Home - List All Discussions

I know the papist pagans won't read this

But it might help some one who is wondering

by: faithman

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm

reply from: faithman

Don't you find it funny that papist get all snarnky when someone defends an innocent life with force, but the RCC murdered people simple to keep the scripture out of the common mans language? Why would they murder to keep God's word unavailable to the people? CONTROL

reply from: B0zo

I was once a Protestant and became a Catholic.
I read all that stuff and then some.
It's totally lame, and I wouldn't know where to begin to refute it, and it would be a waste of time on somone who doesn't want to know the truth.

reply from: Shenanigans

I like the little skull and crossbone motif, very fitting.

reply from: Shenanigans

And yes, I will be refuting it, ALL of it.
Because I'm just that bored.

reply from: B0zo

Wow, like we didn't know Peter had a wife?
What a stunning revelation!!!
Hmm...Mary is the mother of the "earthly Jesus" and not God.
So these people don't believe Jesus is God?
(Do you think they think Catholics are so stupid that we think that Mary is the originator of God by calling her the "Mother of God"?)
Usually the anti-Catholics, especially the ones who were once Catholics, have some axe to grind.
I wonder what it is with Faithman. Usually it involves an invalid marriage. If he's divorced and remarried or if he married a divorced woman, in the eyes of the church he's committing adultery, and sometimes people get bent out of shape over that, and strike back at the Church.
I'm not saying that's the case, because I don't know.
But often those who are so strident against the Church have some issue in their life that the Church says is a sin.

reply from: Shenanigans

Faithman, you are incorrect in assumption that some of us won't read your BS, we've seen it all before, and its easy to refute.
Though, I'm hoping you decide to at least educate yourself as to correct Catholic teaching and read through the information. If you're to rag the Catholic Church, at least educate yourself to the correct teaching she gives, and not some Protestant hogwash filled with mistruths and blatant hatred.
Good luck.
Call no man father.
http://www.trosch.org/for/no-fathr.htm

Why priests can't marry
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/georgesimjohnston/marriedpriests.asp

Mary, ever virgin
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp

Mother of God
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_23071997_en.html

Calling the Pope, "Holy Father"
Why Catholics use the term "Holy Father"
* He is called upon to practice exceptional sanctity in imitation of Jesus Whose office he serves. The pope is also the "Father" to all the catholic churches while alive.
* Jesus chose the apostles to be the earthly leaders of the Church. He gave them his own authority to teach and to govern not as dictators, but as loving pastors and fathers. That is why Catholics call their spiritual leaders "father." In doing so we follow Paul's example: "I became your father in Jesus Christ through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15).Against the term "Holy Father"
* Catholics and Orthodox Christians call priests "Father" based on St. Paul's theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests: "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14-15). [Answers.com]
Purgatory, nuns, popes (oh my!!)
A list of scriptures for Purgatory, and while it is not mentioned specifically by name, guess what, neither is the Trinity.
Mt 5:48
Heb 12:14
Jam 3:2
Rev 21:27
1Jn 5:16-17
Jam 1:14-15
2 Sam 12:13-14
Mt 5:26, 12:32, 12:36
2Macc 12:44-46
1Cor 3:15
1Pet 3:18-20; 2:6
2 Tim 1:16-18
1 Cor 15:29-30
http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Purgatory

As for nuns, they are simply women who choose to serve God and His people, without choosing either the vocations of single life or marriage.
As for Pope, well, the whole part about Jesus saying "And on this rock [Peter] I build My Church".
"Worshipping" statues
Don't be obtuse. We dont' worship statues, we worship God.
In "bowing" to a statue we are thinking of the individual the statue is of, like Jesus. The image is there because humans are visual creatures.
If you think the idea of having an "image" of a Saint or God or Mary is akin to idol worship, then you better get rid of all those family albumns and take down those photos of friends. Its the same concept.
Transubstantiation
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307iron.asp

A heap of scriputual backing for this concept:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=40172&highlight=eucharist+scriptural

Saved in part, by good works
Yeah, hahah, this! I beleive Tiller was Christian, so, by this logic he's up in Heaven right now hanging out with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and all the little babies he helped put there!
Confession, petitoning saints and Mary
http://catholic-practices.suite101.com/article.cfm/why_do_catholics_confess_their_sins_to_a_priest

As for petitioning saints and Mary, you ever ask someone else to pray for you? Yes? Then you're doing exactly what Catholics do, we just happen to ask Saints who are in the company of God to interceed on our behalf.
Mary has a special place for this, remember the wedding of Cana? Mary found out they ran out of grog, so she asked Jesus to do something, He replied "woman, it is not my time" or words to effect, yet He performed a miracle anyway! His mother's whisper assisted those people, and we ask her to act on our behalf in Jesus' presence.
Its called Intercession.
-
That was surprisingly easy, and here I thought it was going to be a challenge!

reply from: Shenanigans

Come on home, Faithman, the Catholic Church wants you home!

reply from: B0zo

Very good research and in record time!

reply from: Shenanigans

The thing is, I didn't even have it on "internet speed dial" I just used Google and the Vatican site.
Which is very, very sad, that such truth can be so readily found and yet ignored by so many.

reply from: faithman

Yepper, it is a shame that papist hang on to their paganism, when the pure gospel is all around them.

reply from: faithman

Mary gave Jesus humanity. Christ was always God. Mary is not the origin of God, she is not deity, and should never be "worshiped" as such. That came from the mother and child cult of mythra.

reply from: B0zo

Mary is not worshipped, but is venerated and honored.
Afterall, God chose her to be the Theotokis--the "God bearer," and Jesus would have honored her with perfect honor, so we too should to likewise.
Every Catholic knows that Mary did not create God. Mary is herself a creature.
But Catholics believe that Jesus is God, and that he was not just some deluded man. He was God in the flesh.
When a woman is pregnant, she is not just the bearer of flesh, but the bearer of a person. I don't think of my mother as the mother only of my body, but the mother of "me," the person.
Jesus was a man but was also God. He was the person of God, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, The Son.
To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny that Mary had a person in her womb, since Jesus was (was and is) God, and God, The Son, is most definately a person.
Those who deny Mary was God's Mother either deny that Jesus was God, or they are denying that Mary was pregnant with a person, and would have us believe she was just carrying a blob of flesh.
">http://www.catholic.com/librar...y_Mother_of_God.asp[/q

reply from: Shenanigans

You didn't read any of it, did you? But shame on me, I suppose, for expecting the same courtesy, I read the information you posted, the least you could have done, seeing as you posted in the first place, was read what I posted.
Well, I understand, it is a lot of information, the truth can be overwhelming at times.
I have hope for you Faithman! I'm praying for you to return to the Church, like all the other prodical sons and daughters trapped in Protestantism.

reply from: Banned Member

Faithman is a "former" Catholic.

reply from: Shenanigans

Explains a lot. I figured it'd be something like that.
I still have hope though! Lots of Catholics take a hiatus, usually they come back stronger in their faith!
We've been here 2000 years, we'll still be here when Faithman is ready to return.

reply from: faithman

You didn't read any of it, did you? But shame on me, I suppose, for expecting the same courtesy, I read the information you posted, the least you could have done, seeing as you posted in the first place, was read what I posted.
Well, I understand, it is a lot of information, the truth can be overwhelming at times.
I have hope for you Faithman! I'm praying for you to return to the Church, like all the other prodical sons and daughters trapped in Protestantism.
Excuse me, but my early education was pre, and post V2 in RCC school. Alter boy and the whole 9. You haven't said anything I haven't already heard.

reply from: faithman

As the ole sayin goes, don't hold your breath.

reply from: B0zo

Alter boy?
That explains it.
Somebody altered him.
But even non-Catholics and former Catholics can conclude that Mary is the Mother of God.

reply from: Shenanigans

Then either you didn't listen or don't truly understand the concepts.

reply from: B0zo

Then either you didn't listen or don't truly understand the concepts.
10 to 1 he didn't leave over doctrine.

reply from: Shenanigans

Maybe he got molested.
Is that it, Faithman? Did a bad priest do naughty things to you? Is that why you're always going on about how all priests are filthy paedophiles?

reply from: lukesmom

How very hateful. As a "papist" I don't show such hatred and disrespect for other religions, nor do any other CatholicsI know. Somehow I had thought better of you.

reply from: B0zo

The worst is that he tells us Mary was carrying a blob of flesh around in her womb, and not the Divine Savior.

reply from: faithman

Would you mind point that post out?

reply from: B0zo

Would you mind point that post out?
You said that Mary was the mother of "his humanity."
What does that mean?
That Jesus was not God?
Was a Divine person, i.e. God, in Mary's womb?
Note that we do not believe she was somehow God's creator, or that she preceded God. We know she was a creature.
Giving Mary the title "Mother of God," is not for her, but for Christ. It makes it clear that he was not just a man, but a man and God.

reply from: faithman

Would you mind point that post out?
You said that Mary was the mother of "his humanity."
What does that mean?
That Jesus was not God?
Was a Divine person, i.e. God, in Mary's womb?
Note that we do not believe she was somehow God's creator, or that she preceded God. We know she was a creature.
Giving Mary the title "Mother of God," is not for her, but for Christ. It makes it clear that he was not just a man, but a man and God.
Where did I say He was not God? I would go with the mother of God's humanity. But mother of God does imply pre-existence and origin.

reply from: faithman

Not as hateful as killing millions of people, because those people rejected the paganism of Rome.

reply from: B0zo

Not as hateful as killing millions of people, because those people rejected the paganism of Rome.
But you're admitting it is hateful...

