Focus on the Family: Chaps my hide (Page 5)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() run4yrlif - 2005-12-09 7:41 AM gullahcracker - 2005-12-09 6:27 AM So Jim knock it off with your Lev. and Ex. quotes and accept Dodson for what he is , an A44Hole( spoken in love). example, free yourself from the shackles of the Old Testament and accept homosexuality for what it is: part of the natural order of things. or if you may, it can be sin, just as lust, lies, adultry, hate, etc etc, of which we can all be forgiven. Isn't it funny how seldom these modern day pharisees (tv preachers) talk about covetous(sp) greed, worldly possessions,etc |
|
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() gullahcracker - 2005-12-09 7:19 AM or if you may, it can be sin, just as lust, lies, adultry, hate, etc etc, of which we can all be forgiven. Isn't it funny how seldom these modern day pharisees (tv preachers) talk about covetous(sp) greed, worldly possessions,etc It is. And how they don't seem to get that in God's eye, all sin is equal; no one sin is any less bad than any other sin. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() But Jim do you know what really frosts my A$$? A snow cone about this high. (Hand at waist level) bwahahahahahahahahaha |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Bah ha ha... You don't have snow cones that high in Beaufort. gullahcracker - 2005-12-09 7:35 AM But Jim do you know what really frosts my A$$? A snow cone about this high. (Hand at waist level) bwahahahahahahahahaha |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() rbschlesinger - 2005-12-08 1:13 PM Personally I am Catholic and I like to think there is enough room in my religion to love all types of people and Jesus. Thats just me though and not everybody in my religion thinks so. Also, someone wrote that "Christianity is easy..." I understand what you meant, but Christianity is not easy and the first sentence of that first quote could be torn apart for hours. It seems like most of the viewpoints (all well thought out and presented intelligently-I love BT!) I've read here are the viewpoints of intelligent, reasonable people filtering ideas and beliefs they have learned through their various mores/belief systems. I emphasize, I used the word "reasonable". This thread is convoluted enough so I'll skip the details, but if you spend some time studying the differences between the different denominations of Christianity, you'd find that there are some HUGE differences in them and the leaders of these denominations tend to be among the most unreasonable in terms of accepting what seems to be rational, or reasonable thought to the rest of us. Now take all of that tangled up mess and throw it into the culture of America, where we are taught that we can be anything we want to be, do anything (legal), achieve anything and say anything and you have such a wide range of "allowed" behavior that the thing that began this thread, the political pressure put on Ford, doesn't seem all that surprising, does it? Sure it sucks, but it's their right. What am I going to do about it? Put out my flag and thank my God that I live in America, warts and all, every day of my life. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Lutheran who drove a blue Subaru, was raised so republican I had an elephant phone and is disgusted by the current administration's policies. Now I drive a black Jeep. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() run4yrlif - 2005-12-09 6:41 AM gullahcracker - 2005-12-09 6:27 AM So Jim knock it off with your Lev. and Ex. quotes and accept Dodson for what he is , an A44Hole( spoken in love). Gullah, we agree. Chistianity is easy. As much as I despise slogans, my faith is bound by continuously asking myself "WWJD?" In my mind Jesus wouldn't marginalize homosexuals. He never said a word (according to scripture) against them. He wouldn't subserviate women. He wouldn't start wars. He might eat some pork ribs. As far as Leviticus goes, I merely used it as an example the way some...many Christians uses it to support their belief that homosexuality is wrong. My point is that if they believe homosexuality is wrong, they should be as vocal about their support of slavery. If you're going to be a fundamentalist, be a fundamentalist. But if you think slavery is wrong, despite the biblical example, free yourself from the shackles of the Old Testament and accept homosexuality for what it is: part of the natural order of things. This is an excellant point, and one that I think is missed by a great number of Christians. If you read the Gospels a great deal of the message is presented not only through the words of Christ, but also by those he preached to, and those he sorrounded himself with. For instance one of his disciples was a tax collector. This is significant because he would have been a Galileeian that was going around to his neighbors and taking their money for the benefit of the Romans. In essence a "traitor", and undesirable. The simple fact that the majority of the disciples were galilieans also made them suspect in Jerusalm, in essence to be a galilien was to be from the "wrong side of the tracks". The Mary's played a significant role in Christs public ministry. In fact the first witnesses to the resurected Jesus were women. The fact remains that christ sorrounded himself with undesirables, cast-offs, the poor and the meek. He did this for a specific reason, to teach us as Christians that God sees no differences between all men/women. He's God he could have had kings, and the wealthy as his core of disciples. But He chose not to. Someone else makes the excellant point that we are all sinners and sin is sin. This too seems to be lost on many Christians. However, because these people mis the boat does not mean that "Christians" as a whole are irrational, illogical, cruel, or uncaring. Look at the post of the Christians on BT, while we argue or points in favor of our religion, I think we tend to be pretty respectful in doing so. I at least hope. Anyway, great point run4yrlif! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() run4yrlif - Gullah, we agree. Chistianity is easy. As much as I despise slogans, my faith is bound by continuously asking myself "WWJD?" GK Chesterton wrote, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried." WWJD? He'd die on the cross. We all have our crosses to carry. And if we're willing to do WJD, we need to be willing to die over and over again on those crosses that we carry. Personally, I find it kinda difficult. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bootygirl - 2005-12-08 5:56 PM drewb8 - 2005-12-08 2:36 PM SMUJD - 2005-12-08 12:30 PM Wow. I drive a blue Subaru, wonder what that says about my politics and intellect? Although it is true that I don't really care what Dobson thinks, I do care about the influence he seems to have with the current administration.Matchman - 2005-12-08 2:18 PM I'm surprised that FOF hasn't raised a huge alarm on Subaru (maybe they have and I'm just not aware). I'm pretty sure Subaru does specific and targeted advertising in the GLBT community. Apparently, lesbians dig Subarus? I will get hugely flamed for this, but what the hell: the average Subaru driver has substantially different politics and intellect than the average Ford driver. Ford is a "heartland of America" car. Subaru is one of those damn imports driven in blue states. More concisely--Subaru drivers probably don't care what Dobson thinks on any issues. BillWho has ever seen a Bush/cheney sticker on a subaru? Sounds like the flipside of "Dead head sticker on a cadillac"..... Right! And there are no Kerry stickers on Fords. Looks like we've single handedly solved this whole electoral college mess. We'll just count the number of Fords/Subarus and declare a winner. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() dontracy - 2005-12-09 10:03 AM Don this is simply a difference in how we, you and I percieve our salvation and our Christian walk. Is life difficult? You bet. Has my life been and does it continue to contain hardship, you bet. But for eternal salvation all I had to do was accept Christ as my Saviour and try (as well as a born sinner can) to be Christ like. He set the "captives" free and in that I rejoice and do my best to consider it all "joy". Can't find that difficult no matter how tough life gets or how close death strikes. It's also not difficult since no matter how "saintly" we think we are ,we are still just "dirty rags" and only by Grace anfd Faith are we heaven bound. run4yrlif - Gullah, we agree. Chistianity is easy. As much as I despise slogans, my faith is bound by continuously asking myself "WWJD?" GK Chesterton wrote, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried." WWJD? He'd die on the cross. We all have our crosses to carry. And if we're willing to do WJD, we need to be willing to die over and over again on those crosses that we carry. Personally, I find it kinda difficult. Edited by gullahcracker 2005-12-09 1:27 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Here's another one to ponder, specifically relating to homosexuality... Lev 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. So, clearly the Bible notes that man means man as in gender, and not a more generic "human." So, what does it mean when it says: 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Okay, easy enough to understand. But the interesting part is that it then fails to go on and say anything about a woman and a woman... Hmm.... So, technically, if you were to use the Bible to argue against homosexuality, it would seem that you could only use it in reference to men, since it very specifcally mentioned men and woman separately earlier, and does not there. run4yrlif - 2005-12-08 12:06 PMSo speaking of Leviticus, and how it always used as the explanation for the wrongness of homosexuality, anyone remember Dr. Laura? She frequently cited that chapter in her gaybashing, and there was this famous "Letter to Dr. Laura" in response to it. She never answered it, that I know of, and I've never gotten a good explanation from Christians that use Leviticus to bash gays, as to how they feel about the rest of the chapter. Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your adoring fan, Homer Simpson-Caldwell |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() gullahcracker - But for eternal salvation all I had to do was accept Christ as my Saviour and try (as well as a born sinner can) to be Christ like. He set the "captives" free and in that I rejoice and do my best to consider it all "joy". Yes, with faith in Jesus the yoke is easy and the burden is light. But remember that even He sweated blood in the garden when He knew what He must do. Through my baptism, I too was reborn. And I too have a personal relationship with Jesus. However, those two facts do not end the responsibilities I have to our Lord. PM me if you'd like to talk about it more. Edited by dontracy 2005-12-09 2:21 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ASA22 - 2005-12-09 5:24 AM The fact remains that christ sorrounded himself with undesirables, cast-offs, the poor and the meek. He did this for a specific reason, to teach us as Christians that God sees no differences between all men/women. He's God he could have had kings, and the wealthy as his core of disciples. But He chose not to. All cults aim for the poor, disenfranchised, and weakest willed first, they are the easiest marks. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() coredump - So, technically, if you were to use the Bible to argue against homosexuality, it would seem that you could only use it in reference to men, since it very specifcally mentioned men and woman separately earlier, and does not there. Yes, if you read scripture strictly as a literalist. Then you run into the problem, as others have pointed out, of having to acknowledge the possible legitimacy of slavery and a whole host of other things. But said that scripture must be read strictly literally? One way to come at the marriage issue is to stop looking to scripture for prohibitions against various acts, and rather to look to see what it has to say about the nature of marriage. Right from the beginning in Genesis, it talks about the uniting of two into one flesh. This uniting includes a bond of fidelity and the gift of fecundity (go forth and multiply). This theme of fidelity and fecundity/fruitfullness continues with God's covenant with Israel. The theme reaches it's high point with Jesus, born of God the Father and Mary the Mother, who represents us all. After Jesus, it develops in the community with the recognition of marriage as a sacrament, requiring the total self giving of husband to wife and wife to husband and the consummation of that pledge in the marital act whereby two become one flesh. And it continues after Jesus with the them of Jesus as bridgroom and Holy Mother Church as bride. That's about five thousand years of development about the idea of marriage. I don't think you're going to find support in scripture for marriage that does not contain the notion of a covenent being formed by a father/inseminator and a mother/receptor. To me, that's a much more interesting look at what God (if you believe that scripture is the word of God), or historical people (if you believe that scripture is a strictly human creation) have thought about marriage. Do I want it to be that way. No. Just like everyone else, I'd like to do as I damn well please with whomever I damn well please to do it with. The problem is, I can't find support in either scripture or in the tradition that followed that would allow me to just do as I damn well please without incurring consequenses that I would rather not incur. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() dontracy - 2005-12-09 6:03 AM run4yrlif - Gullah, we agree. Chistianity is easy. As much as I despise slogans, my faith is bound by continuously asking myself "WWJD?" GK Chesterton wrote, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried." WWJD? He'd die on the cross. We all have our crosses to carry. And if we're willing to do WJD, we need to be willing to die over and over again on those crosses that we carry. Personally, I find it kinda difficult. And to what gain? I argue that by dying on the cross, he made himself a martyr. If Jesus had survived to be 90, his story would be less than compelling and lost to the ages. He certainly wouldn't have impacted change as he did. As to the theological explanation as to why he died on the cross, as I understand it he "sacrificed" himself for our sins. One can only sacrifice what one can lose. If Jesus is a god, then he can walk the Earth again anytime he pleases. Therefore, it wasn't a sacrifice. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() gullahcracker - 2005-12-09 10:24 AM But for eternal salvation all I had to do was accept Christ as my Saviour and try (as well as a born sinner can) to be Christ like. How can you accept the notion of original sin? It's not logical. When a baby is born, it wants to poop, pee, and eat. The last thing he wants to do is break one of the 10 commandments. It's also not difficult since no matter how "saintly" we think we are ,we are still just "dirty rags" and only by Grace anfd Faith are we heaven bound. You have a poor view of yourself if you think you are a just a "dirty rag". Man, I just don't get it. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() ChuckyFinster - As to the theological explanation as to why he died on the cross, as I understand it he "sacrificed" himself for our sins. One can only sacrifice what one can lose. If Jesus is a god, then he can walk the Earth again anytime he pleases. Therefore, it wasn't a sacrifice. Jesus on the cross was both fully human and fully God. When he died, a human died. When he died, God also died. In the person of Jesus, The One Who Created Us entered into human history. He felt all of the things humans feel, including the pain and suffering of his passion. God did not have to do that. His sacrifice was in order to free us and open the way to heaven, and in the process to show us how to live. He was saying, " you wanna know what love is?... this is love"... and then he stretched out his hands... Edited by dontracy 2005-12-09 3:16 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() dontracy - 2005-12-09 1:51 PM coredump - So, technically, if you were to use the Bible to argue against homosexuality, it would seem that you could only use it in reference to men, since it very specifcally mentioned men and woman separately earlier, and does not there. Yes, if you read scripture strictly as a literalist. Then you run into the problem, as others have pointed out, of having to acknowledge the possible legitimacy of slavery and a whole host of other things. But said that scripture must be read strictly literally? Anyone who has ever used the words "The bible says...." as a supporting argument. ![]() I was merely pointing out another counterexample similar to Jim's as to why a literal interpretation of the bible is not advisable. Right from the beginning in Genesis, it talks about the uniting of two into one flesh. This uniting includes a bond of fidelity and the gift of fecundity (go forth and multiply). This theme of fidelity and fecundity/fruitfullness continues with God's covenant with Israel. The theme reaches it's high point with Jesus, born of God the Father and Mary the Mother, who represents us all. After Jesus, it develops in the community with the recognition of marriage as a sacrament, requiring the total self giving of husband to wife and wife to husband and the consummation of that pledge in the marital act whereby two become one flesh. And it continues after Jesus with the them of Jesus as bridgroom and Holy Mother Church as bride. That's about five thousand years of development about the idea of marriage. I don't think you're going to find support in scripture for marriage that does not contain the notion of a covenent being formed by a father/inseminator and a mother/receptor. To me, that's a much more interesting look at what God (if you believe that scripture is the word of God), or historical people (if you believe that scripture is a strictly human creation) have thought about marriage. What if the woman that I love ( or myself for that matter ) is, for any number of reasons, ( or myself for that matter ) infertile and within our marriage we would not be able to procreate? ( quasi-rhetorical question ) Do I want it to be that way. No. Just like everyone else, I'd like to do as I damn well please with whomever I damn well please to do it with. The problem is, I can't find support in either scripture or in the tradition that followed that would allow me to just do as I damn well please without incurring consequenses that I would rather not incur. I look to my own moral framework as a guide of what is "right". Some of it is has a theistic basis, some of it is humanistic. I try as much as possible to do what I perceive as being "right", which isn't always what I *want* to do. ![]() Though our paths seem very different, I think they converge a lot more than it appears at first glance. ![]() -C |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() But said that scripture must be read strictly literally? This is what I was getting at earlier, and I'll try to tie it back to Jim's original point in this thread. There is a HUGE difference between the beliefs of the average member of most Christian denominations, and their leaders/authority figures. Who says scripture must be read strictly literally? There are several denominations that do, and they bristle at those of us who do not. Another example of this (and I'm afraid of the response this might get me) is the Pope. The Catholic Church as an organization contends that the Pope communicates with God, more directly than other people. Do most Catholics really believe that? I don't know, but I would guess that most either don't or figure they don't know and it doesn't affect them. Anyway, the point is that with the group that Jim has a problem with calling for a Ford boycott is being led by people whose beliefs/motivations are probably far different from those of the average member. I think that this whole issue is less about the religious right's view of homosexuality than it is about the use of religion as a tool to organize and motivate political power. I believe that there are only two things that people ever go to war over. Land (representing power/wealth) and religion (representing beliefs/ideas). Of the two of those, land came first. Everything else is a means to an end. As a republican, I'm embarrassed at the use/abuse of religion for the purposes of amassing and wielding power. But we hardly invented that technique. As an intelligent, rational person I am proud of those of us who are able to think for ourselves and decide what's good for us without following blindly like lemmings. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() coredump - What if the woman that I love ( or myself for that matter ) is, for any number of reasons, ( or myself for that matter ) infertile and within our marriage we would not be able to procreate? ( quasi-rhetorical question ) Well, to answer that through Catholic teaching, as I understand it, the marriage of a couple who are infertile for any number on reasons is still valid sacramentaly. It's the marital embrace, intercourse, that is the sexual aspect that validates the sacrament. There's a term called Valid Matter. It refers to material things that are needed in a sacrament. For example, Valid Matter in the Eucharist requires wine and bread. For marriage, Valid Matter requires a man with a penis, and a woman with a vagina. The sacrament/marriage is consumated when intercourse takes place. The fact of a couple's infertility is irrelevant, as long as they remain open to the possibility of conception. In the case of a man who is impotent, it is different. According to Church teaching, an impotent man may not marry, although he may pursue treatment to try and correct his impotency. I'm not familiar with the extent of licit treatments that he may try. The reason here is that without intercourse, the marriage/sacrament is not consumated. And with untreated impotency, intercourse is impossible. Though our paths seem very different, I think they converge a lot more than it appears at first glance. ![]() I believe that's true. ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChuckyFinster - 2005-12-09 4:03 PM gullahcracker - 2005-12-09 10:24 AM But for eternal salvation all I had to do was accept Christ as my Saviour and try (as well as a born sinner can) to be Christ like. How can you accept the notion of original sin? It's not logical. When a baby is born, it wants to poop, pee, and eat. The last thing he wants to do is break one of the 10 commandments. It's also not difficult since no matter how "saintly" we think we are ,we are still just "dirty rags" and only by Grace anfd Faith are we heaven bound. You have a poor view of yourself if you think you are a just a "dirty rag". Man, I just don't get it. Chris I never got Shakespear until I read his work and studied it and had it taught to me. How can you be born into a sinful world and not be a sinner? As for "dirty rags" , not my words but the Bibles, it demonstrates how God views our efforts as men. It teaches us that without his grace and without faith we are hopelessly lost in sin. And God cannot look upon sin. Hence "dirty rags". But you know the last thing I want to do here is to appear holier than thou or righteously uppity. Man I'm just like you, I just believe that Jesus provides a way for all of us and I choose to follow. I hope everyone will do the same. Study the "Good News" Chris, there's nothing like it on this earth. Really. Edited by gullahcracker 2005-12-09 4:20 PM |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() hangloose The Catholic Church as an organization contends that the Pope communicates with God, more directly than other people. That's not correct. The notion of pope or priest as intermediary is often misunderstood. I'm not a theologian, and have not read deeply in the theology of infallibility, but it goes something like this: We do believe that the man who occupies the office of Pope, or more accuratly the Bishop of Rome, is the Vicar of Christ on earth and posses a special charism. (if he were to retire from the office he would lose this charism - it's carried by the office, not the man) One aspect of this charism is that the Pope is infallible in declaring teachings on faith and morals. But you need to realize that this infallibility is used very infrequently and only under very strict guidlines. If the Pope declared that 2 + 2 = 5, it would not be an infallible teaching. There is no theology, based on scripture and sacred tradition, that could rightly be put together that could support the notion that 2+2=5. It would just be his opinion. A more nuanced example is found in Pope John Paul II's encyclical The Gospel of Life. In this encyclical, he declared infallibly that direct abortion constitutes a grave moral disorder. There was solid theology, based in scripture and sacred tradition, to support this declaration. In the same encyclical, he talked about capital punishment. I believe that John Paul II personally was against captial punishment at all times. (with that, I am in agreement). In the encyclical, he said that in the modern state it is not necessary because we can protect ourselves from harm from jailed criminals. However, he did not declare this teaching infallibly. He could not. There has not been enough theological development to support such an infallible declaration. There may be in the future, it's possible. But for now, no. One way to test whether or not papal infallibility has been used willy nilly, is to look to the history of the Catholic Church, roman or one of the many other rites of catholicism, and that of the Eastern Orthodox Church. It's been one thousand years since the Great Schism. Yet I can think of only one teaching that has developed in the Catholic Church that Eastern Orthodox Church takes issue with; that is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. That's the dogma that teaches that Mary was conceived without sin. So over one thousand years, that's about it in terms of difference in dogma and doctrine. I often kid my Quaker wife, (Quakers are known for their historic hatred of papists). "Everyone hates the Pope for being authoritative. They say, "How dare he presume to teach the Truth about God?" Then every Sunday, everyone in meeting (quaker church) gets up and presumes to teach the Truth about God. So, instead of one Pope, it looks like you have about three hundred!". Edited