both Hebrew and Aramaic the word for brother can also be used to refer to cousins.

[SOTK]

Yes, and the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret scriptures. You don't.

Oh, brother! You are obviously a relic of the Dark Ages. :rolleyes: It's attitudes like this and comments like yours which lead me and many others to leave the Catholic Church.

[Agape4Robin]

In regards to that Jesus' brothers thing, in both Hebrew and Aramaic the word for brother can also be used to refer to cousins.
In this context, brother means what it says.

[Inquisitor]

In this context, brother means what it says.

You can't prove that. That's merely an assertion.

[Inquisitor]

Oh, brother! You are obviously a relic of the Dark Ages.

That's not an insult at all. I openly admit to being a medievalist and wanting to bring back the so-called "Dark" Ages. I prefer to call it the Age of Faith.

[Agape4Robin]

You can't prove that. That's merely an assertion.
You can't prove it doesn't.
Besides, you aren't allowed to interpret scripture for yourself or you will be in opposition to your beloved church.
:noway: Uh oh....better say 5 hail marys and 5 our fathers! :rolleyes:

[SOTK]

That's not an insult at all. I openly admit to being a medievalist and wanting to bring back the so-called "Dark" Ages. I prefer to call it the Age of Faith.

It wasn't meant as an insult but as a statement of fact. I was obviously right. How is this for an insult? You're a nutbar! :kookoo:

[Inquisitor]

It wasn't meant as an insult but as a statement of fact. I was obviously right. How is this for an insult? You're a nutbar! :kookoo:

I don't care what you think, fundie.

[Agape4Robin]

Well? You still didn't explain Matthew 13:53-58, yet!

Oh, wait....maybe your not done with your rosary..... :chuckle:

[Agape4Robin]

Checks watch........ :yawn:
Still waiting....................... :rolleyes:

[Inquisitor]

Well? You still didn't explain Matthew 13:53-58, yet!

Oh, wait....maybe your not done with your rosary..... :chuckle:

Um, actually, I did. The Greek was likely translated from Aramaic, where the word for brother can mean several different levels of relation. Looking at the passage, that would seem to make sense, or Jesus had quite the large family.

Also, I would point out that the Eastern Orthodox also believe that Mary did not have children, or that the so-called "brethren" were step children fathered by Joseph when Joseph's former wife died.

[Agape4Robin]

Um, actually, I did. The Greek was likely translated from Aramaic, where the word for brother can mean several different levels of relation. Looking at the passage, that would seem to make sense, or Jesus had quite the large family.
So? Having a large family was not unusual.

[Inquisitor]

So? Having a large family was not unusual.

Especially not in Catholic families it isn't. But this isn't the thrust of the argument.

[Agape4Robin]

Especially not in Catholic families it isn't. But this isn't the thrust of the argument.
yeah.....ok........ :rolleyes:

[Inquisitor]

yeah.....ok........ :rolleyes:

Interestingly, Eastern Orthodoxy and the early Deformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingly) believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. Here's Wikipedia on "Mary, the Mother of Jesus":

Perpetual virginity

That Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus is a doctrinal stance of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Of the early fathers of the Church, only Tertullian seems to have questioned the teaching. Muslims also hold it to be true. The most prominent leaders of the Reformation, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin also defended the perpetual virginity of Mary against those who questioned it. Popular belief among the faithful has diminished in the 20th century, together with active faith and participation in organized religion. Protestant churches, as well, have set aside the traditional teaching, citing references to "brothers" of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Defenders of the teaching, including John Calvin, have pointed out that Aramaic, the language spoken by Christ and his disciples, lacked a specific word for "cousin," so that the word "brother" was used instead. In addition, nothing in Greek or Aramaic disqualifies a half-brother (same father, different mother) from being called a "brother".