reply from: faithman

Not as hateful as killing millions of people, because those people rejected the paganism of Rome.
But you're admitting it is hateful...
No, I am just agreeing with the scripture... Paslm 5:5

reply from: lukesmom

Not as hateful as killing millions of people, because those people rejected the paganism of Rome.
Sorry, you must have me mixed up with someone else as I have never killed anyone, nor have anyother Catholics I know.

reply from: faithman

Not as hateful as killing millions of people, because those people rejected the paganism of Rome.
Sorry, you must have me mixed up with someone else as I have never killed anyone, nor have another Catholics I know.
You have by asociation. The RCC have killed millions simply because of a difference of religious belief, and RCC's still kill Protestant missionaries in some parts of the world. You are the one who is confused, and refuses to look at your "church" for what it is.

reply from: B0zo

Not as hateful as killing millions of people, because those people rejected the paganism of Rome.
Sorry, you must have me mixed up with someone else as I have never killed anyone, nor have another Catholics I know.
You have by asociation. The RCC have killed millions simply because of a difference of religious belief, and RCC's still kill Protestant missionaries in some parts of the world. You are the one who is confused, and refuses to look at your "church" for what it is.
A wayward bishop is not the RCC. Neither is a pope who has committed a sin. That would be his own personal sin, and not the sin of the Church. The truth is that there are sinners in the RCC at all levels, just as there is corruption in police departments. That doesn't make law enforcement wrong and a good policeman is not guilty of the crimes "by association" of what a bad policeman has done.
And where is the RCC killing Protestant missionaries? I would like to see a source for that accusation.
No Protestants or any other Christian faiths have had members or leadership do something wrong--like persecuting and killing others?
Nobody is guilty "by association" for the crimes or injustices of another, unless they participated knowingly and willfully in the injustice.
Why did you leave the Catholic Church? Because one day someone told you how evil it is, and you just had to leave?
It's been my experience most people who become hateful anti-catholic bigots such as yourself, leave first, and then persecute the Church. It covers over their guilt feelings for divorce or otherwise invalid and adulterous marriages they entered.
Did you marry a divorced woman?

reply from: Shenanigans

You know, you Protestants aren't blameless. Salem witch trials had nothing to do with us.
Not to mention the Catholics vs. Protestants massacres of varying degrees in Europe that were caused by the reformation. If that heretic Luther kept his blasphemies to himself then a lot of Catholics wouldn't have been killed by Protestant rulers when they took their various thrones.
And yeah, if you have information on where the Catholic church today has officially sanctioned the killing of Protestant ministers, feel free to provide evidence.
As Yoda used to say, "document or retract".

reply from: Shenanigans

That's the whole reason we have Anglicans, because some gluttonist monarch wanted to divorce his wife.
I'm still waiting for an answer from Protestants as to that one, especially since Jesus Christ Himself made it pretty damn clear that He wasn't on board with divorce.

reply from: B0zo

That's the whole reason we have Anglicans, because some gluttonist monarch wanted to divorce his wife.
I'm still waiting for an answer from Protestants as to that one, especially since Jesus Christ Himself made it pretty damn clear that He wasn't on board with divorce.
People like faithman can justify anything.
They are their own pope and own interpretor of the bible, and can make it mean whatever fits their situation.

reply from: Shenanigans

There's a crazy idiot minister in NZL runnign what's closer to a cult than a Christian Protestant denomination.
He made himself a Bishop.
Now he's getting his peopel to refer to him as "King".

reply from: Banned Member

You guys seem pretty sure that Catholicism is the only way to go, and the only way to heaven. You really do sound pretty darn certain.

reply from: B0zo

Who said that it was the only way to go and the only way to heaven? Anywhere in this thread?
Though we do believe our religion to be the true Christian faith, we do not deny the possibility others outside the faith could go to Heaven.
Anyway, that has not been the point of this thread. This thread is about bashing the "papist pukes."

reply from: Shenanigans

Who said that it was the only way to go and the only way to heaven? Anywhere in this thread?
Though we do believe our religion to be the true Christian faith, we do not deny the possibility others outside the faith could go to Heaven.
Anyway, that has not been the point of this thread. This thread is about bashing the "papist pukes."
Bozo is correct.
Subsquently, it is recognised by the Church that those of other Christian faiths, and indeed other non-Christian faiths can get into Heaven, though, for all intents and purposes, the Catholic faith is the easiest path to get there. (If adhered to correctly of course, catholics who obtain abortions for example, are going to be in a stink load of trouble when they stand before the Big Guy)

reply from: lukesmom

Whoa there doggie! I believe you are referring to born again christians. They believe only those "born again" will go to heaven and the rest of us, Catholics included are bound for hell. Catholics DO NOT teach they automatically go to heaven and we believe God decides who goes to heaven, not man. We really need to do some basic teaching about Catholic beliefs and faith here 'cause the ignorance about our beautiful, wonderful, spiritual faith is astounding!

reply from: Banned Member

Who said that it was the only way to go and the only way to heaven? Anywhere in this thread?
Though we do believe our religion to be the true Christian faith, we do not deny the possibility others outside the faith could go to Heaven.
Anyway, that has not been the point of this thread. This thread is about bashing the "papist pukes."
Bozo is correct.
Subsquently, it is recognised by the Church that those of other Christian faiths, and indeed other non-Christian faiths can get into Heaven, though, for all intents and purposes, the Catholic faith is the easiest path to get there. (If adhered to correctly of course, catholics who obtain abortions for example, are going to be in a stink load of trouble when they stand before the Big Guy)
I am just expressing an observation I've discerned from the content of this conversation.
You will note that I made no claim that anyone actually said it was the only way to heaven. I found that a little off-putting. This implies that I'm not allowed to analyze content and draw conclusions.. ..which turned out to be at least partially correct.
B0zo left the door open and Shenanigans did, at least partially, confirm my suspicion as to your certainty of Catholicism's superiority when it comes to greasing the wheels on that great chair lift to Heaven.
It occurs to me that we are all dieing to find the answer.
Here's to hoping that we all make it.

reply from: Banned Member

Whoa there doggie! I believe you are referring to born again christians. They believe only those "born again" will go to heaven and the rest of us, Catholics included are bound for hell. Catholics DO NOT teach they automatically go to heaven and we believe God decides who goes to heaven, not man. We really need to do some basic teaching about Catholic beliefs and faith here 'cause the ignorance about our beautiful, wonderful, spiritual faith is astounding!
Check your rivets.. I just heard something pop.
I agree with everything you've stated except:
1. I did not make reference to born again Christians or their beliefs.
2. I did not imply that man decides who goes to Heaven.
3. I did not suggest that all Catholics automatically go to Heaven.
4. Nor.. am I a doggie.. (Not that there's anything wrong with being a doggie)
Other than that.. we're good.
Plus, imagine my surprise when you proclaimed to be astounded by my ignorance. If this is how you witness for Heaven, it must be the tough love method.
By all means, continue teaching and enriching me with your enlightenment.
Or perhaps you could just address my post for the true question it begs. Either way, I'm guessing it's going to be interesting.

reply from: B0zo

We believe that Catholicism is Christianity--the Church Jesus started beginning with Peter and the Apostles.
We believe that other Christian faiths, even those who say bad things about Catholicism, share in-part in the Truth of the Catholic Church, and those who belong to those denominations, if ignorant of the fullness of the Truth of Catholicism through no fault of their own, can find Salvation by virtue of the same Savior, Jesus Christ.
We also believe that those outside of Christianity can find salvation as well, if they are ignorant of the truths of Christianity through no fault of their own, if they are sorry for their sins, and strive to walk in whatever light they've been given.
We have a certainty that our faith is true and correct. I don't see how we could believe otherwise. If I didn't have that certainty, I would keep looking until I found it.
This thread is a little distressing because the intent is malicious and the purpose is to smear the Catholic Church.
I have learned in my 16 years as a Catholic, that there are many who will do that, and sometimes from those who you would expect to be friends and allies.
It might seem arrogant to speak with such certainty about our faith being "superior" to others, but that does not mean that individuals within the Church are superior to anyone outside of the Church, and there are good and noble people there as well, and many who show us up, considering that we have all the "tools" and knowledge to work with.
Also, even though we would not go out out of our way to be so "arrogant," we are often forced to to do so, because when our Church is maligned we have to set the record straight and state our case and what we truly believe, and not allow statements to stand that say we believe something that we do not.
But for the most part Catholics are "live and let live," are not pushy, and gladly celebrate what we have in common with other faiths and people of goodwill. We strive to see what is good and true in other faiths and belief systems, and don't go out of our way to slam them.
And we are well-aware of our own sins and shortcomings. Our focus is (or should be) on our own faults. I am too busy dealing with my sins to be overly concerned with yours and those around me, so even though our certainty about our faith seems "arrogant," we are as individuals humble, and most of us will admit that we fall far short of what God intends us to be.

reply from: Shenanigans

Well, it stands to reason that if anyone did not feel their religion was superior to other religions, they wouldn't be a member of said religion.
Plus, to be honest, I was just being cheeky, if people attack Catholism without logic or show up blatant ignorance, I will correct them. But I find it interesting that you view that as a peddlign of Catholic superority, perhaps you should investigate the faith too.
If you're not Catholic, Lefty, we'll happily take you!

