<!--QuoteBegin-Legionaired+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Inca, (or was it the Maya?) predicted the end of the world as December, 2012. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Three civilizations did, Maya, Egyptian, and the Druids of England (aka who built stonehenge).
This is starting to derail the thread. Feel free to open another thread on apocalyptic prophecies, but please leave this one out of it. Oh, and note that 2012 marks the end of the Mayan Fourth Age, not the end of all days.
<!--QuoteBegin-surprise+Apr 19 2005, 03:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (surprise @ Apr 19 2005, 03:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> hm, im german, and all of my friends, beeing atheists or at least not connected to the church did not like the choice...
ratzinger is not a person of concensus, i find him highly unsympathetic
i find it would have been time for an african pope <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is the Pope (Ratzinger) well known in germany for something?I had never heard of him before the former popes homily
I do agree it would have been great to have the Nigerian as a pope, but the 120 something cardinals did vote for him for a reason. I kinda hope that 77 men couldnt be very wrong about someone.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 19 2005, 03:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 19 2005, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So here is the big question - why do liberals world wide care at all who the pope is? They obviously disagree with catholic doctrine as it stands - why does it matter at all? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't like organized religion much, but there's no denying the positive effects it can have.
A forward-thinking, progressive Pope could do a lot for the world. A <i>lot</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin-Steel Troll+Apr 19 2005, 09:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ Apr 19 2005, 09:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is the Pope (Ratzinger) well known in germany for something? I had never heard of him before the former popes homily <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As I alluded to before: When a priest held a mess including the sharing of the sacraments together with a protestant preacher in the spirit of ecomeninc work, Ratzinger excommunicated the man. This kind of thing kinda sticks to the memory.
What does ecominc mean, ive googled it and dictionary.com'ed it but, no can do...
But i gotta say, if im getting the gist of it right, thats kinda harsh....
EDIT: hey no fair, you have edit powers! But still ecomeninc does not show up on any of my sources... and you did start it as ecominc as i just copied and pasted...(omg nem0 hax!)
Sorry. Using another translator, the word I was searching for was "<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=ecumenic' target='_blank'>ecumenic</a>".
I think I stated before in a similar post that I dont like a conservitive Pope (though I m athist) and I help people with HIV/AID's (help group). Anyway the pope has alot of influence I.E. you cant have a abortion in Ireland you have to come over to England also with the HIV/AID's thing I generally deal with African/ african decended persons and they have a very big thing against condoms due to them being catholic, this makes me very sad <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-surprise+Apr 19 2005, 10:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (surprise @ Apr 19 2005, 10:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [...]i find it would have been time for an african pope <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A <i>female</i> african pope.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Apr 19 2005, 03:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Apr 19 2005, 03:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-surprise+Apr 19 2005, 10:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (surprise @ Apr 19 2005, 10:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [...]i find it would have been time for an african pope <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A <i>female</i> african pope. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is absolutely no way a female pope will EVER be chosen. There will never be a female RCC priest/cardinal/bishop/etc.
Quite a few of them have children and sadly they have HIV now <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> plus the ones who didnt try for a child try to get round getting pregnant with havign sex around the time a woman mostyl shouldnt get pregnant.
I could write a couple of pages about why I think that Ratzinger is a bad choice both for the catholic church and the world in general.. but I really don't feel like writing that much so I'll go with: What Nem0 said.
Leftists don't want a conservative pope because their worldview requires everyone hold their perspective, just like communism. With 1.1 billion baptized members, the RCC is the largest organized religion. If the pope actually follows his religion as he should (read: not being "tolerant" of everything), he's acting as a powerful enemy of the liberal point of view. This new pope's probably going to lay down the law.
And come on now, what the hell's the point of being a Catholic when there's nothing that Catholicism stands for and stands against?
And thank you Pepe for the link, I just made a four layer tin foil hat, bought 8 unregistered guns, and am planning on hiding in a bunker for the next 30 years, coming out occassionally to post on this forum.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Apr 19 2005, 07:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Apr 19 2005, 07:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Leftists don't want a conservative pope because their worldview requires everyone hold their perspective, just like communism. With 1.1 billion baptized members, the RCC is the largest organized religion. If the pope actually follows his religion as he should (read: not being "tolerant" of everything), he's acting as a powerful enemy of the liberal point of view. This new pope's probably going to lay down the law. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Enemy of the liberal point of view? If you mean the point of view that says that no human has the right to force someone else to think or act a certain way, then sure. He's the pope, not a goddamn dictator; he's supposed to lead by loving example, not "lay down the law". The Catholic church can't and shouldn't ever "lay down the law" in the USA, or any other country for that matter. This is NOT a Christian nation. I don't know where the Republicans pulled all of this religious crap from all of a sudden in the last couple of years, but it's really getting on my nerves, AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
Follows his religion as he should? You call intolerance true catholicism? Did you just forget the whole bit about Christ when you were forming your views on what <u>Christ</u>ianity should stand for? <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And come on now, what the hell's the point of being a Catholic when there's nothing that Catholicism stands for and stands against? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't know our religion was supposed to be about confronting everyone who doesn't agree with us. I thought it was more in the realm of oh, say, getting along with everybody, even the people most repulsive in our eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Apr 19 2005, 06:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Apr 19 2005, 06:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> With 1.1 billion baptized members, the RCC is the largest organized religion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Incorrect, that would be christian members total. There are about 9 million catholics registered in the world.
The RCC counts everyone who has been baptized as part of their sect of christianity, which is why that number is off. A lot of people, and many on this board would raise holy hell with you for saying that. Pun definately intended.
<!--QuoteBegin-adherents.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (adherents.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Church has about 9 million baptized members, worldwide, who are "of age " and on the "official " roles. The total number of members and adherents is perhaps double that. They have a growth rate of about 7%. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*edit* Interesting side note: I am on that list of RCC members.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 19 2005, 07:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 19 2005, 07:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Apr 19 2005, 07:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Apr 19 2005, 07:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Leftists don't want a conservative pope because their worldview requires everyone hold their perspective, just like communism. With 1.1 billion baptized members, the RCC is the largest organized religion. If the pope actually follows his religion as he should (read: not being "tolerant" of everything), he's acting as a powerful enemy of the liberal point of view. This new pope's probably going to lay down the law. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Enemy of the liberal point of view? If you mean the point of view that says that no human has the right to force someone else to think or act a certain way, then sure. He's the pope, not a goddamn dictator; he's supposed to lead by loving example, not "lay down the law". The Catholic church can't and shouldn't ever "lay down the law" in the USA, or any other country for that matter. This is NOT a Christian nation. I don't know where the Republicans pulled all of this religious crap from all of a sudden in the last couple of years, but it's really getting on my nerves, AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
Follows his religion as he should? You call intolerance true catholicism? Did you just forget the whole bit about Christ when you were forming your views on what <u>Christ</u>ianity should stand for? <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And come on now, what the hell's the point of being a Catholic when there's nothing that Catholicism stands for and stands against? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't know our religion was supposed to be about confronting everyone who doesn't agree with us. I thought it was more in the realm of oh, say, getting along with everybody, even the people most repulsive in our eyes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoops, you missed my point entirely. Your fault, of course, not mine, but I will take the time to correct you.
