For all you catholics out there

[Scratchy]

Apparently the Church compiled a list of the new 7 deadly sins. They're an interesting grouping for sure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/10/eavatican110.xml

The 7 New sins..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/10/view10b.xml
The Vatican has outlined seven new deadly sins for our times, designed to make worshippers consider the increased impact their lives have on other people in light of globalisation.

The new lists condemns genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, polluting the environment, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs.

It replaces the list originally drawn up by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th Century, which included envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and pride. Sadness was replaced by sloth in the 17th Century.

What are the 'deadly sins' of our times?

Do you think that the Vatican is right to update the list? How has the nature of sinning changed since the 6th Century?

And what about modern holy virtues?

[SOTB]

The new lists condemns genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, polluting the environment, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy....
Damnit -- now it is a sin to be a capitalist....:D

[M18ClaymoreHeadbanger]

The new lists condemns genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans,


So does this mean I can't get into heaven if I have myself cloned?

[kamy]

Wow...considering the recent sins of the Fathers, who've cost the parishioners’ millions, polluted the minds and hearts of those who believed, as well as causing injustice to the victims of abuse, this edict took nerve...or total denial.

I'm considered a "cafeteria Catholic." I learned a long time ago to follow the faith and not dwell on the man-made rules. I don't see that changing for me anytime soon.

[Expatmedic]

Strangely, being a homosexual pedophile is absent from the list.:rolleyes:

Hippocrites.

[Pickpocket]

I'm considered a "cafeteria Catholic." I learned a long time ago to follow the faith and not dwell on the man-made rules. I don't see that changing for me anytime soon.
I guess the question is how we know what is man-made and what isn't if they keep changing the rules...

I agree that this took some nerve. Clean your own backyard before you worry about the rest of the world.

[ParrotHead]

Strangely, being a homosexual pedophile is absent from the list.:rolleyes:

Hippocrites.


I hope that was a joke

[Expatmedic]

I hope that was a joke


Why would I be joking about that?

It's well known the catholic church as a whole did everything but say molesting kids was OK.

So, yeah, I find it odd they would not make it a sin.

ie Catholic church: "molesting kids is a sin"

I read my post again and it does read funny.

It keeps the catholic church safe by not having it listed as a sin. Make sense?

[mdb23]

It's well known the catholic church as a whole did everything but say molesting kids was OK.


That's a pretty ignorant statement.

[Expatmedic]

That's a pretty ignorant statement.

How is it ignorant?

A blind eye was turned.

Kids were molested.

Personel were transfered from church to church to keep the people doing the molesting from being caught.

Millions of dollars are being payed out as settlements.

Seems rather systemic to me.

[Expatmedic]

If I have my information wrong, I'll apologize. But I have stated what I know to be true.

[Snake]

How is it ignorant?

A blind eye was turned.

Kids were molested.

Personel were transfered from church to church to keep the people doing the molesting from being caught.

Millions of dollars are being payed out as settlements.

Seems rather systemic to me.


By that standard, the US Army has no moral authority to tell me not to smoke cannabis or drink on duty, since they couldn't keep Drill Sergeants from molesting female recruits back in the '90s...

If you want to tell the Pope to screw off, go ahead. But don't hide behind the fact that a few priests (Drill Sergeants) out in the parishes developed a taste for veal and some bishops (TRADOC CoC) decided to try and bury the whole thing.

Neither situation, however fucked up, has any real bearing on the mission of the organization at large.

[mdb23]

How is it ignorant?

A blind eye was turned.

Kids were molested.

Personel were transfered from church to church to keep the people doing the molesting from being caught.

Millions of dollars are being payed out as settlements.

Seems rather systemic to me.

Catholicism is the world's largest religion, with about 1.2 billion practitioners worldwide. It is represented on every continent, and in every country in the world.

The molestation cases were isolated to the US, and to certain segments of the US at that. Even if we believe all of the claims (which I do not, as I have never been a fan of "repressed memories"), the "scandal" involved an extremely small number of priests and bishops when looked at in the grand scheme of things.

The abuses were not "systematic" or endorsed by the Catholic Church. There were some shitbag Priests who did some horrible things, and some other shitbags attempted to cover it up. You can't judge an organization with over one billion members based upon the actions of the few.

Edited to add that Snake provided the perfect analogy for this.....

[The Corporate Guy]

While I find the first statement to be inflamatory ...

It's well known the catholic church as a whole did everything but say molesting kids was OK.

I basically agree with the fact pattern you have listed...


A blind eye was turned.

Kids were molested.

Personel were transfered from church to church to keep the people doing the molesting from being caught.

Millions of dollars are being payed out as settlements.

The church's response was, at best, ineffective and, in the process, lost a great deal of credibility as a bastion of morality. Over the centuries the church has been guilty of other crisis of values, and it has taken centuries to move largely (but not completely) beyond. However, it is difficult to overestimate the damage created by this fiasco. I do not believe it is limited to a few wayward priests and it was, to some degree, systemic. It, IMHO, is one of the greatest oganizational blunders in a thousand years.

[martyusa]

So does this mean I can't get into heaven if I have myself cloned?


I think your Clone will be good only if he annuls the cloning.

[Ace]

You can't judge an organization with over one billion members based upon the actions of the few......

Tell that to the Muslims..........

becoming obscenely wealthy

So how rich is the Vatican these days?

[SheJAG]

Seems more like the Vatican just publish "7 Deadly Sins for Dummies".

None of the "new" sins is all that far off from the 17th century version.

Greed = obscene wealth
gluttony = taking drugs
envy/pride = genetic modification
sloth = polluting the environment (theoretically we do that because it is sooo much easier)

and so on.....

[KidA]

Strangely, being a homosexual pedophile is absent from the list.:rolleyes:

Hippocrites.

Huh? Pedophilia is one of the new seven deadly sins.

Polluting, genetic engineering, obscene riches, taking drugs, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice join the original seven deadly sins defined by Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century: pride, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and sloth.

[adk]

As a Christian the "basic" sins are laid out in the Bible. Any other guidance you need comes from above through prayer directly to God, not waiting for the Vatican to publish the latest new sins :rolleyes: Yet another way to keep people from being closer to God.

[Remington Raider]

Statistically, IIRC, as a group teachers represented a greater per capita group than priest when it comes to molesting children, but the betrayal of trust by an ordained priest is more sensational. I think any of the church command staff found to have shielded or otherwise prevented the discovery and prosecution of those pedophile priests should be charged, convicted, and do time as party to the crime. You will shut that bullshit down most ricky-tik.

[mdb23]

As a Christian the "basic" sins are laid out in the Bible. Any other guidance you need comes from above through prayer directly to God, not waiting for the Vatican to publish the latest new sins :rolleyes: Yet another way to keep people from being closer to God.

Yes, Catholics are trying to keep people away from God.... :rolleyes:

It's a conspiracy. And I started it.

[SOTB]

Huh? Pedophilia is one of the new seven deadly sins.I've searched seven sites (number chosen on purpose) and not a one of them show what you wrote....

[Greenhat]

Over the centuries the church has been guilty of other crisis of values, and it has taken centuries to move largely (but not completely) beyond.

A good point.

If a blunder occurs in isolation, the comment that it is just a misstep is fair enough. When blunders occur fairly often on a historic basis, it might be worth looking at the structure of the organization.

Of course, the Church has probably made fewer blunders in 2000 years than the US Government has made in 200... but the US Government isn't claiming to be God's representatives on Earth.

[ParrotHead]

Hey--some nice replies, and some more shit talking.

Here I go, up on my soapbox!

Yeah, we're a bunch of godless freaks! We want to keep people away from God--otherwise they'll pass out our secret handshake.

I love the fact that if you talk shit on any other race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation, then it is Racism or hatred. But go ahead and hate the Catholics--it's OK.

People forget that the 3 MAIN groups targeted by the KKK were Blacks, Jews and Catholics.

I am sick and fucking tired of anti catholic sentiment. More teachers molest kids than priests ever had. there are bad people everywhere in every profession. It just hurts more when it is a man of god. You have no idea how much it hurts as a catholic to have this happen in your religion. Then to have some anti-catholic rant talk shit--real nice.

There are bad teachers, cops, lawyers, firefighters, soldiers, airmen, and marines. They are everywhere. Go talk shit on them--see how long you last.

But hey--it's ok. Rant on. I've got God on my side.

Now I've gotta go practice my secret handshake.

[KidA]

I've searched seven sites (number chosen on purpose) and not a one of them show what you wrote....

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/vatican-updates-seven-deadly-sins/2008/03/10/1205125819939.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336330,00.html

http://www.cracked.com/blog/2008/03/11/pedophilia-is-now-a-sin-so-knock-it-off-fellas/

http://forthardknox.com/2008/03/10/list-of-seven-deadly-sins-grows-by-7/

http://newsfromrussia.com/world/europe/11-03-2008/104451-vatican_mortal_sins-0

http://www.wsbt.com/home/related/16493776.html

http://allafrica.com/stories/200803110843.html

You didn't search my seven ;)

[JRB11]

My take is like hate the sin, love the sinner, only its hate religion, but love some of the religous. And there ain't any bad firemen (maybe a few)

[1026]

I'd suspect most commenting here aren't Catholics and aren't aware of just how much ground the Ten Commandments cover.:D Being a flaming homo (and all variants thereof) has long been covered by the Sixth Commandment.