reply from: Shenanigans

I like conversion stories, this is a quite a good one:
http://crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com/2006/10/my-personal-conversion-story.html

reply from: faithman

Whoa there doggie! I believe you are referring to born again christians. They believe only those "born again" will go to heaven and the rest of us, Catholics included are bound for hell. Catholics DO NOT teach they automatically go to heaven and we believe God decides who goes to heaven, not man. We really need to do some basic teaching about Catholic beliefs and faith here 'cause the ignorance about our beautiful, wonderful, spiritual faith is astounding!
Check your rivets.. I just heard something pop.
I agree with everything you've stated except:
1. I did not make reference to born again Christians or their beliefs.
2. I did not imply that man decides who goes to Heaven.
3. I did not suggest that all Catholics automatically go to Heaven.
4. Nor.. am I a doggie.. (Not that there's anything wrong with being a doggie)
Other than that.. we're good.
Plus, imagine my surprise when you proclaimed to be astounded by my ignorance. If this is how you witness for Heaven, it must be the tough love method.
By all means, continue teaching and enriching me with your enlightenment.
Or perhaps you could just address my post for the true question it begs. Either way, I'm guessing it's going to be interesting.
You forgot to add that it was the RCC that started hostilities against the reformers. And to this day, it is a sin for an RCC to read a KJV bible. the Pope also condemned the printing press because it was used to print the scripture in the language of the common man. Another thing the Pope condemned. Hitler wasn't the first to burn books kill and jews by the millions. But hey, why let a little thing like factual history stand in the way of an irrational emotional tie to pagan ritual? they pretend to be nice, but as we can see from this thred, they are not nice at all.

reply from: B0zo

The Churh now and always has approved of private devotion to the Holy Scriptures.
As is usually the case, when anti-catholic bigots spout their lies, they are simple, but digging up all the proof to counter them is complex, and it would take a lot of posts and a lot of research to refute, and these people don't care anyway--they are stubborn and prideful, and not receptive to the possibility they could be in error.
The Catholic Church has always encouraged private devotion to Holy Scripture, and encourages use of the best translations we have, the KJV not being one of them presently.
That anyone has a copy of any tranlsation of the New Testament, whether it is the best or the worst, is because of the Catholic Church and her work in compiling and translating the Sacred Documents.

reply from: B0zo

Not nice?
You attack our faith and call us killers. That's nice? But responding to your ignorance and defending our faith is not?
How about if we start calling you and others "scancs"? Would that be nice?

reply from: pray4em

If sola scriptura is enough to clarify church teaching then why are there 20,000 different protestant religions each with their own interpretation of scripture?
Many people say Catholics believe this or believe that but if you really want to know what Catholics believe or at least what they should believe consult the catechism.
There is a very nice question and answer version called the compendium.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

reply from: pray4em

I don't agree with many of your anti-Catholic views but if you have any good suggestion on pro-life activism I'm all ears. Many of the post you have put up on the personhood initiative I have read with great interest and think that is probably one of the best initiatives I seen for fighting the legal part of abortion.

reply from: Banned Member

He that takes vengeance will suffer vengeance from the Lord, and he will firmly establish his sins. Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray. Does a man harbor anger against another, and yet seek for healing from the Lord? Does he have no mercy toward a man like himself, and yet pray for his own sins? If he himself, being flesh, maintains wrath, who will make expiation for his sins? Remember the end of your life, and cease from enmity, remember destruction and death, and be true to the commandments. Remember the commandments, and do not be angry with your neighbor; remember the covenant of the Most High, and overlook ignorance. Sirach 28:1-7
The Book of Sirach does not appear in the protty Bible. It, like some other books of the Bible, has been supressed.

reply from: Banned Member

I'm a proud card carrying Protty.. but I am very pleased to be getting these clarifications and points of view. This thread, even though you papists don't care for it's flavor, has brought out a lot of interesting info.. and I'm sponging it all up.

reply from: B0zo

See...we can all get along.
In fact, me and some of my Catholic buddies are having a bon-fire celebration tomorrow, and we would like to invite you as a special guest of honor--to show there are no hard feelings.
There are going to be all kinds of good food there, and we look forward to serving you.

reply from: faithman

A good thing Scott didn't take vengeance, but merely defended the innocent from evil aggression. Even the pagan papist aggree with that, and has been part of thier doctrine for over 1000 years.

reply from: faithman

I don't agree with many of your anti-Catholic views but if you have any good suggestion on pro-life activism I'm all ears. Many of the post you have put up on the personhood initiative I have read with great interest and think that is probably one of the best initiatives I seen for fighting the legal part of abortion.
I have my moments.

reply from: faithman

If sola scriptura is enough to clarify church teaching then why are there 20,000 different protestant religions each with their own interpretation of scripture?
Many people say Catholics believe this or believe that but if you really want to know what Catholics believe or at least what they should believe consult the catechism.
There is a very nice question and answer version called the compendium.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
I was raised on the Catechism until the 6th grade. I have no interest in studying error.

reply from: faithman

Whoa there doggie! I believe you are referring to born again christians. They believe only those "born again" will go to heaven and the rest of us, Catholics included are bound for hell. Catholics DO NOT teach they automatically go to heaven and we believe God decides who goes to heaven, not man. We really need to do some basic teaching about Catholic beliefs and faith here 'cause the ignorance about our beautiful, wonderful, spiritual faith is astounding!
If you don't like what catholics believe, just wait a while. It will change.

reply from: B0zo

What does it mean to be a Protestant?

reply from: B0zo

If sola scriptura is enough to clarify church teaching then why are there 20,000 different protestant religions each with their own interpretation of scripture?
Many people say Catholics believe this or believe that but if you really want to know what Catholics believe or at least what they should believe consult the catechism.
There is a very nice question and answer version called the compendium.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
I was raised on the Catechism until the 6th grade. I have no interest in studying error.
Which of the 20,000 non-Catholic denominations do you study? Which one is not in error?
Or is it just you and the Bible and your own interpretation?

reply from: B0zo

Whoa there doggie! I believe you are referring to born again christians. They believe only those "born again" will go to heaven and the rest of us, Catholics included are bound for hell. Catholics DO NOT teach they automatically go to heaven and we believe God decides who goes to heaven, not man. We really need to do some basic teaching about Catholic beliefs and faith here 'cause the ignorance about our beautiful, wonderful, spiritual faith is astounding!
If you don't like what catholics believe, just wait a while. It will change.
Not one ioata of doctrine has changed in the 2,000+ years of the Catholic Church.

reply from: lukesmom

Whoa there doggie! I believe you are referring to born again christians. They believe only those "born again" will go to heaven and the rest of us, Catholics included are bound for hell. Catholics DO NOT teach they automatically go to heaven and we believe God decides who goes to heaven, not man. We really need to do some basic teaching about Catholic beliefs and faith here 'cause the ignorance about our beautiful, wonderful, spiritual faith is astounding!
Check your rivets.. I just heard something pop.
I agree with everything you've stated except:
1. I did not make reference to born again Christians or their beliefs.
2. I did not imply that man decides who goes to Heaven.
3. I did not suggest that all Catholics automatically go to Heaven.
4. Nor.. am I a doggie.. (Not that there's anything wrong with being a doggie)
Other than that.. we're good.
Plus, imagine my surprise when you proclaimed to be astounded by my ignorance. If this is how you witness for Heaven, it must be the tough love method.
By all means, continue teaching and enriching me with your enlightenment.
Or perhaps you could just address my post for the true question it begs. Either way, I'm guessing it's going to be interesting.
The pop was the sound of fman going off. LOL! Anyway:
1. never said you made referrence to born agains, I did and take full responsibility, thank you very much.
2. Never said you implied anything, you seem to be reading into things here. It was a general statement, not a personal one.
3. No, but you did say Catholics believe you have to be Catholic to get to heaven and that is an untruth.
4. Never suggested you are a doggie, haven't seen you, don't know you so hadn't even crossed my mind. Whoa doggie is just a colloquialism.
Glad to hear we are good. But please don't take my every statement to mean you personally. Many of my statements are general.
I also have gotten really sick of the attack on the Catholic faith in general. This would not be tolerated if it were any other group of individuals but it seems to be pc to attack the Catholic faith in general. Again, this is a general statement not directed personally at you Ln.

reply from: lukesmom

Don't know or care about much of that. Time to live in the present fman and act like a christian and let the hate go. You have so many good qualities, why do you let hate consume you?

reply from: Darkmoon

I find it ironic-in a refreshing way-that the Christians who are so obsessively determined to make the rest of us follow their ways can't even agree with each other. What's even more humorous is their attempts to one-up each other on terms of who can scapegoat the other more.
Do you people really expect others to drop their freedom and beliefs to follow you, when NONE of you can even agree with each other? You use your religion to suppress each other and destroy those who fight against your enslavement. Women are only tools of reproduction to you. You see them as objects to provide your white Christian families with another little drone, but you never truly SEE the woman. You just want to use her.
Prolifers pimp women's bodies out as sure as the next john. They even call them "scancs" when they step out of line. At least a pimp is honest when he tells women he's only using them.

reply from: lukesmom

That's great! My dh was born and raised Lutheran and our kids were all baptised Lutheran. For many years we went to both Catholic and Lutheran churches. Then dh decided (all on his own) to become Catholic. Truthfully, both religions are very close. I figure and have raised our kids with the saying "All steeples point to heaven". I not only encourage questions about different religions, faith, lack of belief but also like to hear different povs. I also teach this in my 8th grade religious ed class.

reply from: lukesmom

Oh DM, there is so little you understand, truthfully and with all sincerity, I am feeling pity for you when reading this. No one wants to take away your freedoms and beliefs and no one sees you as a "tool of reproduction". I am a woman and I see myself just fine and I certainly don't want to "pimp women's bodies out". Those are silly statements and you know it. Maybe you are just trying to create trouble? As far as christians wanting others to follow, how about this analogy: You eat in the best restaurant you have ever eaten in, the food is outstanding and you can't wait to tell your family and friends how wonderful it is and how they should go to this place and eat there. Same with our different religions, we obviously love and have found something wonderful we are willing to share with others. Is that such a bad thing? No. If you don't want to go, fine, that's up to you but it is rude to tell us how nasty we are when trying to share what we find as good.