The pope should, of course, take example from Christ, who had to go on a "clean-up" spree in the temple at least once. You must remember reading that in the bible, right? Jesus tossing out merchants by the ear? That wasn't very tolerant, was it? Jesus was not the pot smoking, wussy hippy people try and act like he was. The guy had a big pair of balls, and if you were wrong, he let you know it. Remember a little speech he gave to the future first pope, Peter? Something like "Get thee behind me, Satan"?
Jesus loved people, but hated their behavior. Do you think Jesus would have let Mary Magdalene stick around if she was still spreading for cash? Hell no! He loved her as a person, and that love changed her.
In order to give people a reason to join the Church and continue the lofty goal of spreading the message of Christ, the Pope's gotta be packing a pair. Christianity was never some wussy religion that allowed itself to get walked on. That's a new thought process. Original Christians sat unwavoring in their faith while stoned to death by mobs of angry Jews, or crucified by contemptuous Romans. They didn't wussy out because they "might be wrong." They didn't worry about being "intolerant."
In that bible that your priest reads from, there are numerous discussions of, for example, homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of God. Find the exact quote for yourself, but I read it myself years back. Since the Catholic religion is based on those teachings, saying that somehow they should be changed to keep up "with the times" is simply weakening your own religion. Your religion is meaningless without the "do nots" and "no's" that occur throughout every organized religion.
And also, to set the record straight, homosexuality is nothing new. It's been around since some guy found out that another guy could feel good, too. It's not being "with the times' or "modern" to suddenly be ok with it. Whole cultures considered bisexuality a normal thing.
According to the website that YOU posted the RCC has 1,050,000,000 members and is the largest christian sect. 9 million members is WAY off.
According to your source there are 61,000,000 Catholics in the United States Alone. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Obviously you missed the whole, "The RCC counts everyone who was baptized in the christian church as catholic" comment. :-)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The pope should, of course, take example from Christ, who had to go on a "clean-up" spree in the temple at least once. You must remember reading that in the bible, right? Jesus tossing out merchants by the ear? That wasn't very tolerant, was it? Jesus was not the pot smoking, wussy hippy people try and act like he was. The guy had a big pair of balls, and if you were wrong, he let you know it. Remember a little speech he gave to the future first pope, Peter? Something like "Get thee behind me, Satan"?
Jesus loved people, but hated their behavior. Do you think Jesus would have let Mary Magdalene stick around if she was still spreading for cash? Hell no! He loved her as a person, and that love changed her. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> By the same token, do you think He would have accepted, condoned, supported, or even TOLERATED the way Catholics act nowadays? You are the perfect example of what Christianity has become - a convenient way of excusing yourself for being a condescending elitist asshat. He did chase the thieves and merchant men from the temple, but he also made friends with criminals and otherwise rejects of society. Whatever the popular consensus about a particular person was, Jesus tended to ignore it. If He could forgive criminals, is it really that hard to accept that He would have loved homosexuals just as much? I mean, here's a perfect example of where religious people use their religion as a platform to stand on while they insult everyone else: God hates ***. Really? God hates ***. Apparently I missed that lesson in Catholic school, what with all the "Jesus loves you" and "God forgives" messages being thrown around.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In order to give people a reason to join the Church and continue the lofty goal of spreading the message of Christ, the Pope's gotta be packing a pair. Christianity was never some wussy religion that allowed itself to get walked on. That's a new thought process. Original Christians sat unwavoring in their faith while stoned to death by mobs of angry Jews, or crucified by contemptuous Romans. They didn't wussy out because they "might be wrong." They didn't worry about being "intolerant."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> People will come to the Church if you give them a reason to. For one thing, try respecting other people's viewpoints. Generalizing the opposing viewpoint as the "liberal worldview" is generally not going to win many converts. Neither, and this is going off on a tangent, is completely rejecting evolution and any other scientific theory that doesn't fit perfectly with a literal translation of the Bible. The RCC JUST apologized for what they did to Galileo. Note that they still haven't admitted that he was correct, they just said that it wasn't very nice to basically nullify the last few years of his life.
Furthermore, who is this army of darkness that's trying to "walk all over the Church". Newsflash: the Church only directly affects the smallest nation in the world. Everyone else has a choice. No one is trying to stamp out Catholicism, though I'm quite certain there is a huge percentage of people on this forum that would LOVE to see that happen. No one is stoning Christians to death anymore, though apparently <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=87023' target='_blank'>Christians now think violence is okay when spreading their message of "love"</a>.
Taking a more tolerant position is not going to weaken the Church; that's as absurd as saying that Congressmen should never compromise because it weakens their platforms. Compromise is not only necessary, it is respected in the global community. Hardliners are what **** people off the most. If you're so worried about numbers, either make the Church open and willing to accept people from all walks of life, or just cull it down to the 1,000,000 or so most devout members. Then you won't have to worry about the purity of your religion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In that bible that your priest reads from, there are numerous discussions of, for example, homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of God. Find the exact quote for yourself, but I read it myself years back. Since the Catholic religion is based on those teachings, saying that somehow they should be changed to keep up "with the times" is simply weakening your own religion. Your religion is meaningless without the "do nots" and "no's" that occur throughout every organized religion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about instead of trying to bend our lives to specifically fit with a set of rules laid down a couple thousand years ago, translated, re-translated, interpreted, translated again, interpreted several hundred times over, then foolishly applied to everyday life....we just live the basic message of Catholicism: love each other. Don't judge, don't hurt, live your life to the best of your ability while always watching out for opportunities to help those around you, and most importantly, don't needlessly put people down just because you don't like what they are doing. If it's not hurting you or anyone else, turn the other cheek if you don't like what you see. That's tolerance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And also, to set the record straight, homosexuality is nothing new. It's been around since some guy found out that another guy could feel good, too. It's not being "with the times' or "modern" to suddenly be ok with it. Whole cultures considered bisexuality a normal thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quite right; it's now considered "with the times" to be rabidly against it. People used to just ignore it, or at least turn away; now we have people lobbying to Congress that *** should be denied rights that should have been theirs from the start. Furthermore, I've never heard of any culture or country prior to modern-day America come up with something like "God hates ***". That's just sick, but it's accepted because fundamentalists not only think they know exactly what God is thinking, they think that everyone else should have to listen and follow what they believe.
See, even if God <u>did</u> hate ***, it still woudln't be your right to deny them theirs. Period, end of story. You are not the paragon of morality, neither am I, but at least I don't try to impose my take on morality on anyone else. You can hate homosexuals all you want, but the second you start claiming that 1) You can create national laws based on your beliefs, and/or 2) That an omnipotent God agrees with you I have to step in and beat down on the abnormally huge swelling head you've got perched on your self-righteous shoulders.