While these new additions have a decidedly leftist bent, I'll reserve comment on them until further clarification is forthcoming. Like many Ex Cathedra pronunciations, most of this stuff isn't easliy explained in a newspaper column.;)

[Expatmedic]

It's well known the catholic church as a whole did everything but say molesting kids was OK.


Well, I fucked that one up and painted with a broad brush. No inflamation intended.

I apologize.

[shaharazad]

I am sick and fucking tired of anti catholic sentiment....there are bad people everywhere in every profession. It just hurts more when it is a man of god....There are bad teachers, cops, lawyers, firefighters, soldiers, airmen, and marines.

You're absolutely right, there are bad people everywhere. But men of God are going to receive more press because of the 'fall from Grace.' An unfortunate majority of people get that nasty glee from getting dirt on someone they're holding to a higher standard. Not much different from school - I never heard much about the kids who were averaging C+'s cheating (though they were), but when the straight-A student taking all honors courses got busted? You'd have thought he was the first ever.

Press reporting is kinda like Larry Flynt offering cash for dirt on politicians - he's happy to get dirt on anybody, but he prefers to nail the Republicans because they're the 'party with moral standards.' (paraphrased) He just doesn't have as much fun going after Democrats. The Press will prefer to nail the 'moral majority,' whichever it may be.

Hey - can you teach me that handshake? I learned it a while ago but now I get my fingers all tangled up. ;)

[SOTB]

You didn't search my seven....Well shit -- I would have thought that at least I would have caught the one on Fox....

[ParrotHead]

Hey - can you teach me that handshake? I learned it a while ago but now I get my fingers all tangled up. ;)

You gotta give the correct password first, then we'll talk about the handshake.

[kamy]

.

I love the fact that if you talk shit on any other race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation, then it is Racism or hatred. But go ahead and hate the Catholics--it's OK.

I am sick and fucking tired of anti catholic sentiment.

Amen...

Perfect example are the "subtle" portrayals in TV and movies. Ever notice that some skanky girl, who's just shot her family, has a cross on the wall behind her, or happens to tell the interviewing detectives that she didn't want to file for divorce because she's Catholic??? :rolleyes: If other religions were regularly depicted in that way, there'd be a huge backlash.

Considering the Church is supposed to lead by example and set a moral compass, they do need to start from within. They've made mistakes and errors in judgment. As with all human-based organizations, it happens.

[adk]

Yes, Catholics are trying to keep people away from God.... :rolleyes:

It's a conspiracy. And I started it.

Not what I said and if I came across like that I apologize because that is certainly not what I meant. Do I think the Catholic Church as an organization has it's faults? Well.............

[Louis]

Obscene wealth is a bit rich coming from them. It would be interesting to know what the Vaticans net wealth is . I suppose anything far exceeding that would be a sin. I think its safe to say then that most of us aren't in any danger of going to hell for the obscene wealth sin.

[mdb23]

Not what I said and if I came across like that I apologize because that is certainly not what I meant. Do I think the Catholic Church as an organization has it's faults? Well.............

Thats' fine, you don't want to know what I think about Evangelicals.:D

[SIG 229]

I'm sick of the bashing too. I grew up in Catholic schools, knew quite a few wonderful priests who taught me some of the most important lessons in life. I even knew a few that I'd say were assholes. I even told one to his face that he was an asshat and his attitude and treatment of people was crap. You get all kinds. NEVER knew any that were pedos. None ever did anything that would be improper in any light.

Rome needed to update their position to a modern language. Americans are viewed by Rome as "cafeteria" catholics. We pick and choose which items we want off the menu and skip the rest. There's some fact there. I for one don't go to confession. I used to, used to believe in it quite strongly, but as I got older my views changed. Now I'm a direct dial kind of guy.

[SIG 229]

sorry, double post.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

While these new additions have a decidedly leftist bent...
But so did Jesus.
Many conservative Christians forget that

[P38]

I love the fact that if you talk shit on any other race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation, then it is Racism or hatred. But go ahead and hate the Catholics--it's OK.

If it makes you feel any better thank heavens that you aren't a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male. In college circa 1982 I learned the those of my ilk were the worst of the worst and that there wasn't a problem historically or currently that hadn't been caused by us. The ultimate group of evil, people that it's O.K. to bash without remorse.

That's what I got for majoring in Sociology. The same professor said that the US built the Berlin wall and was keeping the German people from freedom so you can imagine how seriously I took all that.

[Linear]

But so did Jesus. [have a leftist bent]
Many conservative Christians forget that

Leftists want to take your property, control the fruits of your labor, and tell you what to do in every jot and tittle of your life. If you don't do as they say, they want to lock you up or shoot you. In their view, some people are more equal than others. They're all about compromising principles to serve the ends of power.

Jesus was about voluntary submission to the rules of God and treating others as you would be treated. Christian charity is about voluntary giving. Doesn't sound leftist to me.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

As a Christian the "basic" sins are laid out in the Bible. Any other guidance you need comes from above through prayer directly to God, not waiting for the Vatican to publish the latest new sins :rolleyes: Yet another way to keep people from being closer to God.
But many of the basic sins and "abominations" in the bible are hopelessly antiquated.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Leftists want to take your property, control the fruits of your labor, and tell you what to do in every jot and tittle of your life. If you don't do as they say, they want to lock you up or shoot you. In their view, some people are more equal than others. They're all about compromising principles to serve the ends of power.

Jesus was about voluntary submission to the rules of God and treating others as you would be treated. Christian charity is about voluntary giving. Doesn't sound leftist to me.
I don't believe leftists want to shoot you or lock you up if you don't surrender every aspect of your life to them. :rolleyes:

[Finger]

But many of the basic sins and "abominations" in the bible are hopelessly antiquated.

Would you explain what you mean? I found that interesting.

I normally don't discuss religion on this forum, but you all brought it up. A couple of you guys know me personally and know that I study and teach bible scripture and history. I attend a Southern Baptist Church.

Was raised Catholic (church and school), was a 3rd Degree KOC. I left it for my own reasons, but I still refuse to beat on other Catholics. I get in many heated discussions on this with fellow Church members. I know and have known too many Catholics who I consider great Christians. I know all kinds of folks who profess to be Christians that I wonder about. I fight to keep from judging others too.

The first thing we must remember is all churches are comprised of imperfect people. In the faith we say that we are all sinners. All people can make mistakes and fall short of the mark. That includes all church leaders of all denominations.

Now back to my Brother Bravo Five Romeo.... All the sins and abominations are in the book. There is nothing new, just updated and made to look better.

I'm not sure what the Pope was trying to do by this update. It could be just frustration with world current events.

Off my box,

[KidA]

Would you explain what you mean? I found that interesting.

Following are the listings of the abominations in the Bible:

male homosexual activity (Leviticus 18:22), Leviticus 20:13),
idolatry (Deuteronomy 7:25, Deuteronomy 13),
cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5),
cheating in the market by using rigged weights (Deuteronomy 25:13-19, Proverbs 11:1),
dishonesty (Proverbs 12:22).

It is also used for eating seafood that lacks fins and scales (Leviticus 11:11), eating certain birds of prey, including bats (Leviticus 11:12) and all insects (Leviticus 11:23 and 11:41) and other biblically unclean animals (Leviticus 20:25);

remarrying the person one previously divorced (Deutoronomy 24:4);

telling lies (Proverbs 12:22);
being proud in heart (Proverbs 16:5);
justifying the wicked (Proverbs 17:15);
cheating in business (Proverbs 20:10 and Proverbs 20:23).

All others aside, I know Christians (having been raised one) eat a lot of seafood and a lot of pig (unclean). We inadvertently *unless you buy certified Kosher food* eat a lot of insects in canned goods and fresh vegetables unless you do the kosher route and wash in vinegar and give it a visual inspection before consuming.

We also marry the previously divorced.

Cheating in business....I won't touch that one.

Now I know Paul said that it's ok for us to eat unclean critters, but I don't believe Jesus ever did. Even so, it would be outdated if allowed now.

[mdb23]

Leftists want to take your property, control the fruits of your labor, and tell you what to do in every jot and tittle of your life. If you don't do as they say, they want to lock you up or shoot you. In their view, some people are more equal than others. They're all about compromising principles to serve the ends of power.

Jesus was about voluntary submission to the rules of God and treating others as you would be treated. Christian charity is about voluntary giving. Doesn't sound leftist to me.

This post makes no sense.

Jesus (and his Dad) gave specific instructions on how you were supposed to spend your wealth (and how much you could have), put restrictions on what you were allowed to say, how you were allowed to worship, what you were allowed to eat, when you were allowed to have sex, who you were allowed to marry, who was allowed to be in a position of authority in the church (some people are more important than others), etc.....

If you don't follow these rules, then you will get cast into hell for all eternity. That isn't "voluntary" compliance.... If the option is "do it or burn in hell for all eternity," then it isn't much of a choice.

