Shame on the Cardinal

Texas Lynn · Dec 16, 2008

Yarddog said:
Doesn't the baby matter at all? What did the innocent unborn child do to be killed? Who is defending the baby?

A fetus is not a person.

Jesus will be there to comfront it. To take away the pain which comes from which ever method is used.

The bulk of the pain women who abort feel is from self-righteous anti-abortion people.

He will also be there to forgive the sin, if those involved wish to repent and ask for it.

There is no "sin" whatsoever in abortion.

Texas Lynn · Dec 16, 2008

ReformedChapin said:
Everyone makes their own religion therefore ethics become nothing more than subjective notions. Gotcha.

Religion is definitely a personal matter regardless of others' attempts to try and make it otherwise. Try as hard as they might they cannot stop the human brain. The insistence that ethical decisions must somehow ignore personal reality and experience appears to me to be akin to a desire to have the sun revolve around the earth.

"You can't stop my happiness cuz I like the way I am; and you can't stop my knife and fork when I see a Christmas Ham..." -Edna Turnblad

max1120 · Dec 16, 2008

Dark Lite...hmmm would that be Gandi? Islam has almost a Billion people also so maybe it would be Mohamad? The point I am stressing is belief is not a numbers game where the largest number of adhearants wins! There are lots of explainations for the growth of Christianity and many of them have to do with politics ...many many converted to Christianity at the point of a blade. Also you might want to do some research on dominate culture sociology. Christianity was the dominate culture after Rome accepted Christianity as the state religion. That gave it dominate culture status. So it's growth was in large part due to such historical forces. Most people of the period were illeterate and did not read the bible (besides it was only available in Latin or Greek at the time and even those literate in their native tounge were not so in latin or greek). BTW it was illegal (opposed by the Roman Catholic Church) for the bible to be printed in any language other than in latin. So people did not sit down an just read it and become convinced of it's truths (of which it has many). I could write for hours on this subject but this should hold you..for now.

Max

max1120 · Dec 16, 2008

Zaac...I would say the same of you. You know that the bible has been tampered with as you offer nothing to refute the facts I have offered. You are taking the words and translations of other men and ASSUMING that God some how divinely guided there every move while doing so. You assume this because why?...it fits neatly with YOUR views. Some people I believe really want (although I can not understand why) to live by a very very austere code of conduct. Also the cultural attitudes one is raised in or around and their life experiences can influence this also.

I did not just take the works of other men at face value. I did something all of us should do RESEARCH. I also had the good fortune of good education...but today even people who did not study at the University or Graduate level can access this information and read books pubished at the level of the layman. By the way much of this scanned and online now..you can read the actual 1700 year old document on the website I included in my post.

I take this very seriously and do not like seeing others cause people to believe things that cause pain and suffering simply out of lack of knowlage. I try to act as an educator so that others can find freedom from the austere and dare I say it backward thinking that is so prevalent in much of conservative religious thinking.

max1120 · Dec 16, 2008

Nadine...I am not constructing a swiss cheese bible. Just because you dislike certain facts do not make them incorrect. Research and science has always upset old ideas with the discovery of new ones. This is the path of progress and growth. We should do so on a personal level as well as a societal one.

Research is good for you...it expands the mind and hopefully if you read both sides of the story you will come to see that the vast majority of the scholarship out there on this topic accepts my points.

Why can you not see that when faced with factual evidence you can not continue with a line of reasoning that is clearly flawed.

max1120 · Dec 16, 2008

Nadine....you are quite correct with respect that this has gotten away form the OP. I am still waiting on someone to comment on my points regaurding hte RCC responsiblility for its leaders (Cardinals) actions. They clearly have justifiable cause to restrain him but choose to not do so.

Max

Yarddog · Dec 16, 2008

max1120 said:
Yarddog...You are correct the RCC is not alone in it's efforts to use their religion as a way to influnece voting. There are a number of evangelicals who do this as well. So my apology if it appears I was "picking" on the RCC.

It does not matter who is doing it...it is still WRONG!!!

It is wrong in your eyes and some others but it is perfectly legal and "definitely morally correct" for the Churches to guide their membership in matters concerning their spiritual well being.

As for the Catholic Leauge and Mr. Donahue. While I recognize that the Catholic Leauge is not an "official" arm of the Roman Catholic Church, I have never seen it critizied for it's actions by the Vatican or any major Vatican offical.