Your post is great, because I'm not a Christian, and therefore I'm sitting here laughing. Also, considering I've had a bisexual history, I'm not exactly a homo-hater.
You also chose to miss my biggest, most important point. I never said that god hated homosexuals. Nice pathetic attempt to twist my words. Too bad you failed. Miserably. I said Homosexuality. The "ity" defines a pattern of behavior, not a person. Isn't the entire point of your belief system based on the idea that man is a race fallen through his sinful behavior, saved through Christ's love? If you choose to accept that love, you are accepting what comes with it, which is the yolk of Christ. You don't get to pick and choose. "I'm homosexual, but I love Jesus, too!" Sorry, doesn't work.
Being a Christian is real work. It's faith. It's trusting that God knows more than you, and that those rules he sets need to be abided. It's people that half-a$$ it that result in the whole world calling Christians hypocrites. The only person I've seen really ever live it is my mom, and she's struggled alot the whole way. She knows where I've been, and still loves me for it. She knows I've been with another guy before, but still loves me anyways. She loves me in spite of my "sin." That doesn't mean she changes her belief system so that I haven't sinned; it just means she loves me anyways.
Anyone who thinks that they can waltz into a church and ask forgiveness, but not expect to change, is missing the point of the whole thing. The point of Christianity is to be changed and molded.
I'm sick of watching people like my mom getting trash mouthed by little boys like CWAG and some of the others on these forums and blogs. I don't follow her beliefs, but watching them getting urinated on by people who don't stand for crap means that you get owned. By me.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 19 2005, 03:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 19 2005, 03:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Am i to beleive that the end of Roman Catholicism and supposedly the world will come in lets say ( 5 - 10 years of Pope Benedcit the 16 then one other...) 20 years tops??<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Inca, (or was it the Maya?) predicted the end of the world as December, 2012.
Food for thought. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nuts all over the world have been predicting the end of the world however, the only thing that is truely consistent with all of them is that they're all rubbish or so vague as to be interpreted anyway you want.
As for the new pope, I'm not overly impressed but at the same time it doesn't bother me. He is very hardline and will probably not help in many situations. At the same time, it isn't going to be a very long papacy and so hopefully we may have some change, but we'll let the rest of the world change first and give the RCC time to catch up afterwards (As they've done with everything else, like science, some social practices etc).
Just a comment on being in the Hitler Youth, just because he was in the Hitler Youth doesn't mean he shares NAZI views and wants to send the Catholics raining down upon the Jews or anything. From memory, he has written a book about what it felt like to be put in the position of being forced into the Hitler Youth and later the German army. Perhaps it would be a good idea to read that before implying things about his character due to this event?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's a new thought process. Original Christians sat unwavoring in their faith while stoned to death by mobs of angry Jews, or crucified by contemptuous Romans. They didn't wussy out because they "might be wrong." They didn't worry about being "intolerant."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And then later on in the Diaspora, Crusades and Inqusition they turned around and mass slaughtered Jews in return. They sure didn't care about being intolerant indeed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your post is great, because I'm not a Christian, and therefore I'm sitting here laughing. Also, considering I've had a bisexual history, I'm not exactly a homo-hater.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all, why do you support something that everyone except the people who are part of the faith believe to be intolerable, especially if said group of people you support actually believe you to be repulsive? Second of all, the homosexual argument was just an example I made of a particular issue that religious zealots have gathered behind in this country. Whether or not it applies to you specifically is irrelevant; the fact that you do not even represent the group of people I am arguing against makes it even MORE irrelevant. Nice job just skimming over my post, you missed MY point entirely.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You also chose to miss my biggest, most important point. I never said that god hated homosexuals. Nice pathetic attempt to twist my words. Too bad you failed. Miserably. I said Homosexuality. The "ity" defines a pattern of behavior, not a person. Isn't the entire point of your belief system based on the idea that man is a race fallen through his sinful behavior, saved through Christ's love? If you choose to accept that love, you are accepting what comes with it, which is the yolk of Christ. You don't get to pick and choose. "I'm homosexual, but I love Jesus, too!" Sorry, doesn't work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Once again, you missed this: <!--QuoteBegin-me+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (me)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If He could forgive criminals, is it really that hard to accept that He would have loved homosexuals just as much? I mean, here's a perfect <b>example</b> of where religious people use their religion as a platform to stand on while they insult everyone else: God hates ***. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It was an example. I could have made that same exact post, substituting in pro-abortion (or pro-choice, as they prefer to label themselves...) people for homosexuals. Let me repeat what I just said: the fact that it doesn't apply to you personally doesn't change the fact that the people you are arguing for DO think that way. Why you choose to support them when you don't agree with them, I have no idea. That's something you need to figure out for yourself there, unless you're just trolling.
As for a homosexual coming to love Christ, well let's see. Can a homosexual change his sexual orientation? No. Should he have to? No. If God can't accept him as a homosexual, then fine. If the fear of eternal damnation isn't enough to scare a **** straight, so to speak, then nothing will. However, it is not up to you to be God's arbiter on Earth. As such, judging homosexuals and refusing them admission into the Church goes against Christian teaching.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Being a Christian is real work. It's faith. It's trusting that God knows more than you, and that those rules he sets need to be abided. It's people that half-a$$ it that result in the whole world calling Christians hypocrites. The only person I've seen really ever live it is my mom, and she's struggled alot the whole way. She knows where I've been, and still loves me for it. She knows I've been with another guy before, but still loves me anyways. She loves me in spite of my "sin." That doesn't mean she changes her belief system so that I haven't sinned; it just means she loves me anyways. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait...how the hell would you know if you're not Christian? Seriously, stop arguing for a viewpoint that's not your own. You're not even playing the Devil's advocate here; you're full out blindly supporting current Catholic doctrine without being a Catholic, AND you declare being a Christian to be an arduous struggle against the world when you aren't even a Christian. How am I to take you seriously? It's like if I were to waltz into a topic about the EU's economic policy and the transition between individual currencies to a continental one, and I started demanding that people agreed with my view on the situation, even though I have never lived in Europe. It's absurd. The fact that I might have missed some nuance of your argument is a direct result of my being completely stunned by the fact that you are not a Christian.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyone who thinks that they can waltz into a church and ask forgiveness, but not expect to change, is missing the point of the whole thing. The point of Christianity is to be changed and molded. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Please, show me a method to un-homosexualize someone. I dare you. How you can even consider claiming that you know how to cure something that we don't even know the cause of is beyond egotistical. And once again, how the hell would you know what the point of Christianity is?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sick of watching people like my mom getting trash mouthed by little boys like CWAG and some of the others on these forums and blogs. I don't follow her beliefs, but watching them getting urinated on by people who don't stand for crap means that you get owned. By me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, so your mom's a Catholic. Guess what, so am I. And CWAG doesn't bash me. Actually, my views have never been bashed. There's really nothing to hate. The only thing I ever speak out against is people hating other people, either through words or actions. And for centuries, the Catholic Church has been party to a huge amount of hate. They won't admit it, but they have been. Yet I am still Catholic, because as screwed up as the conservatives and the leaders of the Church can be I have seen too much good come out of programs like my Youth Group to turn away.
