Catholicism

Darnit.

I hate when I'm typing a post, and I press 'ctrl-E' or something and the screen closes! I lost my entire lengthy post!

Argh!

heh

//sigh

I'll try it again:

I tend to think that Fireman was making a defense of the faith and a statement of fact more than judging the member, KW.

Such is the case with moral relativism these days where it is taboo to make any sort of statement at all concerning personal behavior or attitudes.

Should the Church simply say: "Come on in! You can believe what you like, just pick and choose. It's okay if you wish to berate the Bible or disrespect your fellow Catholics... Apostates are also welcome, remember, there is a free pass to heaven. So, we're all here just to have a good time."

Now, there is reasonable disgreement with the Church and there is genuine seperation from the faith entirely.

 

here is a free pass to heaven. So, we're all here just to have a good time.

Paul essentially argued just that, actually.

 

I don't think so, KW.

Please provide PPOR.

 

Take a good class on Christianity sometime. Does wonders for knowledge.

You need look no farther than the problems in Corinth to understand the ramifications of Paul's message. His converts there thought they could do whatever they wanted, and pretty much did just that.

Paul wrote them back, wondering what on earth they were doing.

 

I graduated from both a Catholic high school and a Catholic college.

I've taken many classes on religion, although I don't claim to be a biblical scholar..

PPOR, please from scripture in Paul's letters or anywhere where he says that Christians are free to simply carry on sinning because there's a free pass to heaven.

Paul never argued that people could simply practice Christianity any way they wanted, in this case to include hedonistic behaviors or saction apostatizing. He warned many times about such things.

He did extol Christians not to become prideful in saying "I belong to Paul, or I belong to Peter" and so on.

We are branches of the same body, but rotten branches soon wither and fall of the vine.

 

Paul never argued that people could simply practice Christianity any way they wanted

Never claimed he did.

Instead, he basically said to them that salvation was assured through Jesus Christ. There was nothing they could do to lose it, and therefore they could do whatever they wanted.

 

Knightwriter Say what? Paul's letters to the Saints in Corinth were meant to whip them into shape, what with the Aphrodite "Temple" *Cough* Whore House *Cough* and such.

Darth_Iquitous I know you've been to Catholic School and all that but have you ever taken time for personal study of the scriptures? I find that many times the best answers to questions of faith come with the simplest measures. Sincere prayers and scripture study have helped me draw nearer to the Lord in my life. If you make time for him in your life you will draw closer to him too, I promise. In addition to reading the Bible, I would also highly encourage reading The Book Of Mormon. It is a volume comparable to the Bible. It serves as a companion to the Bible, sharing the same message that Jesus is the Christ and that he died for our Sins so that we may live with him again, but also makes complicated and or misunderstood doctorines plain and clear.

 

There was nothing they could do to lose it, and therefore they could do whatever they wanted.

Simply not true, KW.

Did Paul ever assert that people that the pursuit of a sinful lifestyle was OK just because they called themselves Christians in name?

Obviously not, and Christ Himself warned of such types.

 

KW, he said nothing of the sort. He merely said that since Jesus meant for his followers to be from all backgrounds, that they did not have to become Jews in order to be followers of Christ. They did not have to be circumcised or refrain from eating pork.

You have much to PPOR.

 

Say what? Paul's letters to the Saints in Corinth were meant to whip them into shape, what with the Aphrodite "Temple" *Cough* Whore House *Cough* and such

Very true, they were meant to do just that. Why were they behaving that way? Again, because they felt that since salvation was assured, what was there to keep them from doing whatever they wanted? The problem stemmed from Paul's initial preaching there, not his letters.

Did Paul ever assert that people that the pursuit of a sinful lifestyle was OK just because they called themselves Christians in name?

As you said, obviously not. Fortunately, that's not what I meant.

What I meant was that people took Paul's theology and spinned it a certain way, which led to the inappropriate behavior from them.

 

Ok, thanks for the clarification, KW.

 

For heaven's sakes, KW, you could've just said that in the first place!

 

Paul said that we were free to do as we pleased, but im pretty sure he mightve also mentioned we should serve Christ somewhere in there?

 

Should the Church simply say: "Come on in! You can believe what you like, just pick and choose. It's okay if you wish to berate the Bible or disrespect your fellow Catholics... Apostates are also welcome, remember, there is a free pass to heaven. So, we're all here just to have a good time."

Believe it or not, I agree with you. I have no problem with a church sticking to its guns on how it sees various issues. My probelm is that large numbers of people want to be members of these organizations in spite of it all.

I wish that everbody who has any disagreement with their church's morality would simply have the balls to leave their church. Then the churches would die out, and the world would be a better place.