Sounds pretty leftist to me...... borderline tyrannical.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Would you explain what you mean? I found that interesting.
...
Now back to my Brother Bravo Five Romeo.... All the sins and abominations are in the book. There is nothing new, just updated and made to look better.
Sure. I'll be glad to elaborate on what I meant by many of the sins and abominations are hopelessly antiquated.

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)
We smack kids who mouth off to their parents... we don't kill them.

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)
If I sleep with my wife when she has her period we shuld be driven away and forsaken by our friends and family.

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)
Then I sin almost every morning before I shower.

"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)
Does this mean fundamentalist should be closing down barbeque restaurants?

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)
Since my shirt is only 50% cotton that makes me a sinner
And good luck convincing the farmers who plant more than one crop on their land that they're sinners.

As to the use of the word "Abomination" as many fundamentalists like to quote the two verses from Leviticus that refer to homosexuality as an "abomination" for the crusade against homosexuality... allow me to show three quotes in Leviticus where shellfish is referrred to as an abomination.

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)
Leviticus refers to shellfish three times as an abomination and homosexuality only twice. Fundamentalist Christians should be crusading against Red Lobster restaurants before they go after homosexuals, since Leviticus feels they are more of an abomination.

[Snake]

Obscene wealth is a bit rich coming from them. It would be interesting to know what the Vaticans net wealth is . I suppose anything far exceeding that would be a sin. I think its safe to say then that most of us aren't in any danger of going to hell for the obscene wealth sin.

I imagine that the bulk of the Vatican's wealth is in antiques and artworks (donated to them, or commissioned directly by them back in the day). Not liquid funds or investments. Probably quite a bit of nice real estate (not counting the chunk of Rome they own), too.

It's not like the Pope is swimming in Euros like Scrooge McDuck....

[Snake]

BTW, now that we've "progressed" to the point where people are cutting & pasting biblical verses at one another, I expect this thread will be mercykilled shortly...

[Scotty]

This is why I shy away from ANY and ALL organized religion. Man gets his grubby little hands in things and mucks it all up. The Bible is written and edited by man to direct the people to act the way the rulers of the time wanted them to act. It's got some good stories on morality, but they're just stories. I have never read the Tora, but I imagine it's the same. At least Islam TELLS YOU the Koran is written by man...

It's pointless to argue religion. It's pointless to go to war over it. Every dominated race will take on the religion of its captor if given enough time and that's why Catholicism is so popular (the Crusades).

I agree, though, this thread needs an enema. :)

Scotty (with flame retardant jammies on)

[KidA]

BTW, now that we've "progressed" to the point where people are cutting & pasting biblical verses at one another, I expect this thread will be mercykilled shortly...

I hope not, since Finger did ask the question and got nothing but bible verses in response, rather than conjecture (ok, a bit of conjecture).

[Finger]

Ok one more. BFR, even Jesus told his detractors not to get so wrapped up in the (Mosanic) law that they loose perspective.

Remember when he told them that what goes into the mouth is not as unclean or dangerous as what comes out of it? Good sense.

Oh yeah, and it was Peter who had the dream about the unclean animals.

Scotty, I agree we need less religion. We need more conviction. :D

Oh and Scotty, if you read the Bible, you read the Torah. It's the first five books of the Bible. They were all written by men.

Hope nobody is offended. I know this thread bothers some.

[Hopeless Civilian]

Actually, discussions of this kind can be informative and intellectually stimulating, as long as the posters remain civil and avoid personal attacks.

I have to agree with Scotty though, Man usually finds away to take religion and twist it to his own means.

[Scotty]

Scotty, I agree we need less religion. We need more conviction. :D

Couldn't agree with you more!!! I believe in and am all for spirituality and sticking to what you believe, but think it's funny that so many people get riled up by it.

If your religion tells you to "make every other person believe you're right or kill them" you MAY be in the wrong religion!

Personally, if someone takes serious offense to this kind of discussion on an internet site, they need to question their OWN faith... I'm just saying.

Scotty

[ET1/ss nuke]

If the sins and abominations are outdated, does that mean that God changed His mind, or did humans just decide for themselves that the rules don't apply anymore? Lots of churches will tell you that your immoral lifestyle isn't sinful, then they will pass a collection plate so you can monetarily thank them for blessing your sins as acceptable behavior. That doesn't mean God sees that behavior any differently than He did thousands of years ago. When you jump off a cliff, refusing to believe in the law of gravity will not change the outcome, it will only keep you from screaming all the way down because you refuse to believe in the inevitable.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

If the sins and abominations are outdated, does that mean that God changed His mind, or did humans just decide for themselves that the rules don't apply anymore?
That's assuming that God wrote the rules in the first place.
I would argue that the basics are the rules of God... you know: love and help one another, don't kill, don't steal... that sort of thing.
The stuff about shellfish, and what material your shirts are made of... I'm pretty sure were written by men... along with all the ritual stuff that is more about honoring your religion than it is honoring God.

[adk]

But many of the basic sins and "abominations" in the bible are hopelessly antiquated.

If someone doesn't believe in what the Bible has to say, or isn't sure about all of it, I would agree (if I were in that category of person) yes alot of the content in there is antiquated. Of course for those who believe this is the literal word of God then nothing is out-dated because he took into account everything that would transpire from Genesis up until Judgement Day especially on topics like sin.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

If someone doesn't believe in what the Bible has to say, or isn't sure about all of it, I would agree (if I were in that category of person) yes alot of the content in there is antiquated. Of course for those who believe this is the literal word of God then nothing is out-dated because he took into account everything that would transpire from Genesis up until Judgement Day especially on topics like sin.Ah... but there's a problem regarding those who take the bible as the literal word of God.
How can those who claim the bible is the literal word of God be so selective about which parts to believe?
Many of the self procclaimed literalists seem to be rather selective about what parts of the literal word of God they should follow.
Why aren't fundamentalists protesting farmers who plant more than one type of crop?
Why aren't they trying to shut down abominations like Red Lobster?

They're not literalists... they're selective.

[Linear]

I don't believe leftists want to shoot you or lock you up if you don't surrender every aspect of your life to them. :rolleyes:

Soviet Union. Iran. Saudi Arabia. North Korea. Personally, I'd say that they did (do) a pretty good job of controlling lives.

Environmentalists who want to control the temperature of your house, what you drive, if you drive, your lightbulbs, and your children's education. Affirmative action supporters who want to set quotas for who you can hire, who you can fire, who gets into higher education, and who must abide by the rules and who gets a free pass based on skin color. General socialist progressives who want to control how much of your income you can keep, and what you get to spend it on.

Maybe we define leftists differently.

[Linear]

This post makes no sense.

Jesus (and his Dad) gave specific instructions on how you were supposed to spend your wealth (and how much you could have), put restrictions on what you were allowed to say, how you were allowed to worship, what you were allowed to eat, when you were allowed to have sex, who you were allowed to marry, who was allowed to be in a position of authority in the church (some people are more important than others), etc.....

If you don't follow these rules, then you will get cast into hell for all eternity. That isn't "voluntary" compliance.... If the option is "do it or burn in hell for all eternity," then it isn't much of a choice.

Sounds pretty leftist to me...... borderline tyrannical.

But if you don't voluntarily believe, and billions of people don't, then the threat carries no weight. As I understand it, Christianity does not condemn people to hell for any of the things you cite--forgiveness is the whole point.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Soviet Union. Iran. Saudi Arabia. North Korea. Personally, I'd say that they did (do) a pretty good job of controlling lives.
...
Maybe we define leftists differently.
Yes, we do.
I would not call fundamentalist religious states like Iran and Saudi Arabia leftist.
Nor would I have really called the Soviet Union leftist.
Their system was totalitarian, consolidating power and privilege for the few.
Claiming to be socialist and being socialist are two different things.
Idi Amin said he ran a Democracy in Uganda... but calling it a democracy and it being a democracy are two different things.

[Spinner]

I imagine that the bulk of the Vatican's wealth is in antiques and artworks (donated to them, or commissioned directly by them back in the day). Not liquid funds or investments. Probably quite a bit of nice real estate (not counting the chunk of Rome they own), too.

It's not like the Pope is swimming in Euros like Scrooge McDuck....

Anybody would have a hard time getting to the bottom of the Church's finances, but they have quite a bit of wealth tied up in traditional investments, including a lot of real estate. That's in addition to the priceless artifacts found within both the Vatican and its various archdioceses around the world.

[Frog]

OK good discussion so far. I have to go to the head -talk amongst yourselves - I'll give you some more topics: Gays in the military, women in combat, what boots are best, what watch do you wear, what knife do you carry, 9mm vs .45., life after the military, democrats and republicans living together. Explain completely in detail citing historical references, include how Sun Tsu and Clausewitz would view each topic and how the Daily Show would report it. Use reverse side of paper if necessary and illustrate as required.

[Finger]

Give us some slack Sir :D Thought you would be proud. We got to four pages on a very dangerously controversial subject and nobody got flamed or called a stupid ass yet. Might be a record. :p

[Greenhat]

Anybody would have a hard time getting to the bottom of the Church's finances, but they have quite a bit of wealth tied up in traditional investments, including a lot of real estate. That's in addition to the priceless artifacts found within both the Vatican and its various archdioceses around the world.