CWAG, along with a large portion of this board, hates religion because of what it does to people. It makes them feel superior. It makes them feel like they have a right to dictate morality to people. It makes them feel as if they, and they alone, have a monopoly on God, spirituality, and truth. Bull f-ing s***. Get over yourself, because I guarantee you your mom doesn't give a damn what other people think about her faith. She believes what she believes, and I'M JUST FINE WITH THAT. The only thing I would disapprove of is if she came out of her house and started condemning every homosexual she met as a sinner in the eyes of God. Oh, and I also disapprove of idiots coming out of the woodwork arguing for other people.
So, for future reference, should you ever want to "own" anyone here, generally arguing for a position that you know nothing about isn't the way to go. I would suggest taking a good hard long look at what you believe and why before posting again.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Apr 19 2005, 09:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Apr 19 2005, 09:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Your post is great, because I'm not a Christian, and therefore I'm sitting here laughing. Also, considering I've had a bisexual history, I'm not exactly a homo-hater.
You also chose to miss my biggest, most important point. I never said that god hated homosexuals. Nice pathetic attempt to twist my words. Too bad you failed. Miserably. I said Homosexuality. The "ity" defines a pattern of behavior, not a person. Isn't the entire point of your belief system based on the idea that man is a race fallen through his sinful behavior, saved through Christ's love? If you choose to accept that love, you are accepting what comes with it, which is the yolk of Christ. You don't get to pick and choose. "I'm homosexual, but I love Jesus, too!" Sorry, doesn't work.
Being a Christian is real work. It's faith. It's trusting that God knows more than you, and that those rules he sets need to be abided. It's people that half-a$$ it that result in the whole world calling Christians hypocrites. The only person I've seen really ever live it is my mom, and she's struggled alot the whole way. She knows where I've been, and still loves me for it. She knows I've been with another guy before, but still loves me anyways. She loves me in spite of my "sin." That doesn't mean she changes her belief system so that I haven't sinned; it just means she loves me anyways.
Anyone who thinks that they can waltz into a church and ask forgiveness, but not expect to change, is missing the point of the whole thing. The point of Christianity is to be changed and molded.
I'm sick of watching people like my mom getting trash mouthed by little boys like CWAG and some of the others on these forums and blogs. I don't follow her beliefs, but watching them getting urinated on by people who don't stand for crap means that you get owned. By me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Im baptised catholic. I know what it is very well, as I was in a private school for a few years. That exposure is what makes the littles boys like me urinate on your regressive, ignorant, eliteist views.
I want to also clarify that you help proved my, and skys points by saying<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you get owned. By me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Surprisingly enough you once again feel the need to be superior somehow.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First of all, why do you support something that everyone except the people who are part of the faith believe to be intolerable, especially if said group of people you support actually believe you to be repulsive?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He never said he supported their point of view. On the contrary, it should be obvious that he does not, but he does have experience with that point of view and thus far has presented it quite well and accurately.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second of all, the homosexual argument was just an example I made of a particular issue that religious zealots have gathered behind in this country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So because they do not agree with you they are zealots? Or is it just people not ignoring the tenets of their faith that have survived for thousands of years just because the concept of tollerance now means that everything has to be accepted as "OK" now a days?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whether or not it applies to you specifically is irrelevant; the fact that you do not even represent the group of people I am arguing against makes it even MORE irrelevant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What he said is not irrelevant. He's actually stated the view that Christianity has expressed for quite a long time. Just because he is not a member of the "zealots" does not make his statements any less relevant. In fact, the opposite is probably true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nice job just skimming over my post, you missed MY point entirely.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->He never missed your point. He told you straight up that your point was wrong in regards to Christianity. You've perverted the actual definition of tollerance. Tollerance does not mean that whatever one does is acceptable, it just means you tollerate something... Which means you still can believe it is wrong, and when this is applied to Christianity, it means that they can accept those who have sinned into their "flock" and forgive them, but with the expectation that they will follow the articles of faith that have been laid out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I could have made that same exact post, substituting in pro-abortion (or pro-choice, as they prefer to label themselves...) people for homosexuals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And you still would have been wrong when it comes to what tollerance actually means.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for a homosexual coming to love Christ, well let's see. Can a homosexual change his sexual orientation? No.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's debatable, but not what this thread is about.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Should he have to? No.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No... Unless that is, he wants to join a religion that has a tenet that states that his lifestyle is immoral. The religion should not be expected to change just because people cannot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If God can't accept him as a homosexual, then fine. If the fear of eternal damnation isn't enough to scare a **** straight, so to speak, then nothing will. However, it is not up to you to be God's arbiter on Earth. As such, judging homosexuals and refusing them admission into the Church goes against Christian teaching.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Refusing someone admission into the Church because they cannot adhere to the tenets it lays out, even if everything is not completely within their control, goes against Christian teachings? Where? Since when? Why does Christianity have to change?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wait...how the hell would you know if you're not Christian?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not Christian. I would think one would know if they are Christian or not. One has to at least practice a religion and follows its teachings to be labeled as a follower of it. Just because one was raised in such an environment ( like me ) does not mean they will continue to follow the beliefs expressed within that environment ( I wonder what else this could be applied to... ).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seriously, stop arguing for a viewpoint that's not your own.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He's not arguing <b>for</b> a viewpoint. He is arguing about what that viewpoint actually is and what it is not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're not even playing the Devil's advocate here; you're full out blindly supporting current Catholic doctrine without being a Catholic,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is that a sin now? Still, he's not supporting... He's stating. Its more than semantics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->AND you declare being a Christian to be an arduous struggle against the world when you aren't even a Christian.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Perhaps he was raised as one? Perhaps he still has those experiences with his mother? I know some stuff about physics, do I have to be a physicist now to make statements concerning physics?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's like if I were to waltz into a topic about the EU's economic policy and the transition between individual currencies to a continental one, and I started demanding that people agreed with my view on the situation, even though I have never lived in Europe. It's absurd.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What he's done is nothing like that. Its more like he's lived in Europe for a time or has very close family that live other there. So your analogy and attacks on his credibility are the only things that are absurd.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The fact that I might have missed some nuance of your argument is a direct result of my being completely stunned by the fact that you are not a Christian.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your fault... not his... And still not relevant to the subject at hand ( refer back to pysics statement ).