[Troll Bait]

Looks like no one has donated any Ovaltine to my Leo-clone. I guess one problem he has with us poor misguided fundies is that we don't worship Mary as the perpetual virgin mother of God. We believe that she was a virgin when she conceived and bore Christ. But, that she had children later because the Bible says that Jesus had brothers.

Pray tell, Leo-clone, do you also believe that Mary was physically translated into heaven like Leo did?

[SOTK]

I don't care what you think, fundie.

Is that the best you got?

:darwinsm:

[Agape4Robin]

Interestingly, Eastern Orthodoxy and the early Deformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingly) believed in Mary's perpetual divinity. Here's Wikipedia on "Mary, the Mother of Jesus":
Mary was not divine....she was a created being. She is not equal to Christ nor does she have special access to HIm. She is not an intercesssor, that is the function of the Holy Spirit.
You cannot remain a virgin perpetually...she had a husband, and even if she didn't have other kids, (she did) she still most likely had sexual relations with her husband. Thus, she is not a virgin!

[Inquisitor]

Mary was not divine....she was a created being. She is not equal to Christ nor does she have special access to HIm. She is not an intercesssor, that is the function of the Holy Spirit.
You cannot remain a virgin perpetually...she had a husband, and even if she didn't have other kids, (she did) she still most likely had sexual relations with her husband. Thus, she is not a virgin!

I made a typo. Mary was not divine (look at the context, clearly I meant to say perpetual virginity) and she was created, I agree w/you there. But the rest of your post is simply spouting a long list of assertions, all of which are wrong.

[Inquisitor]

Is that the best you got?

:darwinsm:

Is this a name calling competition now?

[Agape4Robin]

I made a typo. Mary was not divine (look at the context, clearly I meant to say perpetual virginity) and she was created, I agree w/you there. But the rest of your post is simply spouting a long list of assertions, all of which are wrong.
Wrong? How? :think:

According to the RCC? :chuckle:

[Inquisitor]

Looks like no one has donated any Ovaltine to my Leo-clone. I guess one problem he has with us poor misguided fundies is that we don't worship Mary as the perpetual virgin mother of God. We believe that she was a virgin when she conceived and bore Christ. But, that she had children later because the Bible says that Jesus had brothers.

From Wikipedia....

Some early Protestants venerated and honored Mary. Martin Luther said Mary is "the highest woman", that "we can never honour her enough", that "the veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart", and that we should "wish that everyone know and respect her". John Calvin said, "It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor." Zwingli said, "I esteem immensely the Mother of God," and, "The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."

I guess protestants have slipped even further over the years. As I pointed out on an earlier post, the Deformers even believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. If Luther knew what would result from his actions, do you think he would have left the Church?


Pray tell, Leo-clone, do you also believe that Mary was physically translated into heaven like Leo did?

The assumption is simply orthodox Christian doctrine. Again, from Wikipedia...

Dormition and Assumption

This image depicts Mary's Assumption into heaven with her body and soul.For Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics alike, Mary's assumption, i.e., the lifting up of her body into Heaven after her death, is seen as a concrete and present instance of the resurrection of the body, a belief integral to Christian theology and found in the creeds.

The doctrine in Roman Catholicism

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary was formally declared to be dogma by Pope Pius XII in 1950; Roman Catholics must therefore hold the doctrine as being necessary to salvation. Pope Pius XII states in Munificentissimus Deus [1] (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM): "[W]e pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith." This is an example of an invocation of papal infallibility. The Feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15.

The promulgated dogma is not worded so as to force the issue as to whether she experienced death prior to her Assumption, as there is no theological basis for doing so. Ludwig Ott (Bk. III, Pt. 3, Ch. 2, §6) states that "the fact of her death is almost generally accepted by the Fathers and Theologians, and is expressly affirmed in the Liturgy of the Church," to which he adduces a number of helpful citations, and concludes that "for Mary, death, in consequence of her freedom from original sin and from personal sin, was not a consequence of punishment of sin. However, it seems fitting that Mary's body, which was by nature mortal, should be, in conformity with that of her Divine Son, subject to the general law of death." In keeping with the historical consensus of the Church, Pius XII himself almost certainly rejected the notion of Mary's "immortality" (the idea that she never suffered death) in favor of the more widely accepted understanding that her assumption took place after her physical death.