I'm not sure that the Vatican has done anything official but I have read it from US priests and I'll check what they USCCB has said. I will say that even though Mr. Donohue has overstepped on some issues he does defend the Catholic Church correctly on many areas.

This is about the same as when you defend the RCC with regard to the Cardinal offering a homely during a mass honoring General Penochet. It appears VERY disengenous for anyone to say "oh it's a chiliean problem".

Where did I say "oh, it's a chilean problem'. Is this part of your reading into things? I'm not there and you are not there. Neither of us know why the Mass was performed. I do not judge what I don't know.

The RCC is about forgiveness, not judgement.
Here is an article from a Catholic News source.
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=22309

Let me ask you this, if say a German Cardinal was offering a homely praising Adolf Hiter ( none would I know but just for arguments sake lets say it happen) during a mass celibrated in his honor.

If there was a Mass asking for us to find forgivenes for him, I'd agree.

My point is if it is wrong and it is done by a very high offical of the Church...it is up to the leader of that level or higher to rebuke him..not the local bishops.

From my understanding it was a retired Cardinal.

YD

Nadiine · Dec 16, 2008

max1120 said:
Nadine...I am not constructing a swiss cheese bible. Just because you dislike certain facts do not make them incorrect. Research and science has always upset old ideas with the discovery of new ones. This is the path of progress and growth. We should do so on a personal level as well as a societal one.

Research is good for you...it expands the mind and hopefully if you read both sides of the story you will come to see that the vast majority of the scholarship out there on this topic accepts my points.

Why can you not see that when faced with factual evidence you can not continue with a line of reasoning that is clearly flawed.

Well that's just it, God's word isn't just "old ideas".
If that's how you view it, you told me all I need to know about your
brand of Christianity

(by the way, I don't view it as "factual" without doing my own study -
why should I trust your info?)

Yarddog · Dec 16, 2008

HMMM, your profile says that you're Methodist but you don't fit into the belief system of any of the Methodist Churches that I found on line. The info I got was from this site but most all agreed.

http://www.methodist.org.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=opentogod.content&cmid=1540

Texas Lynn said:
A fetus is not a person.

At what stage does an unborn fetus become a person?
The result of the coming together of human sperm and ovum is obviously human. The appearance of the primitive streak' (the beginning of the neurological system) after some fourteen days is an important stage. However for many weeks after this event, natural abortion will continue to bring about the termination of over 50% of embryos.
Fertilisation, implantation and subsequent development are parts of a continuous process. It is simply not possible to identify the single moment when a new human person begins. The right of the embryo to full respect clearly increases throughout a pregnancy.

The bulk of the pain women who abort feel is from self-righteous anti-abortion people.

The women that I have talked to say the pain comes from the guilt they feel.
Though I'm sure there are plenty of self-righteous anti-abortionists, the Catholic Church does not fit this criteria. The RCC is just as concerned with the health, both physical and spiritual, of the mother. The reason they are against abortion is not because of the woman but because of the baby's life. The RCC believes that no one the right to kill an innocent baby.

There is no "sin" whatsoever in abortion.

You can discuss that with God when the time comes. From the site:
What is the position of the Methodist Church on abortion?
The Methodist Conference Statement of 1976 states that abortion is always an evil, to be avoided if at all possible by offering care to single mothers during pregnancy, and the adoption of their children if, at full term, the mother cannot offer a home. However, the Statement also holds that there will be circumstances where the termination of pregnancy may be the lesser of evils. These include situations where the embryo is grievously handicapped, the pregnancy is the result of rape or the health, mental or physical, of the mother is at risk.

Thank goodness the Methodist Church has a deeper conscience than you.

Zaac · Dec 16, 2008

max1120 said:
Zaac...I would say the same of you. You know that the bible has been tampered with as you offer nothing to refute the facts I have offered. You are taking the words and translations of other men and ASSUMING that God some how divinely guided there every move while doing so.

Why not when Scripture says that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God?

You assume this because why?...it fits neatly with YOUR views.

Because God said it before I was around to have a view.

Some people I believe really want (although I can not understand why) to live by a very very austere code of conduct. Also the cultural attitudes one is raised in or around and their life experiences can influence this also.

Like Nadiine said, if you want to believe in a swiss cheese Bible in which you have no idea what is truth, go ahead. Just don't presume to teach anyone about God when you doubt the truth of ALL of His Word, because God will be holding you responsible for this errant teaching.