For what they are worth (not well documented in my opinion):

http://www.cloakanddagger.de/media/where_the_vatican_wealth_is_stor.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/theodore_dreiser/church_and_wealth_in_america.html

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Roman_Catholic_Church_in_1500.htm

http://202.6.52.14/articles/16261.htm

http://athinkingman.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/render-unto-caesar/

Last one is very interesting...

[flhshvlhed]

Although not a popular position reference the pedophilia, I find it ironic that people that adhere to the same ideology as those accused of being a pedophile, become annoyed about it, and make the analogy of some drill sergeants. Although both were wrong, I think there are some glaring differences.

1. The religious personnel did it (allegedly - ok - they did it), with minors and were representatives of God - the almighty of almighties, (if you adhere to that thought process).

2. The drills did it with adults, there was not a one of them that was a minor, or under the age of 18. I vaguely remember this, but I don't remember any of them getting raped. Although it's reprehensible what the drills did, I find it preposterous to even attempt to make this analogy.

Let loose the hounds.

[NightLandNav]

According to my "jet-lag" wisdom: flhshvlhed makes a valid point.

The "All dogs have four legs, cats have four legs, therefore all cats are dogs" logic fallacy is easy enough to realize.

The DI's and the pederastic priests have more in common if you take out all the variables flhshvhed mentioned above (and a few others) from the equation. But then, it wouldn't be the same thing if you did that.

What is the same thing: An individual in a position of authority betraying the considerable trust and responsibility that has been given them.

Both transgretions will land them right in hell. Except, for one group, their hell is in the center of the earth with a bunch of Rangers camped at the gate eating leftover three headed dog...and for the other, their hell is in Leavenworth Kansas.

Other than that, the situations are totally different, in an apples and oranges sort of way.

[flhshvlhed]

[QUOTE=NightLandNav]
The DI's and the pederastic priests have more in common if you take out all the variables flhshvhed mentioned above (and a few others) from the equation.

Holy shit - I had to bust out the Webster's.com for that one. I thought I had a pretty good vocabulary until now :D

[NightLandNav]

[QUOTE=NightLandNav]
The DI's and the pederastic priests have more in common if you take out all the variables flhshvhed mentioned above (and a few others) from the equation.

Holy shit - I had to bust out the Webster's.com for that one. I thought I had a pretty good vocabulary until now :D

I would have used "pedophilic" but it lacked the "father" figure inference I was going for. ...that, and I wasn't sure if pedophilic was spelled with one "L" or two. (it is one "L", right?) ;)

[Louis]

Thanks for the info Greenhat. Very interesting reading. It put my mind to rest in that I am definitely not worried about going to hell anymore for having obscene wealth.LOL At last I can have a good nights sleep without the constant nightmares.

[kamy]

Was raised Catholic (church and school), was a 3rd Degree KOC. I left it for my own reasons, but I still refuse to beat on other Catholics. I get in many heated discussions on this with fellow Church members. I know and have known too many Catholics who I consider great Christians. I know all kinds of folks who profess to be Christians that I wonder about. I fight to keep from judging others too.


Since you're familiar with Catholicism, but are now affiliated with the Southern Baptist ministry - if I have that correct? - can you explain why some Christians/Evangelicals consider Catholics non-Christians? I've run into many "Christians" who feel this way. That came as news to me (a Catholic) since I believe in Christ.

I'm another who prefers not to discuss religion, since it can be more incendiary than any other subject. However, when I hear those statements, and comments on how I should follow the Bible instead of the scriptures, I remind them that I do follow the Bible; the one that's still intact and not missing books that were thrown away by the Protestants when they broke away from the church. That doesn't usually go over very well.

I'd appreciate any insight you may have that might explain this mindset.

~k...

[ET1/ss nuke]

"Christian" is a word that means different things to different people. Some believe that anyone baptized and confirmed is a Christian. Some would say that anyone who has been saved through a personal decision to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior is a Christian. Some would say that anyone who is doing their best to live up to the teachings of the New Testament in their lifestyle is a Christian. Others would say that to be a Christian requires some or all of the above requirements, or possibly other things as well.

To answer the question of why some groups consider Catholics to be non-Christians, one mistake common among Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants is lumping Anabaptists (Baptists, Amish, Mennonites, etc.) in with the Protestants or the vague term Evangelicals. The Baptist faith is not an offspring of Roman Catholicism, it is an alternative view just as old as Catholicism. They were the people who called themselves Christians when the Roman Catholic Church declared itself the sole authority on Christian doctrine and sought to convert or oppress all those with alternative views. The Anabaptists at that time considered themselves the true Christians, and looked at Catholicism as a marriage of Christianity, paganism, and centralized political power. Anabaptists tend to apply the Book of Revelation's prohibition against adding to or subtracting from its contents (on pain of condemnation to the Lake of Fire) to the entire Bible, and therefore see any deviation from scriptural directives as heresy, while Catholics accept the Pope's authority to pass on directives from God that update the contents of the Bible, including introducing the concepts of Marianism, Purgatory, mass, priestly celibacy, etc. gradually over the two mellinia since John penned his Revelation. Protestants (Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, etc.) broke away from the Catholic church for various reasons but ended up taking theological positions that are basically compromises between the Catholic and Anabaptist views, so some Protestants may view Catholics as non-Christians but would be less prone to do so than Anabaptists, especially due to the growth of the Ecumenical movement. Within modern Anabaptist groups, the Amish, Mennonites, and Independent Baptists tend to hold to the dim view of Catholicism, while denominational Baptists (Southern Baptists, National Baptists, World Baptist Alliance) are more likely to adopt a conciliatory approach to Catholicism just as they have slowly abandoned the concepts of separation and repentance in favor of reaching more of the masses with a more positive message.

I hope that helps.

[mdb23]

To answer the question of why some groups consider Catholics to be non-Christians, one mistake common among Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants is lumping Anabaptists (Baptists, Amish, Mennonites, etc.) in with the Protestants or the vague term Evangelicals. The Baptist faith is not an offspring of Roman Catholicism, it is an alternative view just as old as Catholicism. They were the people who called themselves Christians when the Roman Catholic Church declared itself the sole authority on Christian doctrine and sought to convert or oppress all those with alternative views. The Anabaptists at that time considered themselves the true Christians, and looked at Catholicism as a marriage of Christianity, paganism, and centralized political power.

Where is this history coming from?

Having taken a heaping helping of religious history courses over the years, including a ton of scriptural/historical study work, this is the absolute first I have ever heard of this.

I've never even heard other Baptists say this.

[Gryfen-FL]

Frog, you're my hero.....

Nuke, I think you're giving some people too much credit:
can you explain why some Christians/Evangelicals consider Catholics non-Christians? I've run into many "Christians" who feel this way.From the horses mouth (my grandma), and it seemed to be a common misconception with the older generation in my area:
"Catholics are not really Christians, they're really idolaters."

Not everyone has the background some folks around here have. Many people I know saw or heard of the use of the rosary and crucifix in the Catholic Church, made up their minds....and ran with it from there.

[Finger]

Since you're familiar with Catholicism, but are now affiliated with the Southern Baptist ministry - if I have that correct? - can you explain why some Christians/Evangelicals consider Catholics non-Christians? I've run into many "Christians" who feel this way. That came as news to me (a Catholic) since I believe in Christ.

I'm another who prefers not to discuss religion, since it can be more incendiary than any other subject. However, when I hear those statements, and comments on how I should follow the Bible instead of the scriptures, I remind them that I do follow the Bible; the one that's still intact and not missing books that were thrown away by the Protestants when they broke away from the church. That doesn't usually go over very well.

I'd appreciate any insight you may have that might explain this mindset.

~k...

Kami,

I will try to answer your question to the best of my ability.

I am no theological expert, nor do I have a degree in Divinity, but these are observations I have made over the years as a student of history and a practicing Christian.

First of all, I do believe Catholics are Christians. Not to do so is absurd in my opinion.

Here is what I think. Catholics in the beginning split into two different groups, the Roman Church and the Eastern (Orthodox) Church. The church in Rome took on the culture of Rome with its art and Statues. Notice that the Eastern Church does not allow statues (idols), just mosaics.

The Church (body of believers, not a building) had to replace many things in the life of the folks they converted to Christianity. Remember, Pagans were not atheists. They had a lot of religion and many gods, feasts and holidays. We all know that many church holidays we celebrate today did not happen when we hold them. The early church “superimposed” the church calendar over the old pagan calendar.

I think that many of the “Saint Whoever Days” replaced old totems the people worshiped or identified with. I may be very wrong, but to me that makes sense.

The Church was also the center of culture during the middle ages in Europe. Most probably the only literate person in the village was the Priest. Most news and word of the world came through them. This did not change till much later. The Roman Church did itself no favors during the Crusades or the inquisitions.

When the Protestant movement occurred and the breakup came, they left without all the traditional baggage that stayed with the Roman Church. More people became literate and bibles were printed in mass instead of copied in manuscript.

Now theologically, I think the big difference is the subject of intersession. Catholics believe that praying that Saints or the Virgin Mother ask God to help them with whatever. Fundamentalist believe that God and Jesus are the only path to salvation and there is no intersession possible from deceased Saints. Most Protestants also don’t believe in Purgatory.