reply from: lukesmom

If sola scriptura is enough to clarify church teaching then why are there 20,000 different protestant religions each with their own interpretation of scripture?
Many people say Catholics believe this or believe that but if you really want to know what Catholics believe or at least what they should believe consult the catechism.
There is a very nice question and answer version called the compendium.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
I was raised on the Catechism until the 6th grade. I have no interest in studying error.
Good to know you had full maturity and understanding by the 6th grade. You must have been far more advanced than every other 11 yr old in all of history.

reply from: B0zo

May I ask why you baptized your children in the Lutheran church?
Were you not a practicing Catholic at the time?

reply from: Darkmoon

Then when a Muslim or another mainstream religion forces you to wear a veil or denounce your Christian beliefs in favor of theirs, I suppose you will have no problem.
The issue here, Lukesmom, is that you people sit on a pedestal of entitlement. You consider it "oppression" when someone refuses to include YOUR god in THEIR pledge. You want your god printed on our money, you want your god injected into women's rights. Your god does not see women as people. To your god, we are only vessels. Men are the only ones that have power, with your god.
I will not bow to a god that sees me as a slave. My heart beats, but I am not a heart. My lungs breathe, but I am not a lung. My blood pulses, but I am not blood. All of these things I have listed are vital to human survival, yet NONE of them define what a human being is.
Somehow, you have come to believe that the possible reproductive function of an organ that women don't depend on to survive defines our very purpose for existing.
They are your mothers. They are your daughters. They are your sisters. They are your grandmothers. They are NOT your slaves.

reply from: lukesmom

May I ask why you baptized your children in the Lutheran church?
Were you not a practicing Catholic at the time?
Yup, I was. When we were married dh said he would seriously consider raising our kids as Catholics and that is all the Catholic Church asks, a serious consideration. When I was pg with our first we talked to many familes who had faced this. Almost every single person told us the woman changed her church so the family would all have the same religion and we were told going to both churches wouldn't work. We wouldn't believe this. So, we came to an agreement, our kids would be baptised in one religion and go to perochial school in the other religion. Dh insisted the kids be baptised Lutheran and that was fine by me. They then all went to Catholic grade school and recieved First Communion in the Catholic Church. The exception was Luke because he was baptised and confirmed by a Catholic nun immed after birth since his death was imminent. Sometime after Luke's death, dh had a deep and personal religious experience that changed him and he decided to become Catholic. Now he is more Catholic than I am. I have been told that is common in converts. As far as we are concerned, the kids can become any religion they want when they reach adulthood, or non religion. Until they move out of our house though, they follow the family rules and that means mass every week and religious ed.

reply from: B0zo

Thanks for the answer, and I don't mean to nitpick or be insulting, so I'm going to make a statement that is based on your response, but not directed at you personally, so please do not take offense.
If there is a "mixed marriage," a Catholic and a non-Catholic, the agreement must always be that the children are raised Catholic.
I've never heard that it only requires a "serious consideration."

reply from: lukesmom

Last I heard, no christian was or is "forcing" another to change their religious beliefs so your statement means nothing. I, personally, don't require God in the pledge or on money. None of that has anything to do with religion or with beliefs. All of us would still believe in God without that. I am so glad you know MY God so well that you know His very thoughts and ideas. You are very close to Him evidently. I disagree with you on one thing, my 16 yr old daughter IS often my slave, at least in her thinking! I continue to pity you for your lack of understanding and for your hatred of part of yourself. I find it sad you cannot embrace all of you and try to pick and chose what parts of yourself you find acceptable. I, as a woman, am many parts and am able to live in harmony with myself and all my parts, that is what makes me a strong woman, confident and secure in myself. You can say you are the same, but, by what you have posted, you sound anything but.

reply from: lukesmom

I've never heard that it only requires a "serious consideration."
to promise to do all in his (her) power to share his (her) faith
I did all in my power and my kids are now being raised Catholic. Before then we were raising them in BOTH faiths AND they were going to Catholic school. As the bishop told us, the church is not into breaking up families or forcing the faith on anyone but does ask that serious consideration be made about what religion to raise the children.

reply from: B0zo

And that they must be batized in the Catholic Church.
That is something a practicing Catholic is faced with when they marry.
They agree that if they marry a non-Catholic that the non-Catholic will consent to baptizing the children in the Catholic Church.
This is not "breaking up" a family, because this is the rule before anyone gets married, and it is to ensure that the children are raised as Catholic.
It's good it worked out for you as it did, but as I understand it, your husband-to-be would have been informed before the marriage that the children will be baptized and raised Catholic, and that this is your solemn duty, and he would have either respected that, or would have declined to marry.
In some cases there probably is such an agreement, and then later the non-Catholic causes trouble or leaves, and maybe there are cirumstances later that prevent raising the child as a Catholic, but at the time of the marriage, both parties should be entering into an agreement in good faith that the children will be baptized in the Catholic Church and raised as Catholics.

reply from: faithman

Whoa there doggie! I believe you are referring to born again christians. They believe only those "born again" will go to heaven and the rest of us, Catholics included are bound for hell. Catholics DO NOT teach they automatically go to heaven and we believe God decides who goes to heaven, not man. We really need to do some basic teaching about Catholic beliefs and faith here 'cause the ignorance about our beautiful, wonderful, spiritual faith is astounding!
If you don't like what catholics believe, just wait a while. It will change.
Not one ioata of doctrine has changed in the 2,000+ years of the Catholic Church.
Yes it has, you are just to blind to see. Can you say V2? HJow about one pope sayin it is just find to slaughter jews, and then latter on you have a pope apologize for it. And yet catholic teaching is that the pope is the infalable prophetic voice of God on the earth. You don't apologize for truth. Deuteronomy 18:20-22, tells us that those who say they speak for God, and are found out to be false, should not be listened to. Then there is communion. Pre V2 it was a grievious sin for anyone other than a priest to touch the wafer. Now not only do decons hand it out, but those who recieve it can do so in their hand. Once again, a change in doctrine. The bible says the the double minded are unstable in all their ways. These are just a few glaring examples that the RCC is double mind, and unstable. May haps that is why we have SSSSSOOOOOOO many RCC pro-abort politicians. The Ted Kennedy funeral was a grievious sin committed by RCC leadership. James 2:1-9. how about the changing of the mass from latin into the common language, or common language RCC bibles? A few centeries ago, that would have gotten ya burned at the stake.

reply from: B0zo

I would be interested in seeing a bona fide quote of a pope saying it's ok to slaughter Jews, but regardless, that's not doctrine.
No dogma or doctrine has been changed or reversed.

reply from: faithman

AAAAWWWW the poor little clown has papal grease paint in it's eyes. Just who commissioned the inquisition, HHHHHMMMMMM? The words of a pope are doctrine, and held equal to the word of God. Or has that changed too?

reply from: B0zo

AAAAWWWW the poor little clown has papal grease paint in it's eyes. Just who commissioned the inquisition, HHHHHMMMMMM? The words of a pope are doctrine, and held equal to the word of God. Or has that changed too?
No, not all the words of the pope are doctrine.
And doctrine is for all times and situations, not for a particular circumstance or time in history.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
He must have missed that day in catechism.

reply from: faithman

AAAAWWWW the poor little clown has papal grease paint in it's eyes. Just who commissioned the inquisition, HHHHHMMMMMM? The words of a pope are doctrine, and held equal to the word of God. Or has that changed too?
No, not all the words of the pope are doctrine.
And doctrine is for all times and situations, not for a particular circumstance or time in history.
SSSSOOOOO burning heritics and killing jews is still for today?

reply from: faithman

Whoa there doggie! I believe you are referring to born again christians. They believe only those "born again" will go to heaven and the rest of us, Catholics included are bound for hell. Catholics DO NOT teach they automatically go to heaven and we believe God decides who goes to heaven, not man. We really need to do some basic teaching about Catholic beliefs and faith here 'cause the ignorance about our beautiful, wonderful, spiritual faith is astounding!
If you don't like what catholics believe, just wait a while. It will change.
Not one ioata of doctrine has changed in the 2,000+ years of the Catholic Church.
Yes it has, you are just to blind to see. Can you say V2? HJow about one pope sayin it is just find to slaughter jews, and then latter on you have a pope apologize for it. And yet catholic teaching is that the pope is the infalable prophetic voice of God on the earth. You don't apologize for truth. Deuteronomy 18:20-22, tells us that those who say they speak for God, and are found out to be false, should not be listened to. Then there is communion. Pre V2 it was a grievious sin for anyone other than a priest to touch the wafer. Now not only do decons hand it out, but those who recieve it can do so in their hand. Once again, a change in doctrine. The bible says the the double minded are unstable in all their ways. These are just a few glaring examples that the RCC is double mind, and unstable. May haps that is why we have SSSSSOOOOOOO many RCC pro-abort politicians. The Ted Kennedy funeral was a grievious sin committed by RCC leadership. James 2:1-9. how about the changing of the mass from latin into the common language, or common language RCC bibles? A few centeries ago, that would have gotten ya burned at the stake.