Too tired to do the rest... Plus my beautiful wife is waiting for me... So now everyone here loses out on my great wisdom because of a woman... tsk tsk.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Apr 19 2005, 07:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Apr 19 2005, 07:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Leftists don't want a conservative pope because their worldview requires everyone hold their perspective, just like communism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, so it's the conservatives who are the moral relativists and the liberals who are the moral absolutists.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He's extremely conservative I believe, and my brother says he's ex-Hitler Jugend. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everybody was ex-Hitler Jugend in his generation. You didn't have much of a choice you know... it was mandatory for all children at certain age. So don't spread any rumors based on incomplete information.
<!--QuoteBegin-othell+Apr 19 2005, 10:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Apr 19 2005, 10:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First of all, why do you support something that everyone except the people who are part of the faith believe to be intolerable, especially if said group of people you support actually believe you to be repulsive?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He never said he supported their point of view. On the contrary, it should be obvious that he does not, but he does have experience with that point of view and thus far has presented it quite well and accurately.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, well and accurately: he is quite accurately representing Christian intolerance. And regardless of whether or not he supports them in real life, right now he is arguing FOR their position. Personal thoughts aside, it is simply easier to hold an argument if one side does not choose to "step to the side" and argue about some point of view he doesn't hold personally. I could rephrase all of my statements to say "they" instead of "you", but not only will the argument lose some of its impact, the fact that he chooses to take that side means that the difference between supporting and stating makes no difference to how I <i>would</i> argue, so I won't change anything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second of all, the homosexual argument was just an example I made of a particular issue that religious zealots have gathered behind in this country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So because they do not agree with you they are zealots? Or is it just people not ignoring the tenets of their faith that have survived for thousands of years just because the concept of tollerance now means that everything has to be accepted as "OK" now a days?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=zealot' target='_blank'>zealot</a> Notice the second definition. I'd say that religious fundamentalists that care ONLY about their own faith and about no other point of view, who refuse to compromise or even consider the other side's feelings or stance, those people are zealous. This is a global community; anyone who thinks that they can blow off the majority of the world just because they don't follow their faith is an idiot. Anyone who thinks they can <u>dictate</u> to the majority just because they don't follow their faith is not only an idiot, but also zealous.
Comments
The Inca, (or was it the Maya?) predicted the end of the world as December, 2012.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Three civilizations did, Maya, Egyptian, and the Druids of England (aka who built stonehenge).
ratzinger is not a person of concensus, i find him highly unsympathetic
i find it would have been time for an african pope
ratzinger is not a person of concensus, i find him highly unsympathetic
i find it would have been time for an african pope <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is the Pope (Ratzinger) well known in germany for something?I had never heard of him before the former popes homily
I do agree it would have been great to have the Nigerian as a pope, but the 120 something cardinals did vote for him for a reason. I kinda hope that 77 men couldnt be very wrong about someone.
I don't like organized religion much, but there's no denying the positive effects it can have.
A forward-thinking, progressive Pope could do a lot for the world. A <i>lot</i>.
As I alluded to before: When a priest held a mess including the sharing of the sacraments together with a protestant preacher in the spirit of ecomeninc work, Ratzinger excommunicated the man. This kind of thing kinda sticks to the memory.
But i gotta say, if im getting the gist of it right, thats kinda harsh....
EDIT: hey no fair, you have edit powers! But still ecomeninc does not show up on any of my sources... and you did start it as ecominc as i just copied and pasted...(omg nem0 hax!)
Ok, i do think they should say people should use condoms, and i hope they do too, but people are to quick to point the finger...
A <i>female</i> african pope.
A <i>female</i> african pope. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is absolutely no way a female pope will EVER be chosen. There will never be a female RCC priest/cardinal/bishop/etc.
/Hyper
And come on now, what the hell's the point of being a Catholic when there's nothing that Catholicism stands for and stands against?
And thank you Pepe for the link, I just made a four layer tin foil hat, bought 8 unregistered guns, and am planning on hiding in a bunker for the next 30 years, coming out occassionally to post on this forum.
Enemy of the liberal point of view? If you mean the point of view that says that no human has the right to force someone else to think or act a certain way, then sure. He's the pope, not a goddamn dictator; he's supposed to lead by loving example, not "lay down the law". The Catholic church can't and shouldn't ever "lay down the law" in the USA, or any other country for that matter. This is NOT a Christian nation. I don't know where the Republicans pulled all of this religious crap from all of a sudden in the last couple of years, but it's really getting on my nerves, AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
Follows his religion as he should? You call intolerance true catholicism? Did you just forget the whole bit about Christ when you were forming your views on what <u>Christ</u>ianity should stand for?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And come on now, what the hell's the point of being a Catholic when there's nothing that Catholicism stands for and stands against? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't know our religion was supposed to be about confronting everyone who doesn't agree with us. I thought it was more in the realm of oh, say, getting along with everybody, even the people most repulsive in our eyes.
Incorrect, that would be christian members total. There are about 9 million catholics registered in the world.
The RCC counts everyone who has been baptized as part of their sect of christianity, which is why that number is off. A lot of people, and many on this board would raise holy hell with you for saying that. Pun definately intended.
<!--QuoteBegin-adherents.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (adherents.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The Church has about 9 million baptized members, worldwide, who are "of age " and on the "official " roles. The total number of members and adherents is perhaps double that. They have a growth rate of about 7%.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*edit* Interesting side note: I am on that list of RCC members.
According to the website that YOU posted the RCC has 1,050,000,000 members and is the largest christian sect. 9 million members is WAY off.
According to your source there are 61,000,000 Catholics in the United States Alone.
Enemy of the liberal point of view? If you mean the point of view that says that no human has the right to force someone else to think or act a certain way, then sure. He's the pope, not a goddamn dictator; he's supposed to lead by loving example, not "lay down the law". The Catholic church can't and shouldn't ever "lay down the law" in the USA, or any other country for that matter. This is NOT a Christian nation. I don't know where the Republicans pulled all of this religious crap from all of a sudden in the last couple of years, but it's really getting on my nerves, AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
Follows his religion as he should? You call intolerance true catholicism? Did you just forget the whole bit about Christ when you were forming your views on what <u>Christ</u>ianity should stand for?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And come on now, what the hell's the point of being a Catholic when there's nothing that Catholicism stands for and stands against? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't know our religion was supposed to be about confronting everyone who doesn't agree with us. I thought it was more in the realm of oh, say, getting along with everybody, even the people most repulsive in our eyes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoops, you missed my point entirely. Your fault, of course, not mine, but I will take the time to correct you.
The pope should, of course, take example from Christ, who had to go on a "clean-up" spree in the temple at least once. You must remember reading that in the bible, right? Jesus tossing out merchants by the ear? That wasn't very tolerant, was it? Jesus was not the pot smoking, wussy hippy people try and act like he was. The guy had a big pair of balls, and if you were wrong, he let you know it. Remember a little speech he gave to the future first pope, Peter? Something like "Get thee behind me, Satan"?