 

Religion isn't going anywhere, man. Like it or not, belief in a Creator (or Creators) isn't just a fashion trend. No matter how advanced our civilization gets, there will always be some things that remain unknown, and there will always be people who name the cause of the unknown "God."

 

Sorry, havent read the whole thread but 70 pages come on! Just wanted to chime in on:

I wish that everbody who has any disagreement with their church's morality would simply have the balls to leave their church. Then the churches would die out, and the world would be a better place.

So the female parishioneers can not leave the church due to being testicularly-challenged?

Actually leaving the church would be the easy way out, you dont need fortituted to turn tail and run. Having the "guts" to stay and stand up for your ideals and the points of contention that you have would be the most difficult and at the same time rewarding course of action. Rewarding for the church itself.

A few things I want to mention for possible discussion. When we say "the church" we are not refereing to the big old temple witht he big T on it, nor are we refering to the Pope and the "rules" of the catholic faith. To me, Church means the living body of God. The church is the people who partake in the worship and ideals of the supreme diety. We are the church, and I do not believe that it will die out, and in fact would hope it would not. "Organized Religion" is what I would call the rules and regulations set forth by the original apostles and bastardized over years and years. I do have serious issues with Organized Religion. I do participate, but only in that in which I truely beleive. Does that make me a bad Catholic, probably. Does that make me a bad church member, I beleive it does the opposite. I do not beleive that when Jesus used the analogies of sheep he intended us to be blind will-less (is that a word) animals following him. He wanted us to follow but of our own free will and our own consciousness. There is so much for "the church" to discover and learn on its own through meditation and becomeing closer to God.

Just the ramblings of someone on no sleep!

 

Religion isn't going anywhere, man.

Didn't Nietzche (sp?) say something like that 150 years ago? Yet religion is still with us.

 

Yeah, that's what I was saying. Religion is here to stay. Even if there is a deadly plague that wipes out 99% of the world's population, the remaining primitives will still invent supernatural authority figures for themselves. It's just what we do...

 

Religion is something we human beings just cannot live without. One thing every race of the history of the world has had in common is this: music, art, and religion. Even indigenous tribes deep in the jungles that have had no contact with civilization have their own religions.

The few governments that have tried to create a atheistic societies (socialists, communists) have never been elected by the people, and have never been happy or truly beneficial to the people they purported to care so much about.

 

Religion is something we human beings just cannot live without.

That isn't true. If it was, every atheist in the world would be in an ICU.

The few governments that have tried to create a atheistic societies...have never been happy or truly beneficial to the people they purported to care so much about.

That's because most of the governments you are referring to force atheism upon their people, instead of recognizing the inalienable right to freedom of worship, like the US Constitution does.

 

I believe that is the reason he said "tried" to create an atheist society.

I think atheists still have their own form or religion. First off wouldn't beleiving in atheism (not believing in God) still be a legitimate form of religion? Perhaps the gods they beleive in and worship are just a little different than the usual. Some would say our so called "democratic" society has a new god, money. Money becomes the focus of many peoples lives, it affords (no pun intended) many luxuries and immediate gratification. Why wait when you can have heaven now?

 

I think I've identified one of my main problems with Christianity.

Consider this exchange from "Batman Begins":

Gordon: I never said thank you.
Batman: And you'll never have to.


Batman does what he does to help Gotham City, and he expects nothing in return.
According to Christianity, Jesus expects to be worshipped as God in return for his good works.

Why does Jesus care whether he's acknowledged as God? If he was really so wonderful, wouldn't he be like Batman and not care?


P.S. mods, I realize this sounds simple and kind of goofy, but I'm posing a serious question here.

 

That's actually a very deep question. I hope my short response is somewhat helpful.

"The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." (Mark 2:27) To know, love, and serve God is our very reason for being. God doesn't tell us to worship Him because of what He gets from it, but what we get from it.

Besides, Christ made the ultimate rescue and gets no thanks for it from most of the world. Yet even if there was only one person on Earth, He'd still die for that person's sins, whether or not that one person gave any acknowledgment of His action.

This is why we can't compare God to human standards. If Batman asked to be worshipped the way God is, he'd simply be an ego-maniac.

oh, and re: your sig- so that's where cassocks came from!

 

Moving up .

 

Organized religion is no longer spirtually necessary. It may never have been for that matter. Thats actually a way to read into the New Testament if one were so inclined - the Jewish hierarchy turns a rabbi over to the Roman authorities to be put to death because he challeges their influence by preaching that you need only love each other, yourself, and the Creator and nothing else is relevant. I find it ironic how literal Christians, in America especially, read so literally into the Old Testament - when society was more primative - and yet are so varied in their interpretations of the Gospels - which marks the birth of a more civilized way of living.