I did not just take the works of other men at face value. I did something all of us should do RESEARCH.

So you trust YOU and your research, but you dont trust God?

I also had the good fortune of good education...but today even people who did not study at the University or Graduate level can access this information and read books pubished at the level of the layman. By the way much of this scanned and online now..you can read the actual 1700 year old document on the website I included in my post.

Again, learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. You're STILL trusting men more than you trust Christ.

I take this very seriously and do not like seeing others cause people to believe things that cause pain and suffering simply out of lack of knowlage.

Pain and suffering?

How has the truth done anything but set men free?

The Bible says 17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.

You're claiming to be trying to save folks from that which causes pain and suffering. You're promising them freedom while teaching an errant gospel that enslaves them further.
2 Peter 2:17-19

I try to act as an educator so that others can find freedom from the austere and dare I say it backward thinking that is so prevalent in much of conservative religious thinking.

God doesn't call people to "act" as anything. He either calls you to do it or He does not. Some folks claim things for themselves and the error with which they do it is demonstrated in the false teachings that they disperse.

Also, can we take any further discussion of this to the other thread? Thanks.

Nadiine · Dec 16, 2008

Ok,... let's do an experiment on 1 verse with the
Swiss Cheese bible some people have on their shelves.

Acts 5:32
"And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit,
whom God has given to those who obey Him."

Now... is this verse true or tampered with by man?
If it IS true, OBEY WHAT exactly since
we sure can't know what God wants us to obey...;
homosexuality seems to be just fine around here, & fornication
(any premarital sex)...

So is a person saved & full of God's Spirit if they live in homosexuality or fornication or adultery? or what exactly?

How do we pinpoint what this verse means incl. cross referencing it
with all the other verses in the Bible that I guess we can't really know
if they've been tampered with either..

- or is it all relative & whatever we guess it means?
throw me a bone here

davedjy · Dec 16, 2008

So for the Bible literalists, then I guess I can sacrifice humans: (Genesis 22:1-18), (Exodus 13:2), (Judges 11:29-40), (Joshua 7:15), (1 Kings 13:1-2), (2 Kings 23:20-25), Burn nonbelievers: (Deuteronomy 13:13-19), take up some slaves: (Leviticus 25:44-46), (Exodus 21:2-6), (Exodus 21:7-11), (Exodus 21:20-21), (Ephesians 6:5), (1 Timothy 6:1-2), (Luke 12:47-48)

It seems to me the very people that want us to take the whole Bible literally, discard the parts they find uncomfortable themselves, and or "explain away" the historical context of those verses. I can pull the same card and say "no, it says what it says, I can do the human sacrifice, don't try to explain away what the Bible clearly says".

Disclaimer: I don't find the Bible to be something discarded, but to be taken into it's proper HISTORICAL context amongst all content.

Oh, I get it! anything sexual in the Bible must be for today (including pagan rituals and practices that get ignored), and the rest is a historical reference. :idea:

Zaac · Dec 16, 2008

davedjy said:
So for the Bible literalists, then I guess I can sacrifice humans: (Genesis 22:1-18), (Exodus 13:2), (Judges 11:29-40), (Joshua 7:15), (1 Kings 13:1-2), (2 Kings 23:20-25), Burn nonbelievers: (Deuteronomy 13:13-19), take up some slaves: (Leviticus 25:44-46), (Exodus 21:2-6), (Exodus 21:7-11), (Exodus 21:20-21), (Ephesians 6:5), (1 Timothy 6:1-2), (Luke 12:47-48)

It seems to me the very people that want us to take the whole Bible literally, discard the parts they find uncomfortable themselves, and or "explain away" the historical context of those verses. I can pull the same card and say "no, it says what it says, I can do the human sacrifice, don't try to explain away what the Bible clearly says".

Disclaimer: I don't find the Bible to be something discarded, but to be taken into it's proper HISTORICAL context amongst all content.

Oh, I get it! anything sexual in the Bible must be for today (including pagan rituals and practices that get ignored), and the rest is a historical reference.

Why would you list those things in defense of not accepting God's written word literally?

Jesus Christ completed the law. Men no longer had to sacrifice animals in atonement for sin because Jesus was the last sacrifice.