reply from: B0zo

You're referring to liturgy and disciplines and not doctrine.
Disciplines can change to suit the times. Currently we must abstain from meat during lent, but that could change. Priests, for the most part, may not marry, but that could change.
Communion in the hand is permitted, but that could change. It's not doctrine.
There will be some changes coming in the liturgy.
Doctrine concerns the essentials or our faith, such as the Trinity, that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, that Jesus is God, that Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ, that Baptism removes the stain of original sin, that mortal sins must be confessed and absolved, that the popes and bishops have Apostolic Succession, that the Holy Scriptures are Divinely inspired, etc.
These things will never change or be reversed. The only "change" could possibly be further development of a doctrine.
If the pope said today that he thinks green men live on mars, that would not be doctrine. That would be his personal opinion.
If the pope allowed for all priests to be married, that would not be doctrine. It would be a discipline and it could be later changed.

reply from: faithman

AAAAAWWW the double minded speaketh. One post you say the pope's word is doctrine equal to the bible, and now you try to wiggle out of it. It seems you are as conflicted as your fountain of paganism. the doctrine is the pope's word is infalable , right? It does not matter the catagory.

reply from: B0zo

I'm posting these things for the sake of the fair-minded and the intellectually honest.
You are neither and don't care to see the truth, and I would not waste my breath, except, again, for the sake of others who are reading this.
I repeat, not all the words of a pope become infallible doctrine--only those words spoken specifically for that purpose, and only if they concern faith or morals.
If a pope says American Idol sucks, that is not doctrine. That is his opinion.
If a pope makes a porno movie, that is not doctrine, that is his own personal sin, and a scandal to the Church, but does not change any doctrine.
If the Pope today permits all priests to marry, that would not be a change in doctrine. It would be a change in a discipline. If another pope said priests may not marry, that would be another change in a discipline, but not a change in doctrine.
First understand what doctrine is before you make ignorant statements that it has been reversed.
(You really should have gone beyond grade-school catechism so you would have a better idea of what the heck you're talking about, instead of relying on Chick comics and the like as a credible source).

reply from: faithman

You are niether fair minded or intelectually honest. You speak out of both sides of your clown painted mouth. Your posts here prove it. You say one thing, and then turn right around and post something totally contradictory. Just like the RCC Church. I can see why you are SSSSSOOOOOO inamored with it now. both love double speak.

reply from: B0zo

There is no doublespeak. You don't want to see the difference between a discipline and a doctrine.
I repeat, no doctrine has ever been reversed, and you have not provided one shred of credible evidence that it has.
And you have not supported any of your outrageous accusastions.

reply from: B0zo

Just curious...what would those "good qualities" be?

reply from: faithman

SSSSOOOO tell me I am wrong? Pre vatican 2 it was a sin to touch communion if you were not a priest. Any pre V2 RCC will tell you that it was.
And your "chuch" does not make the distiction that you claim. At least pre V2 the p[ope's words were supposedly equal to the Bible, and yet we see contradiction after contradiction form that office over the years. SSSSOOOOO now in contradiction to the teaching of your on temple of paganism, you are saying that isn't true? That the pope's word can be fallible? I guess you are a wind shield wipper RCC. Just a flip flopping in the breeze.....

reply from: B0zo

SSSSOOOO tell me I am wrong? Pre vatican 2 it was a sin to touch communion if you were not a priest. Any pre V2 RCC will tell you that it was.
And your "chuch" does not make the distiction that you claim. At least pre V2 the p[ope's words were supposedly equal to the Bible, and yet we see contradiction after contradiction form that office over the years. SSSSOOOOO now in contradiction to the teaching of your on temple of paganism, you are saying that isn't true? That the pope's word can be fallible? I guess you are a wind shield wipper RCC. Just a flip flopping in the breeze.....
It is a sin to eat meat on Fridays during Lent.
But that could be changed.
I don't know about how Holy Communion was treated then, but if the laity were not permitted to touch it, then that's what the rule was, and it served the purpose of inspiring awe and reverence.
That rule may have been relaxed, and I have heard that it might go back to the way it was, but again, that is not a doctrine.
If you care to know about a DOCTRINE that has to do with Holy Communion, it would be that it is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, changed into that from bread and wine, though the power of the Holy Spirit, when the priest speaks the words of consecration. That is a doctrine which will never change.

reply from: lukesmom

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P41.HTM

the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church
1126 It is for the conference of bishops to establish the method in which these declarations and promises, which are always required, must be made and to define the manner in which they are to be established in the external forum and the non-Catholic party informed about them.
1128 Local ordinaries and other pastors of souls are to take care that the Catholic spouse and the children born of a mixed marriage do not lack the spiritual help to fulfill their obligations and are to help spouses foster the unity of conjugal and family life.
I think you are getting yourself confused, the Catholic is to do all in his/her power BUT sometimes this is not enough and the children are not raised Catholic and, I'm sure, in some cases, not exposed to any religion. Baptism in the christian faith is considered universal, so once baptised in a christian religion, you don't need to be baptised again. In our case, exposing our children to BOTH faiths we were fullfilling our obligation.

reply from: faithman

http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/trial96/loftis/overview.html

reply from: B0zo

It says you must do everything in your power TO BAPTIZE YOUR CHILD IN THE CAHTOLIC CHURCH.
That is something both parties know when they get married.
Sometimes things can change and sometimes people can become ornery and obstinate or just plain mean, and maybe sometimes it is better for the sake of the child to let the spouse have their way.
You don't have to answer this, because it's personal and none of my business, but since you are sharing, and since I think you're misinterpreting this, did you do everything in your power to baptize your children in the Catholic Church? What was preventing you from scheduling a Baptism? Were you unable to put your child in a car, drive to the Church, and go through with the Baptism in the Catholic Church? Was your husband physically preventing you from doing this?
He knew about your pledge when you were married. Why did he not allow you to honor it?
I'm not at all criticizing you personally, and am happy your husband found his way into the Church, as I also did late in life.
But I honestly don't get it. What is so hard about baptizing your child in the Catholic Church and how much "power" do you need to do that?
If I were a young practicing Catholic about to be married to a non-Catholic, I would have to make it clear to my fiance that the children are to be baptized in the Catholic Church and are to be raised Catholic, and if she did not agree to that, would have to call off the marriage.
If she consented and then later changed her mind some years later at the birth of a child, and put up a big fuss, and threatened to leave over it or do something nasty, I might for the sake of peace and for the sake of the child, allow the child to be baptized in her Church, but otherwise would go through with the pledge I made, regardless of any of her protestations.

reply from: faithman

http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/trial96/loftis/overview.html

reply from: lukesmom

OK, this is starting to get tiring and frustrating. Look at the link I gave you. Nowhere does it say a Catholic MUST/HAS TO raise their child in the Catholic faith, instead it says he/she use everything in their power to do so. It also says the bishops may interpet this however and give approval to the marraige. The bishop gave us his dispisition after we promised to seriously consider this as my dh stated he could not make such a promise as he didn't really know what we would do. The church does not want to cause anyone to call off their marriage or be married outside the Catholic church. BTW, the Catholic Church aknowledges the sacredness and validity of marriages made in other religions and it also aknowledges baptisms in other christian religions. In our case, my children would be my spouses children also and he has as much say in how to raise them as I do so I respected his decision. I also respected and totally agreed with the bishop's dispensation. Even today, I hold his view and interpetation of church "rules" over yours. Sorry, not ment to be nasty just feel he is the expert on this rather than a lay person.
Later on, when it came time for 1st communion we again looked at which church for the sacrament and were told by our priest that God did not want to divide families over factions of religion as that is counter productive of His teaching. No matter, the end result should make you celebrate as our oldest is being confirmed in the Catholic Church next week, something I doubt would be happening if a hard ### would have tried to strong arm my dh instead of treating him with respect and dignity. FYI: I am done with this as it has gone into the relm of obsessive.

reply from: lukesmom

No one is disputing the horror of the inquisition or the mistakes of the humans who are/where in authority of the church. None of this is the Catholic faith or beliefs but instead humans horrific interpetations and actions. It is like saying all Middle Easteners and those of the Muslim faith are terrorists. Fman, like I said before, it is time to let history be history and stop blaming a whole group of people for the sins of a few who are very long gone.

reply from: faithman

the prob is that these guys, by doctrine of the church, were supposed to be infallible . Their word was law and doctrine, placed on the same level as God's word. That doctrine is obviously in error as Dueteronomy 18 clearly states. You can't have a doctrine proven wrong, then turn right around and still claim to be the prophetic voice of God on the earth. you can not justify sin, and continue in the unrepentant organization that comited it, and say you are not partaker of it. for the most part [except for idiots like your clown buddy] I have the deepest respect, and affestion for many catholics in the pew. Those who are raised up in it [me included] have a very deep emotional tie to it. Believe when I say that I know how painful it is to hear these things. Maybe in my dealings with your stupid clown buddy, I came off a little to harsh. Harsh or not, the truth is the truth. And it only hurts when it should. The RCC has betrayed the ones in the pew in SSSSOOOOO many ways, it ain't even funny. Not just in the past. But most assurdely in current events. Obamma speaking at ND, the Kennedy funeral, and the ungodly opposition of American Bishops to person hood. I am truly sorry to have caused you pain. But your phony clown buddy started it. Don't stand in front of a flame thrower and cry about getting burned. You are just as big a victim of the RCC leadership as all the alter boys who have come forward. The end game of the RCC is political world domination, not the destination of man kinds soul that they only give lip service to.

reply from: B0zo

The "end game" of the Catholic Church is to help people get to Heaven.
Bishops that screw up are not the entire church and who knows whether Ted Kennedy made a good final confession.
The only reason your comments are "painful" is because they are ridiculous, and very sad, coming from someone who ought to know better.