The bible differences you speak of are the books of the Apocrypha or the Deuterocanonical books that were not included in the KJV. That is over my head, but my understanding was they were looked at as extra and not necessary. I have read them and they seem more historical and poetic in nature. I can’t argue about that decision.

Anyway, those are the big differences I see in the Roman Catholic Church and at least my faith. Some Protestant Churches have retained close ties to the Roman Church.

Ok enough bandwidth. I hope I answered your question as I understand it.

[ET1/ss nuke]

Where is this history coming from?
Having taken a heaping helping of religious history courses over the years, including a ton of scriptural/historical study work, this is the absolute first I have ever heard of this.
I've never even heard other Baptists say this.

Baptist is short for Anabaptist, meaning "baptized again," meaning Christian groups who would not accept the Catholic Church's infant baptism as adequate for adults who wanted to join their churches. Anabaptist was a name applied to them by others, because the Anabaptists themselves would not admit that an infant had ever been baptized in the first place - he had only been made wet. Assorted Anabaptist groups referred to themselves as Montanists, Donatists, Novatatians, Paulicians, Albigenses, Waldenses, Lollards, and by many other names, and were never a centrally organized group. You can probably google any of those names and come up with some information.

Since you may want a Catholic viewpoint on the origin of the Anabaptists, I can't think of a more authoritative voice than Catholic Bishop Stanislaus Hosius of Worms, who was the president of the Council of Trent. In his 1565 work "A Most Excellent Treatise on the Begynnyng of Heresyes," he wrote:

"There shall be no faythe more certayne and true then is the Anabaptistes, seeying there be none nowe, or have bene before time fore ye space of these thousand and two hundred years, who have bene more cruelly punyshed, or that have more stoutely, stedfastly, cherefully take theire punishment, yea or have offered them selves of theire owne accords to deathe, were it never so terrible or grevouse. Yea in Saint Augustyn his time, as he hymselffe sayth, there was a certaine monstrouse desire of deathe in them."

Therefore the Catholics admit that there were Anabaptists at least as long ago as Saint Augustine. Saint Augustine was personally involved in the persecution of the Donatists, who were North African Christians who refused to place their churches under the authority of the newly formed Roman authority.

For a Protestant view of the topic, I would refer you to Lutheran historian John Lawrence Mosheim's 1871 work "Ecclesiastic History" in which he states:

"The Mennonites consider themselves the descendants of the Waldenses. They are not entirely in error when they boast of their descent from the Waldenses, Petrobrussians, and other ancient sects. Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the countries of Europe, who adhered tenaciously to the following doctrine which the Wandensians, Wycliffites, and the Hussites had maintained."

Without providing redundant quotes, here is a list of prominent historians who published works on the antiquity of Anabaptist beliefs and practices.

John Spittlehouse - 1652
Theilman J. Van Braught - 1660
Henry D'Anvers - 1670
Thomas Crosby - 1740
Isaac Backus - 1770
David Benedict - 1813
Joseph Ivimey - 1830
G. H. Orchard - 1830
J. M. Cramp - 1868
Wiliam Cathcart - 1887
Thomas Armitage - 1888
J. M. Carroll - 1901
John Taylor Christian - 1926

Didn't you ever wonder who the Inquisition was persecuting, since it began long before the Protestant Reformation did? Who were those folks leading good Catholics astray with a different doctrine of Christianity that the Catholics called heresy? Anabaptists.

Don't feel bad for not knowing about that, though. Most Baptist churches don't dwell on the subject and are focused on the events of now or 2000 years ago, not the time in between. Most Baptists have no idea of their own history. Don't just take it from me. Perhaps the most famous Baptist leader of the modern era was Charles Haddon Spurgeon of England. In his 1868 book "The Sword and the Trowel," Spurgeon stated:

"All who know much of the Baptist denomination must have regretted that so few are acquainted with its early history. It remains a matter of great surprise that our own congregations should be, for the most part, uninstructed in the past doings of our body."

Have a nice day.

[Finger]

ET1, intersting history. I have been reading your list most of the morning.
Thanks.

[Snake]

Although not a popular position reference the pedophilia, I find it ironic that people that adhere to the same ideology as those accused of being a pedophile, become annoyed about it, and make the analogy of some drill sergeants.
.

Note: I'm not Catholic (Episcopalian of some sort). I just don't like inconsistent arguments.

The Priests and the Drill Sergeants are both figures of trust and representatives of a larger organization.

To use the fucked-up actions of individual representatives to attempt to undermine the authority of the organization over it's (voluntary) members is hypocritical.

I do know quite a few Catholics (ones that actually go to Church), and they have few illusions about priests being perfect. To them, they're just guys with a special role. No more, no less. Most are worthy of the trust place in them, some are not.

As long as an organization is made up of people, some of those people will do fucked-up things. The Catholics seem to understand that, having the benefit of ~2000 years of corporate experience.

[Snake]

The Baptist faith is not an offspring of Roman Catholicism, it is an alternative view just as old as Catholicism. They were the people who called themselves Christians when the Roman Catholic Church declared itself the sole authority on Christian doctrine and sought to convert or oppress all those with alternative views. .


Not really.

The Anabaptists were a non-mainline offshoot of the Protestant movement, unaffiliated with Luther or the other Reformers.

While they may hold certain beliefs in common with the early heresies, it's just an artifact of the same memes recurring. There is no historical continuity between the Anabaptists and, for example, the Donatists (with whom they share no core beliefs).

Anabaptists believe infant baptism is not valid, because a child cannot commit to a religious faith, and they instead support what is called believer's baptism. While several groups throughout history have believed that, they are not contiguous.
To say that the Anabaptists have been around as long as the Catholics is misleading. The idea keeps popping up, but the people following it are not continuous across the ~2000yr history of the Catholics.

The Catholic Church describes them as being of the same sort (i.e. "feminazis" = "nazis", an incriminating label) as the older heresies, but they aren't the same organizations.

The history of the Anabaptists (organizations, as opposed to the belief that only adults can be Baptised) begins in the early 16th Century. Not before.

[Finger]

Snake, good point. I don't think they were called Anabaptists or were related to the 16th century movement, but there seems to be folks who did not follow the leadership of Rome before the Eastern Church split of Constintine.

[mdb23]

Baptist is short for Anabaptist, meaning "baptized again," ....

I am familiar with the Anabaptists, and their history. You still haven't provided anything that argues the existence of this subsect prior to the early 16th Century, or that has the religion developing "alongside" Catholicism. The Anabaptists were part of the Protestant movement.

[Snake]

Snake, good point. I don't think they were called Anabaptists or were related to the 16th century movement, but there seems to be folks who did not follow the leadership of Rome before the Eastern Church split of Constintine.

Most of the "big" heresies (Arianism, Pelagianism, Manichaeism, Nestorianism,
Monophysitism, etc) weren't "churches" like we know them. They were internal schisms within the Universal Church.
Most of them were definitively resolved at the big Councils (Chalcedon, Ephesus, etc), or had their regional power-bases overrun (as happened to the Monophysites, who became Muslims at swordpoint).

The Gnostics (all 31 Flavors of) were different, in that they were direct competitors with the Early Church (both before and after it became the State Religion). That's why they were exterminated so effectively (although, as the Cathars and the DaVinci Code prove, eliminating the Gnostic "idea" has proven tougher).

If you were a Christian, back before Luther, you were a Catholic (even the Orthodox refer to themselves as Catholic). Or a member of a fringe social movement (IOW, cult), that likely wouldn't be classified as "christian" in any modern sense (most of them made the Aum look rational), or by comparison to the Early Church.

[AngryBob]

Just stirring....

RUSHA, Tanzania (AP) -- A U.N. tribunal has extended the sentence of a priest to life in prison after upholding his war crimes conviction for ordering militiamen to burn and bulldoze a church with 1,500 people inside during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda's ruling came after Rwandan Roman Catholic priest Athanase Serombawar appealed his 2006 conviction, a tribunal statement posted on its Web site late Wednesday said. He was originally sentenced to 15 years in prison.

The tribunal is trying the alleged masterminds of the 100-day Rwandan genocide in which more than 500,000 minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by Hutu extremists.

The tribunal said it convicted Seromba for "his role in the destruction of the church in Nyange Parish, and the consequent death of approximately 1500 Tutsi refugees sheltering inside."

Seromba was convicted of leading a militia that attacked the people and poured fuel through the roof of the church, while police threw grenades inside. After failing to kill everybody inside the church, Seromba ordered it to be demolished, the tribunal found.

Thousands of Rwandans have turned away from Catholicism, angered and saddened by the complicity of church officials in the genocide.

Priests, nuns and followers were implicated in the killings and some churches were sites of notorious massacres.

The Rwanda war crimes tribunal has delivered 32 judgments, including five acquittals, since the U.N. Security Council established it in November 1994. There are 27 trials under way. E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or.....

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/03/13/rwanda.genocide.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText?iref=werecommend

[flhshvlhed]

Note: I'm not Catholic (Episcopalian of some sort). I just don't like inconsistent arguments.

The Priests and the Drill Sergeants are both figures of trust and representatives of a larger organization.

To use the fucked-up actions of individual representatives to attempt to undermine the authority of the organization over it's (voluntary) members is hypocritical.