Jesus loved people, but hated their behavior. Do you think Jesus would have let Mary Magdalene stick around if she was still spreading for cash? Hell no! He loved her as a person, and that love changed her.
In order to give people a reason to join the Church and continue the lofty goal of spreading the message of Christ, the Pope's gotta be packing a pair. Christianity was never some wussy religion that allowed itself to get walked on. That's a new thought process. Original Christians sat unwavoring in their faith while stoned to death by mobs of angry Jews, or crucified by contemptuous Romans. They didn't wussy out because they "might be wrong." They didn't worry about being "intolerant."
In that bible that your priest reads from, there are numerous discussions of, for example, homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of God. Find the exact quote for yourself, but I read it myself years back. Since the Catholic religion is based on those teachings, saying that somehow they should be changed to keep up "with the times" is simply weakening your own religion. Your religion is meaningless without the "do nots" and "no's" that occur throughout every organized religion.
And also, to set the record straight, homosexuality is nothing new. It's been around since some guy found out that another guy could feel good, too. It's not being "with the times' or "modern" to suddenly be ok with it. Whole cultures considered bisexuality a normal thing.
According to the website that YOU posted the RCC has 1,050,000,000 members and is the largest christian sect. 9 million members is WAY off.
According to your source there are 61,000,000 Catholics in the United States Alone. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously you missed the whole, "The RCC counts everyone who was baptized in the christian church as catholic" comment. :-)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The pope should, of course, take example from Christ, who had to go on a "clean-up" spree in the temple at least once. You must remember reading that in the bible, right? Jesus tossing out merchants by the ear? That wasn't very tolerant, was it? Jesus was not the pot smoking, wussy hippy people try and act like he was. The guy had a big pair of balls, and if you were wrong, he let you know it. Remember a little speech he gave to the future first pope, Peter? Something like "Get thee behind me, Satan"?
Jesus loved people, but hated their behavior. Do you think Jesus would have let Mary Magdalene stick around if she was still spreading for cash? Hell no! He loved her as a person, and that love changed her. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By the same token, do you think He would have accepted, condoned, supported, or even TOLERATED the way Catholics act nowadays? You are the perfect example of what Christianity has become - a convenient way of excusing yourself for being a condescending elitist asshat. He did chase the thieves and merchant men from the temple, but he also made friends with criminals and otherwise rejects of society. Whatever the popular consensus about a particular person was, Jesus tended to ignore it. If He could forgive criminals, is it really that hard to accept that He would have loved homosexuals just as much? I mean, here's a perfect example of where religious people use their religion as a platform to stand on while they insult everyone else: God hates ***. Really? God hates ***. Apparently I missed that lesson in Catholic school, what with all the "Jesus loves you" and "God forgives" messages being thrown around.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In order to give people a reason to join the Church and continue the lofty goal of spreading the message of Christ, the Pope's gotta be packing a pair. Christianity was never some wussy religion that allowed itself to get walked on. That's a new thought process. Original Christians sat unwavoring in their faith while stoned to death by mobs of angry Jews, or crucified by contemptuous Romans. They didn't wussy out because they "might be wrong." They didn't worry about being "intolerant."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People will come to the Church if you give them a reason to. For one thing, try respecting other people's viewpoints. Generalizing the opposing viewpoint as the "liberal worldview" is generally not going to win many converts. Neither, and this is going off on a tangent, is completely rejecting evolution and any other scientific theory that doesn't fit perfectly with a literal translation of the Bible. The RCC JUST apologized for what they did to Galileo. Note that they still haven't admitted that he was correct, they just said that it wasn't very nice to basically nullify the last few years of his life.
Furthermore, who is this army of darkness that's trying to "walk all over the Church". Newsflash: the Church only directly affects the smallest nation in the world. Everyone else has a choice. No one is trying to stamp out Catholicism, though I'm quite certain there is a huge percentage of people on this forum that would LOVE to see that happen. No one is stoning Christians to death anymore, though apparently <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=87023' target='_blank'>Christians now think violence is okay when spreading their message of "love"</a>.
Taking a more tolerant position is not going to weaken the Church; that's as absurd as saying that Congressmen should never compromise because it weakens their platforms. Compromise is not only necessary, it is respected in the global community. Hardliners are what **** people off the most. If you're so worried about numbers, either make the Church open and willing to accept people from all walks of life, or just cull it down to the 1,000,000 or so most devout members. Then you won't have to worry about the purity of your religion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In that bible that your priest reads from, there are numerous discussions of, for example, homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of God. Find the exact quote for yourself, but I read it myself years back. Since the Catholic religion is based on those teachings, saying that somehow they should be changed to keep up "with the times" is simply weakening your own religion. Your religion is meaningless without the "do nots" and "no's" that occur throughout every organized religion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about instead of trying to bend our lives to specifically fit with a set of rules laid down a couple thousand years ago, translated, re-translated, interpreted, translated again, interpreted several hundred times over, then foolishly applied to everyday life....we just live the basic message of Catholicism: love each other. Don't judge, don't hurt, live your life to the best of your ability while always watching out for opportunities to help those around you, and most importantly, don't needlessly put people down just because you don't like what they are doing. If it's not hurting you or anyone else, turn the other cheek if you don't like what you see. That's tolerance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And also, to set the record straight, homosexuality is nothing new. It's been around since some guy found out that another guy could feel good, too. It's not being "with the times' or "modern" to suddenly be ok with it. Whole cultures considered bisexuality a normal thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite right; it's now considered "with the times" to be rabidly against it. People used to just ignore it, or at least turn away; now we have people lobbying to Congress that *** should be denied rights that should have been theirs from the start. Furthermore, I've never heard of any culture or country prior to modern-day America come up with something like "God hates ***". That's just sick, but it's accepted because fundamentalists not only think they know exactly what God is thinking, they think that everyone else should have to listen and follow what they believe.
See, even if God <u>did</u> hate ***, it still woudln't be your right to deny them theirs. Period, end of story. You are not the paragon of morality, neither am I, but at least I don't try to impose my take on morality on anyone else. You can hate homosexuals all you want, but the second you start claiming that
1) You can create national laws based on your beliefs, and/or
2) That an omnipotent God agrees with you
I have to step in and beat down on the abnormally huge swelling head you've got perched on your self-righteous shoulders.
You also chose to miss my biggest, most important point. I never said that god hated homosexuals. Nice pathetic attempt to twist my words. Too bad you failed. Miserably. I said Homosexuality. The "ity" defines a pattern of behavior, not a person. Isn't the entire point of your belief system based on the idea that man is a race fallen through his sinful behavior, saved through Christ's love? If you choose to accept that love, you are accepting what comes with it, which is the yolk of Christ. You don't get to pick and choose. "I'm homosexual, but I love Jesus, too!" Sorry, doesn't work.