As for the cultural things that you listed, Jesus again, completed the law. He became the sacrifice so that no one else would have to be sacrificed. He bore the burns so that no one would ever have to be burned again. He was a slave so that no one would need to be enslaved again.

So don't confuse a need to do what was done with what no longer needs to be done because Christ has paid the penalty.

By Jewish law, they could stone an adulterer. But Christ took on that that sin so that no one need be stoned again. That in no way says that people were not literally stoned way back when.

It just says that we no longer have to and should extend mercy just as Christ bearing ALL sin has extended His mercy to save us from that which we ALL deserve.

davedjy · Dec 16, 2008

Zaac said:
Why would you list those things in defense of not accepting God's written word literally?

Jesus Christ completed the law. Men no longer had to sacrifice animals in atonement for sin because Jesus was the last sacrifice.

As for the cultural things that you listed, Jesus again, completed the law. He became the sacrifice so that no one else would have to be sacrificed. He bore the burns so that no one would ever have to be burned again. He was a slave so that no one would need to be enslaved again.

So don't confuse a need to do what was done with what no longer needs to be done because Christ has paid the penalty.

By Jewish law, they could stone an adulterer. But Christ took on that that sin so that no one need be stoned again. That in no way says that people were not literally stoned way back when.

It just says that we no longer have to and should extend mercy just as Christ bearing ALL sin has extended His mercy to save us from that which we ALL deserve.

You are proving my point all the more. It doesn't change the fact that the law existed regardless of "what had to be done". You are making an argument based upon "historical Biblical reference" and try to explain away other verses, but yet you say that we need to take other verses at face value. You can't have it both ways. Slavery still exists in the NT (after the law was fulfilled), I gave those verses too, so your theory on that one doesn't work.

Zaac · Dec 16, 2008

davedjy said:
You are proving my point all the more. It doesn't change the fact that the law existed regardless of "what had to be done". You are making an argument based upon "historical Biblical reference" and try to explain away other verses, but yet you say that we need to take other verses at face value. You can't have it both ways. Slavery still exists in the NT (after the law was fulfilled), I gave those verses too, so your theory on that one doesn't work.

You know, I have no idea what you just said ^_^

Nadiine · Dec 17, 2008

davedjy said:
So for the Bible literalists, then I guess I can sacrifice humans: (Genesis 22:1-18), (Exodus 13:2), (Judges 11:29-40), (Joshua 7:15), (1 Kings 13:1-2), (2 Kings 23:20-25), Burn nonbelievers: (Deuteronomy 13:13-19), take up some slaves: (Leviticus 25:44-46), (Exodus 21:2-6), (Exodus 21:7-11), (Exodus 21:20-21), (Ephesians 6:5), (1 Timothy 6:1-2), (Luke 12:47-48)

It seems to me the very people that want us to take the whole Bible literally, discard the parts they find uncomfortable themselves, and or "explain away" the historical context of those verses. I can pull the same card and say "no, it says what it says, I can do the human sacrifice, don't try to explain away what the Bible clearly says".

Disclaimer: I don't find the Bible to be something discarded, but to be taken into it's proper HISTORICAL context amongst all content.

Oh, I get it! anything sexual in the Bible must be for today (including pagan rituals and practices that get ignored), and the rest is a historical reference.

Hi Dave =)
Anything of a sexual nature in the OT AND NT are moral laws and NONE of the moral laws are reversed or removed or changed.
Civil & Ceremonial laws of the OT we are no longer under due to Christ's fulfillment of them and the fact that civil law of Ancient Israel was never governing over anyone outside of the gates of Israel.

That would be like saying Amish laws in the back 40 in Idaho govern over everyone in Florida. But even in the civil law of the OT, there were godly standards of proper conduct which teach us principle in many things.

The food laws of the ceremonial laws are still valuable in that they also teach us good health. For instance, eating fat - unhealthy. Eating pork - pork is full of contaminates in the meat even cooked well.
Eating blood - unhealthy. Shellfish - they're scavengers & full of toxins...
etc.
Sure you aren't under food laws - however, it's not smart to toss it all out as if it's stupid or something.