by dontracy 2005-12-09 4:57 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() I was generalizing and trying to do it without sounding like I was bashing the Catholic belief in this matter, which I wasn't. I was simply using it as an example. Even if we can't exactly pin it down because we are not theologians, we don't need it to make my point. The point is that The Catholic Church puts forth that the Pope (or person occupying the office of the Pope) has some special status/relationship/knowledge/connection/whatever you want to call it to God. That is particularly Catholic and not a belief shared by all other denominations of Christianity. That's why I also said Christianity is not so easy as someone observed earlier. The leadership of the Catholic Church puts this forth as something that is certain. Maybe the nature of the relationship is debated or convoluted, but the fact that there is a relationship is absolute, to the Catholic Church. However, I don't think that a vast majority of the average Catholic on the street shares the certainty of this belief or even the necessity of it. << Hey you, Catholic on his way home from work right now, does it matter to you whether the Pope REALLY has a special relationship/connection with God? Maybe, maybe not. >> That's the dichotomy that I'm pointing out and again, to bring it back to Family in Focus, my hope is that it's members are capable of viewing their leaders actions for the power moves that they are and not simply follow them like blind sheep. It's about using religion as a tool to harbor the populace, which provides a power base. Great, now I'm starting to rhyme. I'm going home before you start calling me Johnnie Cochran. Have a good weekend everybody, enjoyed the discussion. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() dontracy - 2005-12-09 12:12 PM ChuckyFinster - As to the theological explanation as to why he died on the cross, as I understand it he "sacrificed" himself for our sins. One can only sacrifice what one can lose. If Jesus is a god, then he can walk the Earth again anytime he pleases. Therefore, it wasn't a sacrifice. Jesus on the cross was both fully human and fully God. When he died, a human died. When he died, God also died. In the person of Jesus, The One Who Created Us entered into human history. He felt all of the things humans feel, including the pain and suffering of his passion. God did not have to do that. His sacrifice was in order to free us and open the way to heaven, and in the process to show us how to live. He was saying, " you wanna know what love is?... this is love"... and then he stretched out his hands... You gave an emotional response to a logical argument. One cannot say they sacrifice something that they can very well get back. God can come back as a human and die again as a human. There is nothing to prevent this. If a general sacrifices a portion of his army to win a battle, he can't magically bring that portion of his army back to life to fight another day. By saying that Jesus sacrificed his life is a disservice to the men of this world that have truly sacrificed their lives for causes greater than their own. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Why does this remind me of last winter's debate on if it is okay to breast stroke during a tri swim? Chucky felt it was okay as long as he was able to clobber somebody if they accidentally knocked into him.....And I may have characterized his thoughts in the best possible light I could have. Dood, you don't win religious discussions by debating logic. THAT is stupid. Quite stupid. Christians themselves have significant differences in how they interpret the Bible. I offer the Confucian way. Get along here on earth. Here. On Earth. Honor other posters' opinions. Don't demand logic in faith discussions. That is really mixing apples and oranges. Don't demand faith in topics that can be quantified. Is Cervelo really better than Trek? Should be quantifiable. Who cares if FOF called for a boycott of whatever (can't even remember the product....Ford? Subaru?) Buy what fits your family's needs. Me? I'm all about Lexus and I resist the call to boycott Shintu-friendly products. ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() hangloos - I was generalizing and trying to do it without sounding like I wasbashing the Catholic belief in this matter, which I wasn't. I didn't think you were. Sorry, I should have stated that in my other post. lynda - Dood, you don't win religious discussions by debating logic. THAT is stupid. Quite stupid. Don't know who you're directing that towards. Anyway, it's anything but stupid. Reason and logic are great tools for peacefully exploring these issues between people of different beliefs. Otherwise, it's often only about power. I love Chucky's pointed devil's advocate questions. They cause me to think. Perhaps he'll ask one someday and I'll find myself down a deadend. That's a good thing. If I was down a deadend, I'd want to turn around. I don't need to be right, I just want to know the truth. If not logic and reason, then what? Should I just rely on my emotions, or your emotions? Just worry about my own little life and not that of the greater world? Or should I only be concerned with those parts of the greater world that you and others allow me to be concerned about? Edited by dontracy 2005-12-10 10:17 AM |
|