reply from: B0zo

Their infallibility only goes so far as doctrine. It does not prevent someone in authority from exceeding his authority. It does not prevent them from having their own personal sins.

reply from: faithman

Their infallibility only goes so far as doctrine. It does not prevent someone in authority from exceeding his authority. It does not prevent them from having their own personal sins.
It's not that you are a papist puke, you are just plain puke thru an thru. SSSSSOOOO please do tell us. Was the printing press a tool of satan? did the early translators, and reformers deserve to die at the stake? And in modern times Teddy never recanted his baby killer positions, and a little girl stood up before america and preached socialism as a "prayer". Your hero Pavone, who would condemn the death penalty, has no problem offer a bounty to have baby deffenders turned over to the government to posibly meat the death penalty. No puke, infalliblity goes all the way with RCC Popes. Just like defence of the innocent clown, ya can't have it both ways.

reply from: B0zo

Congratulations. I'm happy for you, and that your son made this decision and committment to his faith.
When my younger son came to the age to be confirmed, he instead left the Church.

reply from: B0zo

When it printed pornography--yes.

reply from: faithman

When it printed pornography--yes.
SSSSOOO the word of God was pornography? Interesting....

reply from: B0zo

When it printed pornography--yes.
SSSSOOO the word of God was pornography? Interesting....
Do you care at all about truth or what a person actually means?

reply from: faithman

When it printed pornography--yes.
SSSSOOO the word of God was pornography? Interesting....
Do you care at all about truth or what a person actually means?
It is you who bends and twists it, and talks in circles...

reply from: Shenanigans

When it printed pornography--yes.
SSSSOOO the word of God was pornography? Interesting....
Do you care at all about truth or what a person actually means?

reply from: faithman

When it printed pornography--yes.
SSSSOOO the word of God was pornography? Interesting....
Do you care at all about truth or what a person actually means?
Thanks, you saved me a post.

reply from: Shenanigans

Question: if all Catholics are, as FM said, "guilty by association" for the crimes commited, you know, hundreds to thousands of years ago, does that mean all modern day Germans are guilty by association of the Holocaust?
Does that mean, Faithman, that you're guilty [by association] for all those 4,000 child murders that will happen under the label "abortion" today? That given, Roe was an American legislation, and that you, FM, are an American, that you are guilty?

reply from: B0zo

What about Protestants that persecuted Catholics?
Are they all guilty by association?
I don't think so.

reply from: faithman

Yes, all americans are guilty as a nation.

reply from: faithman

I don't think .
final got something right...

reply from: Shenanigans

Now, I know some catholics have been very naughty and have killed people, including some Protestants in the past.
But I doubt they managed to clock up a body count of 52 million.
So really, Americans, including yoruself, are guilty of a worse crime than any Catholic is.
And what about thsoe damn British Prottys, stealing all the Irish Catholics' potatoes, do you know how many millions of people starved because of those damn Brits stealing our damn potoates!!!!!!!!!!

reply from: faithman

Now, I know some catholics have been very naughty and have killed people, including some Protestants in the past.
But I doubt they managed to clock up a body count of 52 million.
So really, Americans, including yoruself, are guilty of a worse crime than any Catholic is.
And what about thsoe damn British Prottys, stealing all the Irish Catholics' potatoes, do you know how many millions of people starved because of those damn Brits stealing our damn potoates!!!!!!!!!!
...and you are trying to cloud the issue becauzzzzzzz ???

reply from: Banned Member

A good thing Scott didn't take vengeance, but merely defended the innocent from evil aggression. Even the pagan papist aggree with that, and has been part of thier doctrine for over 1000 years.
Scott Roeder is a murdering vigilante!

reply from: Banned Member

What did the birdie say when the clock struck one?

reply from: lukesmom

What did the birdie say when the clock struck one?
I think I just split my gut laughing! Gotta remember that one! If I say it over and over again maybe I will.

reply from: Shenanigans

Now, I know some catholics have been very naughty and have killed people, including some Protestants in the past.
But I doubt they managed to clock up a body count of 52 million.
So really, Americans, including yoruself, are guilty of a worse crime than any Catholic is.
And what about thsoe damn British Prottys, stealing all the Irish Catholics' potatoes, do you know how many millions of people starved because of those damn Brits stealing our damn potoates!!!!!!!!!!
...and you are trying to cloud the issue becauzzzzzzz ???
I'm pointing out that you can't in good standing, or with any seriousness, lay blame at teh foot of the Catholic church for things done centuaries ago, when the country you are a member of now is responsible for MORE deaths.
The point is, dear Faithman, is anything with human involvement is goign to be corrupt.
The Catholic Church is the Church of God on Earth, and with 1.1billion Catholics, it is only logical that a few of them are goign to be a bunch of bastards.
Just like how America is responsible for horrible massacres of native Americans, for the mess they made with slavery, for the 52 million dead from abortion.
Even on the Church's worst day, they didn't come close to numbers or deeds of that magnitude.
Oh yeah, and I'm still waiting on an answer about the Salem Witch Trials.
As for your statements regardign the Catholic Church and her treatment of Jews, what of the Protestant hero, Luther:
From:
On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543
by Martin Luther (1483-1546)
First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
--
And it goes on and on and on.

reply from: B0zo

Because I'm "obsessive," when there is a question or dispute about a Catholic "rule," I have to investigate until I find an answer that is definitive.
I had thought Lukesmom's bishop or pastor might have given her incorrect information, but have looked into the situation further (regarding a Catholic and a non-Catholic marriage and how the children should be raised, and received the following answer from a respected and credible source:
After reading this several times, I have come to the conclusion that there is no way that I can avoid eating crow on this issue.

reply from: Shenanigans

There was a legal case down here a few years ago. A guy was selling chicken sandwiches from a cart on a street corner.
Let's just say it coincided with a dramatic decrease in the local pidgeon populace.

reply from: Banned Member

After reading this several times, I have come to the conclusion that there is no way that I can avoid eating crow on this issue.
Kudos to you B0zo. Real men can openly admit to their errors. Score one point for B0zo.

reply from: B0zo

I'm not a real man.
I'm a clown.
Please refrain from distorting my character in the future. I'm a kindly clown and will let you slide this time, and will supply a banana peel to help, but this is my livelihood, so if it happens again, I would have to take legal action.
But since I do a lot of juggling, it would be alright if you want to say that I have balls.
Which reminds me of a knock knock joke.
*knock knock*

reply from: B0zo

Oh no, you're going to be sorry...
"Butch and Jimmy"

reply from: B0zo

"Butch your arms around me and Jimmy a kiss!"
(I hate to do that to a good Catholic girl. But I'm a bad Catholic boy...)

reply from: B0zo

You'll turn into a zombie if you do...

reply from: Shenanigans

Hehe that's quite amusing in a sick kinda way.
What's the difference between a Catholic and a Baptist?
A Catholic will say "Hi" to you in the liquor store.

reply from: B0zo

I wish I knew some Catholic jokies. I don't know any, except I vaguely remember something about a Protestant minister, a Rabbi, and a Priest in a boat...and that's all I can think of

reply from: Shenanigans

Patrick, a good Irish Catholic lay on his death bed. Moaning, he asked for a Minister.
"But Pa", exclaimed his son, "Don't you mean Priest?"
"No, I want a Minister".
"Why?"
"I want to convert, better one of those damn Protty's die than a good Catholic!"

reply from: Banned Member

Ouch!
Here's one from Baptist about the Baptists.
Why don't Baptists make love standing up?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Because they don't want anyone to think that they're dancing.

reply from: Banned Member

Cat-holic
Alco-holic
Coincidence? Perhaps. But a strange one at that.

reply from: faithman

Often times, the same thing...

reply from: B0zo

How about this one.
Bapt-ist
Rap-ist
Coincidence?
Or word manipulation.
Anyway, some non-Catholic churches forbid alcohol, but many don't, and I don't know that Catholics drink excessively. Drinking is to be in moderation, though I personally don't drink, except a wine cooler twice a year, or a free wine or beer on an airline.

reply from: faithman

Obvious some one hasn't been to a KC hall on saterday night....

reply from: Ana

HEY! That was OUR joke!!

reply from: Ana

That one is as old as I am. I went to a Baptist middle school, the kids were all over it!

reply from: faithman

"IT" ? Or each other?....

reply from: Shenanigans

Still waiting on an answer about the Salem witch trials, and the many, many Catholics slaughtered by Protestant British monarchs and the mess the Protestant Englished caused the Catholic Irish during the potatoe famine.
Oh, and if you get round to it, could you, Faithman, please address Luther's anti-semetic remarks.

reply from: faithman

Seens how I am niether lutheran or anglican , I haven't the foggest...

reply from: Shenanigans

But they're Protestant. And you were implying that only Catholics are the ones with their hands bloody, that the poor widdle Protestants were just victims of a nasty Papist meglomania.
You can't have it both ways, Faithman.

reply from: faithman

But they're Protestant. And you were implying that only Catholics are the ones with their hands bloody, that the poor widdle Protestants were just victims of a nasty Papist meglomania.
You can't have it both ways, Faithman.
I never implied any such thing. But you implied that I implied, which implication is an assumption on your part with no evidence.