Being a Christian is real work. It's faith. It's trusting that God knows more than you, and that those rules he sets need to be abided. It's people that half-a$$ it that result in the whole world calling Christians hypocrites. The only person I've seen really ever live it is my mom, and she's struggled alot the whole way. She knows where I've been, and still loves me for it. She knows I've been with another guy before, but still loves me anyways. She loves me in spite of my "sin." That doesn't mean she changes her belief system so that I haven't sinned; it just means she loves me anyways.
Anyone who thinks that they can waltz into a church and ask forgiveness, but not expect to change, is missing the point of the whole thing. The point of Christianity is to be changed and molded.
I'm sick of watching people like my mom getting trash mouthed by little boys like CWAG and some of the others on these forums and blogs. I don't follow her beliefs, but watching them getting urinated on by people who don't stand for crap means that you get owned. By me.
The Inca, (or was it the Maya?) predicted the end of the world as December, 2012.
Food for thought. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nuts all over the world have been predicting the end of the world however, the only thing that is truely consistent with all of them is that they're all rubbish or so vague as to be interpreted anyway you want.
As for the new pope, I'm not overly impressed but at the same time it doesn't bother me. He is very hardline and will probably not help in many situations. At the same time, it isn't going to be a very long papacy and so hopefully we may have some change, but we'll let the rest of the world change first and give the RCC time to catch up afterwards (As they've done with everything else, like science, some social practices etc).
Just a comment on being in the Hitler Youth, just because he was in the Hitler Youth doesn't mean he shares NAZI views and wants to send the Catholics raining down upon the Jews or anything. From memory, he has written a book about what it felt like to be put in the position of being forced into the Hitler Youth and later the German army. Perhaps it would be a good idea to read that before implying things about his character due to this event?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's a new thought process. Original Christians sat unwavoring in their faith while stoned to death by mobs of angry Jews, or crucified by contemptuous Romans. They didn't wussy out because they "might be wrong." They didn't worry about being "intolerant."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And then later on in the Diaspora, Crusades and Inqusition they turned around and mass slaughtered Jews in return. They sure didn't care about being intolerant indeed.
/heap sarcasm here.
First of all, why do you support something that everyone except the people who are part of the faith believe to be intolerable, especially if said group of people you support actually believe you to be repulsive? Second of all, the homosexual argument was just an example I made of a particular issue that religious zealots have gathered behind in this country. Whether or not it applies to you specifically is irrelevant; the fact that you do not even represent the group of people I am arguing against makes it even MORE irrelevant. Nice job just skimming over my post, you missed MY point entirely.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You also chose to miss my biggest, most important point. I never said that god hated homosexuals. Nice pathetic attempt to twist my words. Too bad you failed. Miserably. I said Homosexuality. The "ity" defines a pattern of behavior, not a person. Isn't the entire point of your belief system based on the idea that man is a race fallen through his sinful behavior, saved through Christ's love? If you choose to accept that love, you are accepting what comes with it, which is the yolk of Christ. You don't get to pick and choose. "I'm homosexual, but I love Jesus, too!" Sorry, doesn't work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, you missed this:
<!--QuoteBegin-me+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (me)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If He could forgive criminals, is it really that hard to accept that He would have loved homosexuals just as much? I mean, here's a perfect <b>example</b> of where religious people use their religion as a platform to stand on while they insult everyone else: God hates ***. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was an example. I could have made that same exact post, substituting in pro-abortion (or pro-choice, as they prefer to label themselves...) people for homosexuals. Let me repeat what I just said: the fact that it doesn't apply to you personally doesn't change the fact that the people you are arguing for DO think that way. Why you choose to support them when you don't agree with them, I have no idea. That's something you need to figure out for yourself there, unless you're just trolling.
As for a homosexual coming to love Christ, well let's see. Can a homosexual change his sexual orientation? No. Should he have to? No. If God can't accept him as a homosexual, then fine. If the fear of eternal damnation isn't enough to scare a **** straight, so to speak, then nothing will. However, it is not up to you to be God's arbiter on Earth. As such, judging homosexuals and refusing them admission into the Church goes against Christian teaching.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Being a Christian is real work. It's faith. It's trusting that God knows more than you, and that those rules he sets need to be abided. It's people that half-a$$ it that result in the whole world calling Christians hypocrites. The only person I've seen really ever live it is my mom, and she's struggled alot the whole way. She knows where I've been, and still loves me for it. She knows I've been with another guy before, but still loves me anyways. She loves me in spite of my "sin." That doesn't mean she changes her belief system so that I haven't sinned; it just means she loves me anyways. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait...how the hell would you know if you're not Christian? Seriously, stop arguing for a viewpoint that's not your own. You're not even playing the Devil's advocate here; you're full out blindly supporting current Catholic doctrine without being a Catholic, AND you declare being a Christian to be an arduous struggle against the world when you aren't even a Christian. How am I to take you seriously? It's like if I were to waltz into a topic about the EU's economic policy and the transition between individual currencies to a continental one, and I started demanding that people agreed with my view on the situation, even though I have never lived in Europe. It's absurd. The fact that I might have missed some nuance of your argument is a direct result of my being completely stunned by the fact that you are not a Christian.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyone who thinks that they can waltz into a church and ask forgiveness, but not expect to change, is missing the point of the whole thing. The point of Christianity is to be changed and molded. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, show me a method to un-homosexualize someone. I dare you. How you can even consider claiming that you know how to cure something that we don't even know the cause of is beyond egotistical. And once again, how the hell would you know what the point of Christianity is?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sick of watching people like my mom getting trash mouthed by little boys like CWAG and some of the others on these forums and blogs. I don't follow her beliefs, but watching them getting urinated on by people who don't stand for crap means that you get owned. By me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, so your mom's a Catholic. Guess what, so am I. And CWAG doesn't bash me. Actually, my views have never been bashed. There's really nothing to hate. The only thing I ever speak out against is people hating other people, either through words or actions. And for centuries, the Catholic Church has been party to a huge amount of hate. They won't admit it, but they have been. Yet I am still Catholic, because as screwed up as the conservatives and the leaders of the Church can be I have seen too much good come out of programs like my Youth Group to turn away.
CWAG, along with a large portion of this board, hates religion because of what it does to people. It makes them feel superior. It makes them feel like they have a right to dictate morality to people. It makes them feel as if they, and they alone, have a monopoly on God, spirituality, and truth. Bull f-ing s***. Get over yourself, because I guarantee you your mom doesn't give a damn what other people think about her faith. She believes what she believes, and I'M JUST FINE WITH THAT. The only thing I would disapprove of is if she came out of her house and started condemning every homosexual she met as a sinner in the eyes of God. Oh, and I also disapprove of idiots coming out of the woodwork arguing for other people.
So, for future reference, should you ever want to "own" anyone here, generally arguing for a position that you know nothing about isn't the way to go. I would suggest taking a good hard long look at what you believe and why before posting again.