Aside from ALL moral law not changing (and no it was absolutely NOT only about pagan ritualistic sex; sorry but that's just false information.
It's completely generalized in MOST all homosexual texts - only a few in scripture deal with that.
& what in the world is so different about pagans having sex & non pagans having sex??
People here want to make fornication and homosexuality BOTH lawful -
so then pagan ceremony should have absolutely NOTHING to do w/ it or the reasons they had their sex.
It doesn't make fornication or homosexuality somehow "clean" now.
Neither were allowed in either testament & we have that evidence thru other laws and teachings in the bible.

The Pharisees attacked Jesus for being illegitimate becuz Mary had him before she was married. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to know
they were still living under fornication laws. Even in the USA just 30 years ago it was looked down on.
You just happen to living in a world that's turned immoral - so the more immorality you see, the more you're tempted to think God's ok with it.
HE ISN'T & HE NEVER WAS.

& tossing out civil laws on slavery doesn't change a thing about sexuality.
Unless you want me to believe inappropriate behavior with animals & incest are fine today too as you do your cherry picking of morality.

Nadiine · Dec 17, 2008

It seems to me the very people that want us to take the whole Bible literally, discard the parts they find uncomfortable themselves, and or "explain away" the historical context of those verses

First of all ...we CAN "explain away" the laws you're misapplying.

Again, civil, ceremonial & moral law are in 3 categories.
Civil - nobody but those inside the gates of Israel were under them.
Ceremonial - Jesus fulfilled the clean/unclean laws thru His sacrifice.
The rituals & feasts & sacrificial system are now changed thru grace.
Moral - ALL moral laws continue to stand - they were laws of LOVE in
forbidding people to harm one another.

Rom 13
for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

How do you expect God to change moral laws when they are protecting
people & stand to judge people for harming others (& themselves) thru physical sins that HARM others?
The problem here is our idea of harm & God's idea. He knows better than we do why things are evil when they SEEM ok to us.

There is harm in the physical world AND in the spiritual world. If fornication is sin (and it is), then even tho it feels good and you "LUV" the person you're sleeping with, it's STILL harming them spiritually and it's abuse of their body physically. Esp. when the breakup comes & you no longer "love" them & move on to use the next lover.

Jesus didn't reverse any moral laws, in fact He was born under to teach & uphold them as God's Law (HE wrote the law as a matter of fact - Heb. 9)
He was giving new depth to the Law & to relay it's true meaning - which was LOVE. Love of God and neighbor.

He didn't just remove moral law -in fact, He elaborated on it by giving
greater depth & parameter to divorce & adultery. He ADDED that even lust of another is adultery & that only for reasons of fornication can one divorce lawfully & remarry.
They never knew that. It didn't get reversed, it got defined further.

ONLY the marriage bed is undefiled. & Jesus also gave the definition of the marital covenant in Mat. 19:3-11. Hinging on GENDER itself at creation of male & female that they would become one flesh. The definition proves His standard of the unit.
So obviously, anything outside that original design is not His intention or plan.

Moving on,...
One thing you have wrong in your statement above is that we claim the ENTIRE bible is "literal". No we don't. Noone I know has ever claimed the entire bible (every passage) is Literal.
It's full of metaphor, anology, parables, anthropomorphisms, symbology, visions, poetry, etc.
& each must be taken in their proper context and proper language/grammar (Greek or Hebrew) & historical aspects.

& THIS IS WHY GOD APPOINTS TEACHERS that are led by His Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
Ephesians 4:11
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
Acts 13:1
[ First Missionary Journey ] Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon

God has specially gifted them to discern scripture properly and teach it.
Alot of people refuse to sit under a qualified teacher to be self taught.
Worse, the self taught take it upon themselves to go teach others falsity that they pick up & think is true :doh:

But it would be foolish for anyone to claim the Bible is "completely" anything -
metaphor or literal; it's neither and both
where text allows for it.

max1120 · Dec 18, 2008

Nadine...First let me say BRAVO! Yes, indeed please do your own research and do not rely upon me! I encourage people to read....and read even those who hold radically differnt views form your own to challange your beliefs! It is indeed always a good thing to open up and search out new ideas.

You made some refrences to the issue of divorce and remarriage. I am going to assume that you veiw divorce and remarriage (except for cases of adultery) as a sin. You believe that remarriage after a divorce for reason other than adultery is committing adultery

Christianity is about loving our neighbor as ourselves and caring for one another. It was about turning hate into love by showing love to others. I think seeing how little sex can get away with having or living a pious austere exsistance is not going to get anyone into heaven. I have often see these as prime targets for where men likely added to the bible. I for example have always believed that it is realisticaly possible that Jesus did indeed marry and have a child. If that were the case I think the proof of such would have been surpressed by those who choose to follow a different path. I have seem way to many people who are "christians " with sexual obessions and issues stiming from their inability to accept their sexuality or that of others that I am convinced that what is really unnatural is the supression of ones sexuality.