I do know quite a few Catholics (ones that actually go to Church), and they have few illusions about priests being perfect. To them, they're just guys with a special role. No more, no less. Most are worthy of the trust place in them, some are not.

As long as an organization is made up of people, some of those people will do fucked-up things. The Catholics seem to understand that, having the benefit of ~2000 years of corporate experience.

A valid point, however, I think in the great scheme of manuver that we call life, I don't think that anyone can effectively compare the 2.

On one hand, you have a DI that has a job to teach and train people so that they can become young soldiers. However, while in execution of his job, it put's him in contact w/ young nubile females, that are, for the most part, away from home for most probably the 1st time and lonely. Add to that the fact that its been proven that many people find power to be an aphrodisiac - thus, unless the DI is of good moral or ethical background, it can be seen how he could digress, and want to roll in the hay w/ one, some or several of these young women. Granted it's wrong, and the CofC handled it wrong. However, pertaining to time - I believe that DI's have only been around co-ed basic training for not very long - say 50-60yrs or so?

Now - lets look at the other side of the hand (which happens to be inappropriately placed on a little boys ass. Now we have a guy that didn't enlist and sign a contract and raise his right and say -

"Repeat after me - I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Oh and this is only for a prescribed period that is agreeable by both parties - i.e. an enlistment contract)

In this particular case, we have a person that didn't take an oath to obey the Pres. This guy took an oath to obey GOD. As per religious people, GOD is the Big Kahuna, the head guy, the HMFIC; in the concept of the operation that these guys call religion.

The Pres is replaced every 4-8 yrs, GOD has been there for a pretty long time (insert your theory on relative length). I can see why someone in their military career could potentially disagree w/ their temporary boss. In the priests case - GOD isn't going anywhere - he's it.

So - in summation, other than the only common denominator being that they are both men, I refuse to see how someone can make the corelation between the two. Tell me in your mind, that you can compare a guy dipping his wick in young women with that of molesting BOY's.:mad:

I don't give a shit who your "boss" is - you touch my child while it's a minor, I'll kill you. I don't care where the diocese hides you. Not to mention the fact that not only were they aware of it, but they condoned it. (OK - now there is comparison that can be made). Only in this case - the higher HQ had a hot line to GOD, not to the CinC

As always - YMMV
Cheers

[AngryBob]

I don't give a shit who your "boss" is - you touch my child while it's a minor, I'll kill you.
Amen!

[Snake]

So - in summation, other than the only common denominator being that they are both men, I refuse to see how someone can make the corelation between the two. Tell me in your mind, that you can compare a guy dipping his wick in young women with that of molesting BOY's.:mad:


Easy. Imbalance of Power (remember, there was the issue of several of the DS cases being rapes).

You can get as mad as you like, it doesn't change the fact that, like the (adolescents of both genders, to be accurate) victims of the priests, the DS's victims were young (17-18yo's, away from their families for the first time, are legally adults, but not practically so) and unable to give Consent, due to the imbalance of power inherent in that relationship. Then there were the cases where the victims claim they were forcibly raped (hardly "dipping his wick")....

Neither case (Priest or DS) reflects on the nature or authority of the Organization. The US Army still gets to tell me what to do (to include who I may sleep with and what I may drink, inject or smoke). The Church still gets to tell Catholics not to beat off or get abortions.

So, hauling out "they've got kiddy-fiddlers, hur hur hur, so they need to STFU" when the Church says something you don't like is not a valid argument.

The crimes were committed over a period of decades (oddly, most in the 60's and 70's...), by a fairly small number of repeat offenders, who were sheltered from detection by local hierarchs trying to cover their own asses. It came out. The Church got a black eye. They've dealt with it (screening prospective seminarians, etc). Get over it.

Or are you bitching about people in positions of trust (sacred or otherwise) do fucked-up things? Do you now tar every/most member of the group (Priests) with the same brush, because ~1% have fucked up on national TV? That seems fair.

[T-Rock]

can you explain why some Christians/Evangelicals consider Catholics non-Christians? I've run into many "Christians" who feel this way. That came as news to me (a Catholic) since I believe in Christ.


I am not one of those who believe all Catholics are going to Hell…:D
IMO, Hell will be filled with Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Atheists and people from all walks of life, hopefully a bunch of terrorists……:D

Very interesting discussion……..Just curious though……Who proclaimed Peter the first Pope and why? Is he really the Rock, the chief cornerstone of the Church or is it Christ? If Peter’s commission was to be the first Chief Minister to the Circumcised (not the un-Circumcised) how can he be the Chief cornerstone or the first Pope of the Universal Church? What is the difference between Petros and Petra?

This may be a partial bone of contention between Catholics & Protestants?

[Finger]

On this abuse issue, I am proud to say I never saw anything like that as a kid in Catholic school. I guess the Philly area was a bad place to do anything like that.

In the military, I will say this, I am so proud of my Marine Corps for never falling into the trap of co-ed recruit training. Some folks cannot resist the power trip.

Both these situations are about someone with power and control over someone who should be able to trust them. They should pay the price to the fullest.

[flhshvlhed]

Easy. Imbalance of Power (remember, there was the issue of several of the DS cases being rapes).

You can get as mad as you like, it doesn't change the fact that, like the (adolescents of both genders, to be accurate) victims of the priests, the DS's victims were young (17-18yo's, away from their families for the first time, are legally adults, but not practically so) and unable to give Consent, due to the imbalance of power inherent in that relationship. Then there were the cases where the victims claim they were forcibly raped (hardly "dipping his wick")....

The crimes were committed over a period of decades (oddly, most in the 60's and 70's...), by a fairly small number of repeat offenders, who were sheltered from detection by local hierarchs trying to cover their own asses. It came out. The Church got a black eye. They've dealt with it (screening prospective seminarians, etc). Get over it.

Or are you bitching about people in positions of trust (sacred or otherwise) do fucked-up things? Do you now tar every/most member of the group (Priests) with the same brush, because ~1% have fucked up on national TV? That seems fair.

Dude although I applaud you for your convictions, and did the better part of 21 yrs so that you would have the right to have them, I find your naivety and ignorance to be somewhat sad.

Do you honestly believe that this just came about since "the 60's and 70's..."? In addition to that, do you believe that only "~1% have fucked up on national TV?". I'm willing to bet that the numbers are higher than that. So you're telling me that if it weren't for national TV, they woudn't have been outed?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't there been rules since practically the dawn of Catholicism, that preclude priests from rubbing one out and to be celibate? Maybe if they got w/ the times, and allowed it, the Vatican wouldn't be having these types of problems.

Reference your "imbalance of power" theory - I don't buy that either. Not to mention the fact that you inadvertently make my point - "the DS's victims were young (17-18yo's, away from their families for the first time, are legally adults, but not practically so). FTR - the age for emancipation in most states is under 17, not to mention the fact that they can be tried as an adult. Granted they can't buy beer (don't get me started on that one!), but they aren't pre-teen boys.

Also - I can tell that you've most probably never been on the trail. You should talk w/ some of the guys that have been w/ coed units. You could be doing the mattress mambo w/ some gal that works for you, and then scorn her - Hell hath no fury!! Even if the night before, she was handcuffed to the bedpost w/ her knees behind her ear's like a Safeway chicken, wanting you to break out the crisco and a little league baseball bat - if it comes down to it, she'll damn sure say "That SOB raped me!!!", rather than get in trouble. Been there, seen it done.

Finally - here's the BLUF - if you have "Stool on your Tool" and it's from someone that is a minor - you have no place in humanity, much less society - PERIOD. If you are in charge of someone that has the said odoriferous affliction and you don't do anything about it, other than shuttle them off to say AK or some place like that - then you're just as guilty and should be treated the same as them - elimination from the gene pool!

I realize that you may think that we are all God's little children, but there is no place for pedophiles. Hmm - I wonder if God meant it to be this way, when he made us in his likeness?

JMO

[kamy]

"Christian" is a word that means different things to different people. Some believe that anyone baptized and confirmed is a Christian. Some would say that anyone who has been saved through a personal decision to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior is a Christian. Some would say that anyone who is doing their best to live up to the teachings of the New Testament in their lifestyle is a Christian. Others would say that to be a Christian requires some or all of the above requirements, or possibly other things as well.

I hope that helps.

ET1/ss: It does. If I can use the term, "born again Christians;" these are the people who've been the most vocal, regarding Catholicism and a true Christians. Their beliefs are rooted in my not having a choice at baptism, and unless or until I make a declaration, or be re-born in Christ, I'm not a true Christian.

I've explained that by being confirmed, which comes in your teen years now, you're choosing to be a soldier in Christ. Regardless of my original baptism, I chose to continue to follow the teachings of Christ through Catholicism. Unfortunately, the discussions end with us agreeing to disagree.

Finger: Thanks for your opinion. Like you, I went to parochial school (12 yrs) and never had an issue with the clergy - other than being told I questioned too many of the teachings. :rolleyes: This is where I came to classify myself as a cafeteria Catholic.

I follow the fundamental teachings of Christ, yet don't put as much importance in the [man made] rules sent down by the Vatican. My feeling is: Sin classifications are constantly changing. It was once a sin to touch the Host, or eat meat on Friday; now it's not.