The doctrine in Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy

The tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church holds that Mary died, and that after her death and burial, she was resurrected and taken up bodily into heaven. This two-fold event is celebrated as the Dormition ("falling asleep") of the Theotokos. The Feast of the Dormition is celebrated on August 15, and is preceded by a fourteen day fast from meat and dairy products, the third longest fast of the liturgical year after Great Lent and Winter Lent. Despite the great importance of this feast in the Orthodox liturgical calendar, it is not considered a matter of dogma as in the Catholic Church (dogmatization of the Dormition for the Roman Catholic Church was formalized by a Roman Catholic pope after the Great Schism, whose authority Eastern Orthodox did not recognize).

[Inquisitor]

Wrong? How? :think:


Right? How? :think:

We could go back and forth with this. You made a bunch of assertions that you did not prove correct, I said they were wrong. That's no better than anything you did, fundie.

[Agape4Robin]

Right? How? :think:

We could go back and forth with this. You made a bunch of assertions that you did not prove correct, I said they were wrong. That's no better than anything you did, fundie.
You can't back up your claims with the bible, so you use extra biblical sources that actually contradict scripture!
:loser:

[Ninjashadow]

You won't find him doing that, A4R. He doesn't believe the bible is meant to be used alone. Why doesn't he believe that? Becuase the RCC told him not to. He isn't allowed to think for himself, he is only allowed to think what the RCC tells him to think. I've quit wasting my time with him.

[Ninjashadow]

Oh, and by the way, if we are fundies, that would make him a cathy.

[Agape4Robin]

You won't find him doing that, A4R. He doesn't believe the bible is meant to be used alone. Why doesn't he believe that? Becuase the RCC told him not to. He isn't allowed to think for himself, he is only allowed to think what the RCC tells him to think. I've quit wasting my time with him.
I know. The RCC is so full of pagan traditions it should be classified as a cult, but then again it weilds too much political power.

[Agape4Robin]

Oh, and by the way, if we are fundies, that would make him a cathy.
Chatty Cathy? :chuckle:

[Inquisitor]

You can't back up your claims with the bible, so you use extra biblical sources that actually contradict scripture!
:loser:

More mere assertions.

[Inquisitor]

I know. The RCC is so full of pagan traditions it should be classified as a cult, but then again it weilds too much political power.

You know, as I've explained earlier, some would say that all of Christianity comes from pagan tradition. Do you really want to leave yourself wide open to that type of attack?

[Agape4Robin]

You know, as I've explained earlier, some would say that all of Christianity comes from pagan tradition. Do you really want to leave yourself wide open to that type of attack?
:blabla:

[Inquisitor]

:blabla:

That wasn't "blah" at all. If any atheists are reading this thread, they could easily swoop in for the kill here. And you would have no line of defense.

[Agape4Robin]

That wasn't "blah" at all. If any atheists are reading this thread, they could easily swoop in for the kill here. And you would have no line of defense.
I ain't afraid of no stinkin athiest! :nananana:

[Aimiel]

[/QUOTE]1. You need to do something about your Mullet Christ avatar.I have, I posted it as my avatar, because it reminds me of the prayers that The Lord made.2. I've never asserted that we use tradition to make the word of God of none effect. So it's a moot point.You misunderstood. It is the 'tradition' of kneeling, getting up, kneeling, (ad infinitum), repeating the 'rosary' over and over, making prayers to people who are dead, making idols to kneel before that I refer to; and the list goes on and on. Suffice it to say, with the things the RCC does, it is always surprising to me when I run across a believer who is Catholic, which is very rare, indeed. I can tell you're not, but your ideas remind me of someone who used to be on TOL, and was the biggest loon to ever post on here: one Leo Volont. He thought Paul was The Anti-Christ. He took scissors to his Bible to make it more 'holy' and had quite a few 'ideas' which I'm sure you'd agree with. You two would have gotten along famously. :Cyrus:

[Lovejoy]

I have, I posted it as my avatar, because it reminds me of the prayers that The Lord made.You misunderstood. It is the 'tradition' of kneeling, getting up, kneeling, (ad infinitum), repeating the 'rosary' over and over, making prayers to people who are dead, making idols to kneel before that I refer to; and the list goes on and on. Suffice it to say, with the things the RCC does, it is always surprising to me when I run across a believer who is Catholic, which is very rare, indeed. I can tell you're not, but your ideas remind me of someone who used to be on TOL, and was the biggest loon to ever post on here: one Leo Volont. He thought Paul was The Anti-Christ. He took scissors to his Bible to make it more 'holy' and had quite a few 'ideas' which I'm sure you'd agree with. You two would have gotten along famously. :Cyrus:
Don't forget that he also thought Jacob was the destroyer of God's system, and that Mary frequently had to discipline Christ.

[Agape4Robin]

Don't forget that he also thought Jacob was the destroyer of God's system, and that Mary frequently had to discipline Christ.
This guy sounds like a real winner!

[Lovejoy]

This guy sounds like a real winner!
Well, he definitely would have won a prize if the game was about being a superfreak.

[Lighthouse]

Leo was probably a queer.

[Ninjashadow]

Leo was probably a queer.

Don't you mean "faggot"?

[Lovejoy]

Don't you mean "faggot"?
:doh:

[Lighthouse]

Either one works for me. I think the guy wanted to be a priest, so he could molest the altar boys.

[Delmar]

Either one works for me. I think the guy wanted to be a priest, so he could molest the altar boys.
EW!!!!

[Agape4Robin]

Either one works for me. I think the guy wanted to be a priest, so he could molest the altar boys.
:chew: :vomit:

[Inquisitor]

I ain't afraid of no stinkin athiest! :nananana:

And the French weren't afraid of the Nazis. Look how that turned out.

[Agape4Robin]

And the French weren't afraid of the Nazis. Look how that turned out.
Shouldn't you be at Mass somewhere?

[Lighthouse]

He's a mass of something.

[Agape4Robin]

He's a mass of something.
:LoJo:

[Inquisitor]

Shouldn't you be at Mass somewhere?

That only takes up an hour of my day.

[Agape4Robin]

That only takes up an hour of my day.
Perhaps you should go light a candle and pray to Mary or something.

[Lighthouse]

Don't encourage idolatry.:nono:

[Inquisitor]

Perhaps you should go light a candle and pray to Mary or something.

Praying to Mary is a GREAT idea! I'll do a "Hail Holy Queen" just for you, Agape...


Hail Holy Queen

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy,
Our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve,
To thee do we send up our sighs,
Mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us,
And after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!
Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God,
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. Amen.

[Inquisitor]

Any other saintly or Marian devotions you'd like me to do while we're at it?

[Agape4Robin]

Don't encourage idolatry.:nono:
Sorry............ :bang:

[Agape4Robin]

Any other saintly or Marian devotions you'd like me to do while we're at it?
:grave:
You're boring.......

[Inquisitor]

:grave:
You're boring.......

Three words: Pot... kettle... black.

[Lighthouse]

Maybe he should bore a hole into his brain.

[Frank Ernest]

:chz4brnz: :D

[Aimiel]

Don't forget that he also thought Jacob was the destroyer of God's system, and that Mary frequently had to discipline Christ.Yesterday I saw him on hte TOL Home page's list of 'Members who Visited Today.' Maybe I'll send him an e-mail to let him know we may have found him a friend. God knows he could use one.