reply from: Banned Member

How about this one.
Bapt-ist
Rap-ist
Coincidence?
Or word manipulation.
Anyway, some non-Catholic churches forbid alcohol, but many don't, and I don't know that Catholics drink excessively. Drinking is to be in moderation, though I personally don't drink, except a wine cooler twice a year, or a free wine or beer on an airline.
Touchy, touchy!
The facts are well established. The Catholics, and other Christian faiths, imbibe the spirits in church. Real genuine alcohol! This is one of the reasons the Muslims despise Christianity. Additionally, everyone knows that the Irish, who are predominantly Catholic, are famous for their celebration of drunkenness, ergo: St. Patrick's day drunkenness celebration. Baptists, on the other hand, drink only non-fermented grape juice as a symbol of Christ's blood.
This is why my little joke, (see above) is slightly humorous, whereas your little joke was a defamatory and inappropriate, non-sequitur which makes it rude in the extreme. I am surprised that you, of all people, would lower yourself to utter such a duplicitous statement.
Now don't get the impression that I was necessarily offended by your rudeness. If there were some truth to your little joke, (truth being the soul of all humor), then perhaps I would actually have been offended. As it is, I am just surprised to hear such a thing coming from you. The reason you reacted so uncharacteristically can perhaps be attributed to the fact that, with my little joke, the truth hurt.
Up to 20% of divorce suits site infidelity as grounds. According to: http://divorcedwomenonline.com, (and many other sources), alcohol is involved in a large percentage of initial cases of infidelity.
Additionally, how can anyone deny alcohol's direct contribution to the abortion rate? How many contraceptives fail because a drunk person/s failed to use it properly or failed to use it at all?
Alcohol is the most effective tool Satan has in his arsenal and the Catholic's and other Christian faith's historical sacramental sanctioning of it has been not only one of their greatest recruiting devices, but is the exact reason I would never convert to Catholicism or any other alcohol distributing faith, unless of course, I had completely lost my mind. I mean this sincerely. All human social and personal ills are compounded by alcohol consumption and even the dullest mind amongst us is aware of this incontrovertible fact.
How can you, or anyone else, reconcile the obvious imprudence of condoning it's consumption by your church?
I wasn't going to bring this personal beef into this thread but you got me going and wasn't no stopping.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: leftsnemesis
Alcohol is the most effective tool Satan has in his arsenal and the Catholic's and other Christian faith's historical sacramental sanctioning of it has been not only one of their greatest recruiting devices, but is the exact reason I would never convert to Catholicism or any other alcohol distributing faith, unless of course, I had completely lost my mind. I mean this sincerely. All human social and personal ills are compounded by alcohol consumption and even the dullest mind amongst us is aware of this incontrovertible fact.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Proverbs: 31 6-7
Give beer to those who are perishing,
wine to those who are in anguish;
7 let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.

reply from: B0zo

Huh?
All I did was manipulate the word like you did.
There was no intent to insult anyone.
Just was showing how easy it is to play word games.

reply from: B0zo

The Catholic Church in no way "distributes" alcohol, and alcohol is by no means a "recruiting device." Do you think converts are lured to the church because they are promised booze? That's crazy. I'm a convert myself, and that never entered my mind and was never mentioned. It would be so much easier to go to the supermarket and buy a six pack than to spend a year studying the Church so I could have one sip of wine out of a Chalice at Easter. What evidence do you have to support this outrageous assertion?
The most anyone does at Holy Communion is take a small sip, and that is totally optional, and nobody is going to get drunk on a sip of wine, or turn into an alcoholic over a sip of wine.
Anyone who has a problem with alcoholism of course should refrain, but the alcohol addiction someone has was not caused by the Church.
Jesus turned water into wine, and Paul suggested wine in moderation for health reasons, so wine is not some kind of evil device or tool of satan.
I am not a drinker and never have been, except on rare occasions, and on those occasions I just had a glass of wine or one beer, did not get drunk, and had no desire whatsoever to drink to excess. It's no more wrong to drink a glass of wine or beer than to smoke a cigar, let alone the few drops of wine that are "distributed" at Holy Communion.
Drinking alcohol had nothing to do with my conversion to Catholicism, and I don't know of a single person who became a Catholic because of alcohol. Everyone I know including myself converted because of deep spiritiual convictions and motivations. (And most people do not drink the "wine" which we call the "Precious Blood" and take only the communion wafer which we call the "Host.")
Please understand that what you see as "wine" is a Sacrament, and the Body and Blood of Jesus. That's the centerpiece of our faith--that Jesus is truly present in what was before the consecration by the priest, bread and wine. It would make more sense to not become a Catholic because you could not believe in the possibility of what we call "transubstantiation," than because a few drops of alcohol are consumed.
I abhor excessive drinking, especially when it kills others, but the alcohol is not the problem anymore than guns are the problem concerning crime. It's the abuse that's the problem. Drinking in moderation is not abuse, and partaking of Holy Communion via the Chalice is not even "drinking."

reply from: Shenanigans

Not to mention, the wine has a bit of water in it...

reply from: Shenanigans

You stated the following:
You accused the Catholic Church of a raft of murders and inquisitions, and while this is true enough, you peddle the notion that the Catholic Church has no credibilty or is "pagan" and unGodly because of those previous mishaps, but you convienantly ignore the fact that the Protestants have their hands just as bloody.
You refuse to acknowledge that Protestantism has caused its own massacres of others of other faiths including Catholics, and surely, if the Protestant bed spread were as white as you seem to protray you would have no problem "researching" their innocence, because obviously, you like to "research" given your fact finding missions about the Catholic Church.
If you are Christian and not Catholic, congrats, you are a Protestant. And thus, gulity by association of all the nasty little sh1t stinks your Protestant sects have caused.
The the word "Protestant" comes from "protest" as in "protest against teh Catholic Church", which is precisely what you're doing now, and thus, you, Faithman, are a Protestant.

reply from: faithman

Say shen. Get a grip. You are only half truthen it here. I have always stated that your leadership sucks, and that there are many cats in the pew that I admire. There is a huge difference. The same with protties, of which I am not. I am a Christian, and neither prot or Cat.

reply from: faithman

The Catholic Church in no way "distributes" alcohol, and alcohol is by no means a "recruiting device." Do you think converts are lured to the church because they are promised booze? That's crazy. I'm a convert myself, and that never entered my mind and was never mentioned. It would be so much easier to go to the supermarket and buy a six pack than to spend a year studying the Church so I could have one sip of wine out of a Chalice at Easter. What evidence do you have to support this outrageous assertion?
The most anyone does at Holy Communion is take a small sip, and that is totally optional, and nobody is going to get drunk on a sip of wine, or turn into an alcoholic over a sip of wine.
Anyone who has a problem with alcoholism of course should refrain, but the alcohol addiction someone has was not caused by the Church.
Jesus turned water into wine, and Paul suggested wine in moderation for health reasons, so wine is not some kind of evil device or tool of satan.
I am not a drinker and never have been, except on rare occasions, and on those occasions I just had a glass of wine or one beer, did not get drunk, and had no desire whatsoever to drink to excess. It's no more wrong to drink a glass of wine or beer than to smoke a cigar, let alone the few drops of wine that are "distributed" at Holy Communion.
Drinking alcohol had nothing to do with my conversion to Catholicism, and I don't know of a single person who became a Catholic because of alcohol. Everyone I know including myself converted because of deep spiritiual convictions and motivations. (And most people do not drink the "wine" which we call the "Precious Blood" and take only the communion wafer which we call the "Host.")
Please understand that what you see as "wine" is a Sacrament, and the Body and Blood of Jesus. That's the centerpiece of our faith--that Jesus is truly present in what was before the consecration by the priest, bread and wine. It would make more sense to not become a Catholic because you could not believe in the possibility of what we call "transubstantiation," than because a few drops of alcohol are consumed.
I abhor excessive drinking, especially when it kills others, but the alcohol is not the problem anymore than guns are the problem concerning crime. It's the abuse that's the problem. Drinking in moderation is not abuse, and partaking of Holy Communion via the Chalice is not even "drinking."
obviously the clown has never been to a KC hall....

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
...Nor has he spent time behind bars for being a raging alcoholic - you know - like you did.

reply from: Banned Member

Some fools fool themselves I guess, but they're not foolin' me.