I believe many issues like divorce, birth control, a woman's right to choose, euthanasia, and capitol punishment should not be handled with blanket edicts. Nothing is completely black and white.

We were given brains, and religion gives us guidelines. If at the end of our lives we've done the best we could with the tools given us, then hopefully we’ll be forgiven the stumbles and pitfalls.

Thanks again for your time and explanations.

~k...

[flhshvlhed]

On this abuse issue, I am proud to say I never saw anything like that as a kid in Catholic school..

I'll bet your glad about that! ;)

Both these situations are about someone with power and control over someone who should be able to trust them. They should pay the price to the fullest.

True

[SheJAG]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't there been rules since practically the dawn of Catholicism, that preclude priests from rubbing one out and to be celibate? Maybe if they got w/ the times, and allowed it, the Vatican wouldn't be having these types of problems.

JMO

Although celibacy was encouraged for priests from the get go because Paul taught it allowed the priest to focus more fully on the Lord's business instead of the business of raising and providing for a family, there were no restrictions on marriage until the 4th century when the Pope declared that ministers should remain celibate and not engage in conjugal relations w/ their wives. This declaration applied to all Catholic ministers/priests at this time b/c the Great Schism had not yet occurred.

This rule was not strictly enforced in the Roman Catholic Church until the 12th century. The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Churches still allow some of their clergy to marry and have children although there are rules on when one may marry and what higher level church positions one may hold.

The big move to enforce the celibacy rule and prohibit marriage actually has nothing to do w/ scripture or the interpretation of the Word. It had more to do w/ economics and the common law rules of property ownership and inheritance.

[Spinner]

For what they are worth (not well documented in my opinion):

http://www.cloakanddagger.de/media/where_the_vatican_wealth_is_stor.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/theodore_dreiser/church_and_wealth_in_america.html

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Roman_Catholic_Church_in_1500.htm

http://202.6.52.14/articles/16261.htm

http://athinkingman.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/render-unto-caesar/

Last one is very interesting...

Another thing to point out is that for a long time, the various Archdioceses around the country, and the parishes within them, had a lot of autonomy as far as the disposition of funds and donations that came their way.

As bad as the recent scandals regarding pedophile priests have been, I'd say the theft of parish funds has been just as bad, maybe even more prevalent than the other scandals. People tended to trust their Parish pastor to do the right thing, and many parishes have paid the price over the years.

Most parishes now have professional business managers and strict auditing controls over the finances, which was probably long over due.

Here's a couple of the more egrigious cases.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/special_reports/priests/index.html

http://www.churchsecurity.info/index_files/Page313.html

[Snake]

Dude although I applaud you for your convictions, and did the better part of 21 yrs so that you would have the right to have them
I've got 2 tours in Afghanistan, 1 in Iraq, and more than 10 yrs TIS, so you don't want to go there, OK? This isn't the kind of Forum where you want to bust out "I defended your right to....". You've been here long enough to know that.

Do you honestly believe that this just came about since "the 60's and 70's..."? You mean the sex abuse scandals recently/currently being settled? Yes, those seem to have been largely in the 60s and 70s. Anecdotal evidence suggests comparitive rarity prior to that.


Reference your "imbalance of power" theory - I don't buy that either. Not to mention the fact that you inadvertently make my point - "the DS's victims were young (17-18yo's, away from their families for the first time, are legally adults, but not practically so). FTR - the age for emancipation in most states is under 17, not to mention the fact that they can be tried as an adult. Granted they can't buy beer (don't get me started on that one!), but they aren't pre-teen boys.

But they are under Authority, and as such, no relationship can be consensual, and every relationship has the implication of force, if it isn't outright rape.

Also - I can tell that you've most probably never been on the trail. You should talk w/ some of the guys that have been w/ coed units. You could be doing the mattress mambo w/ some gal that works for you, and then scorn her - Hell hath no fury!! Even if the night before, she was handcuffed to the bedpost w/ her knees behind her ear's like a Safeway chicken, wanting you to break out the crisco and a little league baseball bat - if it comes down to it, she'll damn sure say "That SOB raped me!!!", rather than get in trouble. Been there, seen it done.

Ahh. Blame the victim. There is more than one NCO on this Forum who has had to deal with legitimate rape cases, where that was the defense. Some of them fairly close to home.

then you're just as guilty and should be treated the same as them - elimination from the gene pool!
And yet, Statutory Rape and Child Sex Abuse carries the Death Penalty in no State of the Union. Nor is it likely to anytime soon. So your statement is hyperbole.

I realize that you may think that we are all God's little children, but there is no place for pedophiles. Hmm - I wonder if God meant it to be this way, when he made us in his likeness?


Gee, that sounds a whole lot like you said "if you don't agree with my argument, you are defending child molesters"....

Fuck off with that insinuation. If you can't back up your arguments with anything more than playing to the crowd and emotional outbursts, you ought to quit before you start showing your ass.



Your position, that the Church as a whole is corporately responsible (and therefore, without legitimate authority to give out moral instructions to it's members) for the misbehaviour of a vanishingly small number of its members, is not backed up by any logic. Most importantly, the Catholics seem to know the difference.

It does, however, provide you with a stick to beat the Church. Which is really the only reason you care, right? Someone in the Church fucked up, ergo the Church isn't worthy of respect.

[Snake]

This rule was not strictly enforced in the Roman Catholic Church until the 12th century. The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Churches still allow some of their clergy to marry and have children although there are rules on when one may marry and what higher level church positions one may hold.
.

Orthodox (and some Eastern Catholic) men who are married may be Ordained. Once Ordained, though, no change of state is permissible. IOW, an unmarried Priest cannot marry, and a widowed priest may not remarry.

Orthodox Bishops are chosen from the monasteries, and so, obviously, unmarried.

[flhshvlhed]

Your position, that the Church as a whole is corporately responsible for the misbehaviour of a vanishingly small number of its members...",
Not my point at all - my point is, if you don't do anything about it, you're part of the problem - not part of the solution, and I question the phrase "a vanishingly small number of its members...". Personally, I think they are just going more covert, or selecting a different way to get their rocks off. Time will tell

Most importantly, the Catholics seem to know the difference.
A human being should know the difference, one shouldn't have to hide behind some diety to see that molesting children is wrong

It does, however, provide you with a stick to beat the Church.
There are plenty of sticks out there, I don't have to look very far, i.e. Pat Robertson ("We should send someone down to Venezuela to take out Hugo Chavez" Did God authorize that?), Jim Bakker (Jessica Hahn was hot), Jimmy Swaggart ("I have sinned" - at least he was banging a $20 whore on Airline Hwy and not diddling some boy), Benny Himm (You're healed!!)etc, etc. Granted they aren't Catholics - they are still men of the cloth.

Which is really the only reason you care, right?
Actually I don't care at all - but does make for some interesting conversation

Someone in the Church fucked up, ergo the Church isn't worthy of respect.
Not my point at all - I don't have a problem with God, it's his fan club that for the most part, I can't stand. The same guys I'm out in a bar drinking and using as a wingman w/ on Fri and Sat nights so that we can both get laid, is in church on Sun morning, genuflecting and getting blisters on his fingers from saying Hail Mary's with his rosary beads

But they are under Authority, and as such, no relationship can be consensual, and every relationship has the implication of force, if it isn't outright rape.
So by this, you are saying that if a female soldier has consensual sex w/ her superior (in this case a DI), then that relationship has "the implication of force, if it isn't outright rape"? You actually believe this? Oh wait - weren't the priests "under authority" as well?

Ahh. Blame the victim. There is more than one NCO on this Forum who has had to deal with legitimate rape cases, where that was the defense. Some of them fairly close to home.
Dude - you should be a defense attorney, if you can take what I said, and skew such that you can come out with that. Oh and FTR - I am not referencing "...legitimate rape cases" in anyway whatsoever.

Gee, that sounds a whole lot like you said "if you don't agree with my argument, you are defending child molesters"....
In a word - Yes

Fuck you and your insinuation. If you can't back up your arguments with anything more than playing to the crowd and emotional outbursts, you ought to quit before you start showing your ass.
THEY'RE WE GO!! I've had this discussion w/ other guys that I've worked with, and it never denigrated into calling each other names, however, you chose to. Hmmm WWJD?:confused: Oh - BTW - isn't that one of the basic concepts behind religions - to play to the crowds and use emotions while doing so? Doesn't the Pope usually have a large gathering, whereby he talks to the masses?

As a side note, if you ever make it to AK to the 501st, look me up, I'll buy you a beer and we can talk some more. I was in 1/508 when it changed 3/505.

Oh and nice try w/ the "Fuck you" to "Fuck off" edit. I had already cut and pasted it, thus I will leave it as it originally was. I wouldn't want to misquote you. But that's ok - I forgive you.

[Greenhat]

Also - I can tell that you've most probably never been on the trail. You should talk w/ some of the guys that have been w/ coed units. You could be doing the mattress mambo w/ some gal that works for you,

Doing the mattress mambo with some gal that works for you is both a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and just plain stupid. Generals have had their careers end over it, why should a Drill expect differently?