As long as no one is hurting anyone, all parties are consenting adults, and no one is ever forced to do any thing against his/her will. I think it pretty much up to the parties involved. I do not see a loving caring God who created us being so obsessed with what we do with our priviates or whom we sleep with that he wants to send us all off to burn and suffer endless tourment for all eternity. Think about that does that sound like someone you would really want to worship or call Lord? Naahh That would sound more like a maniacal maniac, with deep rooted issues about sex. He would be a narcissist, with misogynist meglamanaic tendencies on the ultimate power trip. How petty would he have to be. He has the power to creat worlds and universes, he transends spance and time and yet he has so little on his mind that he wants to keep tabs on how we have sex or who we have it with? That sound silly does it not? That sort of thinking reduces God to a a hall monitor or meter maid sort of person who really enjoys hitting you up on the most petty of matterts. IF that sort of God really was what I thought was out there (and I do not) than I would say plainly not only would I not worship him..I would devote myself to trying to figure out a way to motivate people indeed world leaders that such a person was getting ready to annalate us and we had to resist and find some way to fight back. After all that would make him nothing more than the biggest bully in history ( I bigger,stronger,smarter,and I am going to force you to do as I say under threat of etrenal tourture). Indeed if you do worship a god of that variety you might want to ask yourself are you really worshiping him or are you just bowing in the face of his threats? That just sounds like a bully and not a loving creator. My God is a loving creator. I hope you very very wrong abuot the nature of God or I fear we are all in grave danger..even those of you who think you got it right. Someone of that nature could be very dangerous because it would mean he did not care a bloody thing about you or me...only about what we do and don't do.

My God is a loving and caring God. He does not have a private torture dungon called hell waiting for those special people who do to many of the no no's. You veiw hell filled with homosexuals or in your view had to much or the wrong kind of sex? I am afraid you are going to disappointed. My view is hell is either a place of seperation from God (not necessarily torture of the physical variety) or annialation (they just no longer exist). There is also the possiblity some have suggested that in the end God in all his mercy decideds to grant forgiveness to all His creation and no one is dammed (not even the homosexuals). :doh:

God is loving and merciful. He is not out to get you. He is not a hall monitor out to show you his power and turn you in for some petty infraction. He loves and cares for us a his creations. I do not see how you reconcile a loving and caring creator God. With a god that would cast you off into dark pit to burn for eternity (literally forever and ever) for the most petty of things such as whom your bed partner may or may not be. Or because you rather fancy your secretary or boss and have a sexual fantasy about them. Just rather odd sounding. IF you see your god as such...do you really want to worship and follow him or do you do it under duress...because you feel he will send you down to hell for doing otherwise. If that is the case than you follow him out of fear not love. That has always puzzeled me about those who take the bible literally.

Please do understand I am aware everyone has an their own views on these matters and you are certainly entitled to yours I just want to challange people to see these things with open eyes and explore a ifferent view. I do not do this to belittle or mock anyone but rather to get them to examine what they are saying and look at from a fresh perspective. I may disagree with you but I would be willing to risk my life to defend your right to believe as you wish! Freedom is a beautiful thing

!!!

max1120 · Dec 18, 2008

Nadine & Zaac

A few things you may want to consider before you decide to take the bible seriously:

1. 1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the cruel" (so if we take this literally all runaway slaves disobayed god?) Do you really want to take that kind of human tradedy and give it your seal of appoval as being "ok" with God?

2. Titus 2:9 "Slaves are to be submissive to their masters with all respect and to be well pleasing, not talking back" (sounds like like a good day down on the plantation)

3. Colosssians 3:22 "Slaves obey your human masters in everything: don't work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord."

4. Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the scincerity of your heart, as to Christ.