You also chose to miss my biggest, most important point. I never said that god hated homosexuals. Nice pathetic attempt to twist my words. Too bad you failed. Miserably. I said Homosexuality. The "ity" defines a pattern of behavior, not a person. Isn't the entire point of your belief system based on the idea that man is a race fallen through his sinful behavior, saved through Christ's love? If you choose to accept that love, you are accepting what comes with it, which is the yolk of Christ. You don't get to pick and choose. "I'm homosexual, but I love Jesus, too!" Sorry, doesn't work.
Being a Christian is real work. It's faith. It's trusting that God knows more than you, and that those rules he sets need to be abided. It's people that half-a$$ it that result in the whole world calling Christians hypocrites. The only person I've seen really ever live it is my mom, and she's struggled alot the whole way. She knows where I've been, and still loves me for it. She knows I've been with another guy before, but still loves me anyways. She loves me in spite of my "sin." That doesn't mean she changes her belief system so that I haven't sinned; it just means she loves me anyways.
Anyone who thinks that they can waltz into a church and ask forgiveness, but not expect to change, is missing the point of the whole thing. The point of Christianity is to be changed and molded.
I'm sick of watching people like my mom getting trash mouthed by little boys like CWAG and some of the others on these forums and blogs. I don't follow her beliefs, but watching them getting urinated on by people who don't stand for crap means that you get owned. By me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im baptised catholic. I know what it is very well, as I was in a private school for a few years. That exposure is what makes the littles boys like me urinate on your regressive, ignorant, eliteist views.
I want to also clarify that you help proved my, and skys points by saying<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you get owned. By me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Surprisingly enough you once again feel the need to be superior somehow.
He never said he supported their point of view. On the contrary, it should be obvious that he does not, but he does have experience with that point of view and thus far has presented it quite well and accurately.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second of all, the homosexual argument was just an example I made of a particular issue that religious zealots have gathered behind in this country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So because they do not agree with you they are zealots? Or is it just people not ignoring the tenets of their faith that have survived for thousands of years just because the concept of tollerance now means that everything has to be accepted as "OK" now a days?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whether or not it applies to you specifically is irrelevant; the fact that you do not even represent the group of people I am arguing against makes it even MORE irrelevant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What he said is not irrelevant. He's actually stated the view that Christianity has expressed for quite a long time. Just because he is not a member of the "zealots" does not make his statements any less relevant. In fact, the opposite is probably true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nice job just skimming over my post, you missed MY point entirely.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->He never missed your point. He told you straight up that your point was wrong in regards to Christianity. You've perverted the actual definition of tollerance. Tollerance does not mean that whatever one does is acceptable, it just means you tollerate something... Which means you still can believe it is wrong, and when this is applied to Christianity, it means that they can accept those who have sinned into their "flock" and forgive them, but with the expectation that they will follow the articles of faith that have been laid out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I could have made that same exact post, substituting in pro-abortion (or pro-choice, as they prefer to label themselves...) people for homosexuals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you still would have been wrong when it comes to what tollerance actually means.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for a homosexual coming to love Christ, well let's see. Can a homosexual change his sexual orientation? No.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's debatable, but not what this thread is about.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Should he have to? No.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No... Unless that is, he wants to join a religion that has a tenet that states that his lifestyle is immoral. The religion should not be expected to change just because people cannot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If God can't accept him as a homosexual, then fine. If the fear of eternal damnation isn't enough to scare a **** straight, so to speak, then nothing will. However, it is not up to you to be God's arbiter on Earth. As such, judging homosexuals and refusing them admission into the Church goes against Christian teaching.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Refusing someone admission into the Church because they cannot adhere to the tenets it lays out, even if everything is not completely within their control, goes against Christian teachings? Where? Since when? Why does Christianity have to change?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wait...how the hell would you know if you're not Christian?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not Christian. I would think one would know if they are Christian or not. One has to at least practice a religion and follows its teachings to be labeled as a follower of it. Just because one was raised in such an environment ( like me ) does not mean they will continue to follow the beliefs expressed within that environment ( I wonder what else this could be applied to... ).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seriously, stop arguing for a viewpoint that's not your own.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's not arguing <b>for</b> a viewpoint. He is arguing about what that viewpoint actually is and what it is not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're not even playing the Devil's advocate here; you're full out blindly supporting current Catholic doctrine without being a Catholic,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that a sin now? Still, he's not supporting... He's stating. Its more than semantics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->AND you declare being a Christian to be an arduous struggle against the world when you aren't even a Christian.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps he was raised as one? Perhaps he still has those experiences with his mother? I know some stuff about physics, do I have to be a physicist now to make statements concerning physics?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's like if I were to waltz into a topic about the EU's economic policy and the transition between individual currencies to a continental one, and I started demanding that people agreed with my view on the situation, even though I have never lived in Europe. It's absurd.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What he's done is nothing like that. Its more like he's lived in Europe for a time or has very close family that live other there. So your analogy and attacks on his credibility are the only things that are absurd.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The fact that I might have missed some nuance of your argument is a direct result of my being completely stunned by the fact that you are not a Christian.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your fault... not his... And still not relevant to the subject at hand ( refer back to pysics statement ).
Too tired to do the rest... Plus my beautiful wife is waiting for me... So now everyone here loses out on my great wisdom because of a woman... tsk tsk.
Oh, so it's the conservatives who are the moral relativists and the liberals who are the moral absolutists.
Everybody was ex-Hitler Jugend in his generation. You didn't have much of a choice you know... it was mandatory for all children at certain age. So don't spread any rumors based on incomplete information.
He never said he supported their point of view. On the contrary, it should be obvious that he does not, but he does have experience with that point of view and thus far has presented it quite well and accurately.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, well and accurately: he is quite accurately representing Christian intolerance. And regardless of whether or not he supports them in real life, right now he is arguing FOR their position. Personal thoughts aside, it is simply easier to hold an argument if one side does not choose to "step to the side" and argue about some point of view he doesn't hold personally. I could rephrase all of my statements to say "they" instead of "you", but not only will the argument lose some of its impact, the fact that he chooses to take that side means that the difference between supporting and stating makes no difference to how I <i>would</i> argue, so I won't change anything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second of all, the homosexual argument was just an example I made of a particular issue that religious zealots have gathered behind in this country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So because they do not agree with you they are zealots? Or is it just people not ignoring the tenets of their faith that have survived for thousands of years just because the concept of tollerance now means that everything has to be accepted as "OK" now a days?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=zealot' target='_blank'>zealot</a> Notice the second definition.
I'd say that religious fundamentalists that care ONLY about their own faith and about no other point of view, who refuse to compromise or even consider the other side's feelings or stance, those people are zealous. This is a global community; anyone who thinks that they can blow off the majority of the world just because they don't follow their faith is an idiot. Anyone who thinks they can <u>dictate</u> to the majority just because they don't follow their faith is not only an idiot, but also zealous.
School now, rest later.