[colmurph]

Doing the mattress mambo with some gal that works for you is both a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and just plain stupid. Generals have had their careers end over it, why should a Drill expect differently?

First bit of advice I got after joining the Army was "Don't shit in your messkit".
AKA: "Dont dip your pen into the company inkwell." (For a civilian translation.)

[magician]

Keep it civil, brothers. This is an important conversation.

For myself, I grew up Catholic.

I could never wrap my head around the concept that virtually any sin was forgivable, as long as the sinner was appropriately penitent and made confession on Sunday. I was probably a bad kid, which is probably why I was beaten so much. I can tell you without a doubt, however, that the cycle of beatings that I received when I was young resulted in a serious problem with authority, and a deep rage which served me very well in later years.

I was always able to do things that others told me that I could not do. All that I had to do was get seriously pissed, and when the dust settled, I would be one of the few left standing. It happened over, and over again.

I no longer consider myself a Catholic. No man, no priest, comes between me and my God. Me and the Big Ranger talk one-on-one, and I do not need anyone to tell me how to worship Him. Some might say that this makes me a Gnostic, or a pagan, of some flavor, because I insist on direct gnosis or "knowing" between myself and divinity. Fine.

I know some good Catholics, my former mother-in-law among them. She goes to church every morning, and she has a heart of gold. If Catholics of this type need the structure of a Church, and a liturgy, whatever, to help them live virtuous lives, then good on them. I myself still appreciate the Latin ritual and liturgy. I used to know it by heart, and I can almost remember it when I hear it to this day.

I no longer follow the Catholic faith personally because I understand the genesis and historical development of the Church of Rome better than when I was young, I continually research the fusion of Church tenets with earlier pagan beliefs, and I now know that the so-called Apostolic succession is an historical fiction, which in its turn renders Papal infallibility absurd.

In my opinion, the best thing that the Pope could do would be to open the doors to the Vatican library, put all the forbidden books on the web, and quit trying to manipulate history in an effort to sustain what has been a massive moneymaking operation for centuries. It will never happen, I think, unless Jesus really does come back. He will have a colossal case of the ass, no doubt in my mind.

I judge the person, not the faith, and I try to judge gently, because I definitely live in a glass house. I have made my share of monster mistakes in my day. One of the reasons for my (some say premature) retirement is because I just want to try to live a virtuous life. It takes some focus, at least for me.

I know good Jews, good Muslims, good Buddhists, good worshippers of the Hindu divinities, good Masons, good Gnostics, good Rosicrucians, and some good pagans of other various flavors.

I do not care how people acknowledge divinity in their own lives. I do care how they live, and I try hard to live a good life, myself. I fail sometimes, but I consider the miracle of a new day exactly that: a fresh start to try again.

For those of you who are serious about the Church of Rome, I would ask you to consider the words of Malachi Martin (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=malachi+martin&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) (readily googled) (the priest, not the Australian murderer), and a series of articles titled The Criminal History of the Papacy (http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Papacy1.html) by a gentleman named Tony Bushby, hosted on the web by Nexus Magazine.

There are other articles (http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles.html) hosted by Nexus (which many will consider an outré conspiracy rag), which bear on this topic, as well.

I would advise some caution, however. Once you start reading.... there is no end to this rabbit hole. At least, I have not found one yet, and I am deep down in it.

:)

[Greenhat]

Good post, Magic. One that I wholeheartedly agree with.

[Finger]

Great stuff Magic.

One thing though, not putting anybody between you and the Lord does not make you a pagan or anything else. It means you get it. One statement that Catholics (I was one too) always skim over was when Jesus said not to call any man "Father" or "Rabi", that our Father is in Heaven. On earth, the least of us will be first and we are all brothers and sisters. That concept runs afoul of any large church hierarchy.

[ET1/ss nuke]

Not really.
The Anabaptists were a non-mainline offshoot of the Protestant movement, unaffiliated with Luther or the other Reformers.
While they may hold certain beliefs in common with the early heresies, it's just an artifact of the same memes recurring. There is no historical continuity between the Anabaptists and, for example, the Donatists (with whom they share no core beliefs).
Anabaptists believe infant baptism is not valid, because a child cannot commit to a religious faith, and they instead support what is called believer's baptism. While several groups throughout history have believed that, they are not contiguous.
To say that the Anabaptists have been around as long as the Catholics is misleading. The idea keeps popping up, but the people following it are not continuous across the ~2000yr history of the Catholics.
The Catholic Church describes them as being of the same sort (i.e. "feminazis" = "nazis", an incriminating label) as the older heresies, but they aren't the same organizations.
The history of the Anabaptists (organizations, as opposed to the belief that only adults can be Baptised) begins in the early 16th Century. Not before.

That's an excellent summation of the Catholic/Protestant view of Baptist history. However, Jews have a different view of their own history than the one promulgated by their Nazis, and Native Americans have a different view of their own history than the one published in American History textbooks of the 1880s. The oppressors always tell a different story than the oppressed. The truth usually lies somewhere in between. Since you have presented one side of the story, I'll attempt to present the other.

The whole purpose of the Inquisition was to root out heretics, a.k.a. non-Catholics who claimed to be Christians. The reason Guttenberg's printing press made such a sensation was that it allowed the publication of things contrary to Catholic doctrine, but the ideas being printed were hardly the new invention fresh out of Luther's head that Protestants would like to believe - instead, they were the ideas that people had been burned at the stake for throughout the Middle Ages in the name of heresy against Rome.

The Catholic Church didn't exist until it was established by Emperor Constantine 300 years after the dawn of Christianity. During those 300 years there were plenty of churches, as evidenced by the Epistles, which are letters from early church leaders to assorted churches. In none of those letters is there evidence that any one congregation or individual was the ruler over others. Other than non-recognition of infant baptism, the other defining characteristic of Anabaptists is that they are independent congregations with no larger organizational guiding authority other than voluntary associations of congregations of like-minded believers. Of course there is no direct line of descent from the Donatists through the Waldenses to the present-day Amish; instead, there have always been decentralized groups who believed in the same concepts. Even today, Baptist churches spontaneously divide at the drop of the hat with the splintered-off congregation adopting a new name, and that practice is not a new one. For Protesants and Catholics, whose churches are centrally organized, to claim that there is no history of Baptist church existence because they have never been organized into groups larger than congregations with a consistent name is similar to European claims of the 1700s that Native Americans were uncivilized savages because their systems of government were foreign to European understanding and the Europeans had self-serving interests in legally treating Indians as subhuman.

It is also somewhat hypocritical to say that the assorted Anabaptist groups over the centuries have not always been consistent in the details of their beliefs, and therefore can not claim to have any coherent history. A short and very incomplete list of Catholic doctrines and the years when they became official follows:

431 - Mary remained a virgin throughout her life
450 - Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, had authority over the other apostles, and was the first Pope
600 - church services in Latin only
788 - prayers directed via Mary & saints
988 - Lent and fasting on Fridays
1000 - holy water
1079 - priests may not marry
1090 - rosary beads and sacrificial mass
1190 - sale of indulgences
1215 - transubstantiation and confession of sins to priests
1438 - purgatory
1864 - Mary was born without sin and never sinned
1870 - Papal infallibility
1950 - Mary did not die and went directly to heaven

The Protestant Reformation broke splinter groups off the Catholic Church, but those splinter groups retained their disdain for Anabaptists. Because Protestantism embraces the Catholic concept of uniting church and state, the nations where Protestantism flourished adopted their own flavors as the official state religion. Baptists, since they were not practitioners of the state-sanctioned faith, were seen as untrustworthy outsiders whose loyalty to the state and obedience to the law could not be taken for granted. As a result, Baptists received similar discrimination at the hands of European Protestants to that handed out to Jews. Even in America, until the establishment of Rhode Island there was not a single English colony in which Baptists could practice their faith free from discrimination. When the Constitution was being formulated, Baptists played a vital role in the anti-Federalist movement, resulting in the inclusion of freedom of religion into the Bill of Rights, all because the Baptists did not want the USA to become a place in which they would be treated as they had been in Europe. For Catholics to dismiss Baptists as just another kind of Protestant, and for Protestants to dismiss Baptists as insignificant malcontents, should not come as any great surprise. Thus, relying on Catholic and Protestant sources when studying Baptist history really is like relying on Nazi sources to study Jewish history.

I do not claim to be an expert, but hopefully I have given you something to think about, even if you just wind up thinking I'm full of crap.

[Finger]

ET1,

I won't tell you that you are full of anything, but I do disagree with you on Constantine starting the Catholic Church. He did hold the first ecumenical council at Nicaea. There were already Bishops Priests, and one Pope in attendance. Check out the link.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705fea3.asp

[NightLandNav]

...[Post #98]...

I would advise some caution, however. Once you start reading.... there is no end to this rabbit hole. At least, I have not found one yet, and I am deep down in it.

:)

Sage advice.

Keep an open mind, the "rabbit hole" becomes more and more an open abyss the deeper you go.

[Gryfen-FL]

there is no end to this rabbit holeGood analogy. I took a 'religions of the world' course in '98 or '99, and I haven't put down the shovel since.

[magician]

On earth, the least of us will be first and we are all brothers and sisters. That concept runs afoul of any large church hierarchy.

It certainly does, brother.

:)