Now all four of those are in the NEW TESTAMENT. All four sound to me (if taken "literall" to be a wholehearted seal of approval of slavery...even cruel treatment of slaves". Where in the Old Testament doe God call on slaves to be set free? Does he oppose the physical punishment of slaves in the new testament? NO! So therefore can we conclude with your "literal" translation that maybe we should rething the whole slavery issue? Maybe we sinned fighting a war to free them? Does hell truely wait for the Union Army? ( I am of sothern ancestry and yes my family did own slaves and I hold my ancestors in high regard, I am doing this to make a point). I knew that Lincoln guy was up to no good!

Then we have the issue of divorce and remarriage. According to the beliefs of many in the fundamentalist churchs remarriage after divorce is the same as committing adultery (the exception some say is when the spouse committed adultery, then the innocent spouse can remarry).

Lets examine this issue:

What about cases where the wife is abused (I suppose I should be fair and say husband or wife but it usually the wife in these cases). You have a young girl who married a man she loved (or thought she loved) and he turned out to be wife beater. She is stuck with him? or else if she does divorce she has to live the rest of her life without sex???? So she 19 or 20 and has to live another 60-70 years without any sex (no masturbating or lusting either???). All of this for dumping a thug who beat her without mercy? WOW...your God sure does have an interesting view of mercy.

What about the person who marries a chid abuser? What about cases where the husband (or wife) becomes insane? drug addict or alcoholic, or compulsive gambler (and has no desire to change). What about the spouse that is mentally abusive and a true nacissist (and yes they can mask this quite well during the courtship (I know I have seen it happen). What about the person who marries way to young (for whatever reason people being people just make mistakes). All are have to decide I suppose between two miserable chocies? A because someone thinks way to highly about sex? Sorry again does not sound to merciful to me (and many others). Your god would deny these innocent people any chance for lasting happness in a good marriage or even a sex life for pete's sake do they not see how bizare that sounds?

My answer to this is a little long an complicated but to boil it down Jesus was not saying that remarriage after divorce was sin. He was pointing out how it was origionally and showing that God had made an allowance for divorce because man in his fallen condition (after the garden of eden) could not (becaue of the hardness of his heart) keep marriage as god had intended. That is why God allowed Moses to issue a "Ghet" or a Writ of Divorce. Jesus did not do away with this and never intended for people to be forced to accept one of two horriable possiblities (live with an abusive mate or live forever celibate).

What about Mathew 18:8-9, Is this to be taken literally also? If so where are they keeping all of the oneyed Christians? What if the other causes you to sin also..do you pluck it out? Must be a lot of blind people runing around in those fundamentist churchs? Do you know anyone who has actually cut off his arms or feet? Plucked out their eyes because they lusted? Again so where are they keeping all the blind or one armed christians? This is hyperbole...it was not "literal". Unless you can show me those one eyed or one armed christians :doh:

What about "lust in the heart" as mentioned in Mathew's Gospel. IF that is true we are everyone guilty and I do not personally know of any HONEST person who can say they quit doing it (Male or Female). You would have to live like a hermet up in most remote desert and even then you might start to have a fantasy about something you saw long ago. It is not realistic. Lust is natural...because sex is natural. We (healthy people) control our sex lives and we do not allow it to control us. I think people who try to hard to surpress sex are in a wierd sort of way being controlled by sex. Think about it.

Max :wave:

max1120 · Dec 18, 2008

Yarddog...You are correct the Cardinal is a retired Cardinal. But even so unless I remember incorrectly a preist (and a Cardinal is a priest first and formost) never really retires. He may no longer be "active" but still retains his faculty as preist and I am sure a Cardinal still holds a postion of respect within the church even in retirement. Thus his "retired" status does act as an excuse for allowing his actions to unanswered.

As far as a service to pray for the soul of Adolf Hiter...I can see where that would be something very different from a mass to "honor" him as was the case with this Cardinal particpating in a mass to "honor" General Penochet in Chile.

The argument over the church's right to teach and the separation of church and state...that is simple. The state should remain "neutral" and act in the best interest of all citizens be they religious or athiest or whatever. We should not only not respect one religion over another but we should respect religion over no religious. The role of government is to stay out religion and the role of religion is to stay out of government. It is ok for the church to tell its follwers that they believe abortion is a sin. It is easy then for the church member to use that information as they choose. But to actively point out who is and who is not "pro-life" or make statements about the sinfulness of voting for President-Elect Obama as did a certain priest in South Carolina...I think this goes way to far over the line.

Max

Shame on the Cardinal

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

seeker

seeker

seeker

seeker

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

seeker

seeker

seeker

Similar threads