reply from: Banned Member

#1
The Catholic Church in no way "distributes" alcohol, and alcohol is by no means a "recruiting device." Do you think converts are lured to the church because they are promised booze? That's crazy. I'm a convert myself, and that never entered my mind and was never mentioned. It would be so much easier to go to the supermarket and buy a six pack than to spend a year studying the Church so I could have one sip of wine out of a Chalice at Easter. What evidence do you have to support this outrageous assertion?
#2
The most anyone does at Holy Communion is take a small sip, and that is totally optional, and nobody is going to get drunk on a sip of wine, or turn into an alcoholic over a sip of wine.
#3
Anyone who has a problem with alcoholism of course should refrain, but the alcohol addiction someone has was not caused by the Church.
#4
Jesus turned water into wine, and Paul suggested wine in moderation for health reasons, so wine is not some kind of evil device or tool of satan.
#5
I am not a drinker and never have been, except on rare occasions, and on those occasions I just had a glass of wine or one beer, did not get drunk, and had no desire whatsoever to drink to excess. It's no more wrong to drink a glass of wine or beer than to smoke a cigar, let alone the few drops of wine that are "distributed" at Holy Communion.
#6
Drinking alcohol had nothing to do with my conversion to Catholicism, and I don't know of a single person who became a Catholic because of alcohol. Everyone I know including myself converted because of deep spiritiual convictions and motivations. (And most people do not drink the "wine" which we call the "Precious Blood" and take only the communion wafer which we call the "Host.")
#7
Please understand that what you see as "wine" is a Sacrament, and the Body and Blood of Jesus. That's the centerpiece of our faith--that Jesus is truly present in what was before the consecration by the priest, bread and wine. It would make more sense to not become a Catholic because you could not believe in the possibility of what we call "transubstantiation," than because a few drops of alcohol are consumed.
#8
I abhor excessive drinking, especially when it kills others, but the alcohol is not the problem anymore than guns are the problem concerning crime. It's the abuse that's the problem. Drinking in moderation is not abuse, and partaking of Holy Communion via the Chalice is not even "drinking."
In case you missed it in your rage and urgency to respond , here is a recap of my post's central message. My point is that, just as the state sanctions abortion and thereby reduces the stigma attached to it, so does (some of) the Christian faith sanction alcohol use and thereby reduces the stigma attached to it.
Re: paragraph #1
The Catholic church does indeed distribute it and my proof is the little glass of wine I've personally drank as provided to me in Catholic churches.
Yes, I believe that converts are recruited to the church by the churches' open sanctioning of alcohol use as well as all the other pagan rituals that the church has absorbed over the centuries as a means to ease the transition of pagans into the process of conversion.
Re: paragraph #2
Diversionary and completely beside the point.
Re: paragraph #3
Never said or implied that.. those are your words.
Re: paragraph #4
So goes the particular translation that you are quoting.
Re: paragraph #5
This point of view only proves your denial concerning the massive amount of human suffering that alcohol brings to humanity.
Re: paragraph #6
So.. you don't get many people coming up to you and saying "I sure am glad the church is OK with my drinking alcohol". No surprise there.
No-one gets drunk on cigars and crashes their car or beats their wife or screws their neighbors wife or starts a fight at Thanksgiving dinner or.. need I go on?
Re: paragraph #7
Diversionary and completely beside the point.
Re: paragraph #
False analogy. I never said that alcohol is the problem. The sanctioning of the consumption of alcohol is the problem. A bottle of booze and a gun sitting in the cupboard are harmless. They are only just things.
Drinking in moderation is a problem because there is no universal definition of what moderation is and just try and go sell that to an alcoholic. (rolls eyes)
I realize that there is no way for us to reconcile our differences as it would require a papist to reject and hold suspect a central practice of their faith. I am not asking you to do this and don't mean to come between you and your love of Jesus. The Catholic church has changed it's views and practices over time and all I am saying is that unless and until they change their attitude towards alcohol in church being consumed in front of and by children, then I shall remain unconverted.

reply from: faithman

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
...Nor has he spent time behind bars for being a raging alcoholic - you know - like you did.
I never raged...sheesh...

reply from: B0zo

First, what were you doing receiving Communion in a Catholic Church?
But I've never seen individual glasses of wine distributed in any Catholic Church. And again, it is no longer "wine," but is referred to as the "Precious Blood," since after the priest consecrates the bread and wine, it becomes the Body of Christ. We receive Holy Communion from the priest or a special minister. We stand in line and wait, and if we choose to partake of the chalice, we are not given a glass of wine, but are handed a chalice from which we would take a sip. The Precious Blood is not distributed in individual glasses. I do not do that because I don't want to catch someone's cold. I receive the Host only, but if I did choose to receive the Precious Blood too, which had been my practice at one time, it would be because my personal devotion, and not to get a swig of alcohol.
I must admit that I'm incredulous over your post. I've heard some doosies against the Catholic Church, but this is a new one.
Can you give me an example of how this is done? Nowhere in my searching to become a Catholic did I ever read anything that one of the beneifits of Catholicism wias the "sanctioning of alcohol."
Jesus took bread and wine and said "This is my Body and this is my Blood" (in my own words and condensing it), and further said "Do this in memory of me."
The Church is simply doing what she believes Christ commanded.
At the wedding at Cana, at the request of His Mother, Jesus turned water into wine. Do you have an issue with Jesus for "sanctioning" alcohol consumption?
What "pagan rituals" has the church absorbed over the centuries? Can you give me an example? Certainly there would be none that would have to do with the Sacraments or essentials of the faith. Christmas trees may have been pagan, and that is a custom that some have adopted, but they are not part of the faith, if that's the type of thing you're referring to.
Abuse of alcohol, food, tobacco, and sex to name a few, bring much suffering to humanity. But should the Church forbid them or set arbitrary limits?
An alcoholic needs help and can't drink in moderation. But should his problem of addiction prevent me from enjoying a glass of wine after dinner?
I have a serious problem when it comes to sweets, and they are extremely addictive to me. Many times I have sworn off them, and then later I figure I could start over "in moderation" and have a candy bar or cake once a week. But it doesn't take long for it to then be twice a week, then every day, then two or three candy bars a day, then bags of cookies being consumed weekly, and soon I am feeling horrible. And now that I'm in middle age could be in danger of diabetes and other disease, so I have once again sworn off, and intend to continue to remain that way the rest of my life. I don't know exactly where the line is regarding "moderation" of sweets, I just know that I cross way beyond it, and I think the alcoholic knows that too, or those around him should know it. But my problem with sweets should not be a reason for our parish to not "sanction" desserts at our picnics, etc. My problem shouldn't be a reason for others to be denied what they can enjoy in moderation.
Same thing with cigars or beer.
The Church uses bread and wine because Jesus commanded it. It's nothing more than that.
Abuse of alcohol is a serious sin, and the Church never encourages sin.

reply from: faithman

I've never seen individual glasses of wine distributed in any Catholic Church. And again, it is no longer "wine," but is referred to as the "Precious Blood," since after the priest consecrates the bread and wine, it becomes the Body of Christ. We receive Holy Communion from the priest or a special minister. We stand in line and wait, and if we choose to partake of the chalice, we are not given a glass of wine, but are handed a chalice from which we would take a sip. The Precious Blood is not distributed in individual glasses. I do not do that because I don't want to catch someone's cold. I receive the Host only, but if I did choose to receive the Precious Blood too, which had been my practice at one time, it would be because my personal devotion, and not to get a swig of alcohol.
I must admit that I'm incredulous over your post. I've heard some doosies against the Catholic Church, but this is a new one.
Can you give me an example of how this is done? Nowhere in my searching to become a Catholic did I ever read anything that one of the beneifits of Catholicism wias the "sanctioning of alcohol."
Jesus took bread and wine and said "This is my Body and this is my Blood" (in my own words and condensing it), and further said "Do this in memory of me."
The Church is simply doing what she believes Christ commanded.
At the wedding at Cana, at the request of His Mother, Jesus turned water into wine. Do you have an issue with Jesus for "sanctioning" alcohol consumption?
What "pagan rituals" has the church absorbed over the centuries? Can you give me an example? Certainly there would be none that would have to do with the Sacraments or essentials of the faith. Christmas trees may have been pagan, and that is a custom that some have adopted, but they are not part of the faith, if that's the type of thing you're referring to.
Abuse of alcohol, food, tobacco, and sex to name a few, bring much suffering to humanity. But should the Church forbid them or set arbitrary limits?
An alcoholic needs help and can't drink in moderation. But should his problem of addiction prevent me from enjoying a glass of wine after dinner?
I have a serious problem when it comes to sweets, and they are extremely addictive to me. Many times I have sworn off them, and then later I figure I could start over "in moderation" and have a candy bar or cake once a week. But it doesn't take long for it to then be twice a week, then every day, then two or three candy bars a day, then bags of cookies being consumed weekly, and soon I am feeling horrible. And now that I'm in middle age could be in danger of diabetes and other disease, so I have once again sworn off, and intend to continue to remain that way the rest of my life. I don't know exactly where the line is regarding "moderation" of sweets, I just know that I cross way beyond it, and I think the alcoholic knows that too, or those around him should know it. But my problem with sweets should not be a reason for our parish to not "sanction" desserts at our picnics, etc. My problem shouldn't be a reason for others to be denied what they can enjoy in moderation.
Same thing with cigars or beer.
The Church uses bread and wine because Jesus commanded it. It's nothing more than that.
Abuse of alcohol is a serious sin, and the Church never encourages sin.
Ounce again ole poop diapers hasn't been to a KC hall. My dad "converted" after a drink fest with the parish priest at one.

reply from: B0zo

It's a serious sin to be drunk, and if your story is truthful, that priest was misbehaving badly, set a very poor example, and his next stop should have been to find another priest to hear his Confession.
But the rest of your story does not ring true, because nobody converts to Catholicism at a Knights of Columbus hall. Joining the Church usually takes at least a year, unless it is a deathbed situation.

reply from: Banned Member

I've never seen individual glasses of wine distributed in any Catholic Church. And again, it is no longer "wine," but is referred to as the "Precious Blood," since after the priest consecrates the bread and wine, it becomes the Body of Christ. We receive Holy Communion from the priest or a special minister. We stand in line and wait, and if we choose to partake of the chalice, we are not given a glass of wine, but are handed a chalice from which we would take a sip. The Precious Blood is not distributed in individual glasses. I do not do that because I don't want to catch someone's cold. I receive the Host only, but if I did choose to receive the Precious Blood too, which had been my practice at one time, it would be because my personal devotion, and not to get a swig of alcohol.
I must admit that I'm incredulous over your post. I've heard some doosies against the Catholic Church, but this is a new one.
Can you give me an example of how this is done? Nowhere in my searching to become a Catholic did I ever read anything that one of the beneifits of Catholicism wias the "sanctioning of alcohol."
Jesus took bread and wine and said "This is my Body and this is my Blood" (in my own words and condensing it), and further said "Do this in memory of me."
The Church is simply doing what she believes Christ commanded.
At the wedding at Cana, at the request of His Mother, Jesus turned water into wine. Do you have an issue with Jesus for "sanctioning" alcohol consumption?
What "pagan rituals" has the church absorbed over the centuries? Can you give me an example? Certainly there would be none that would have to do with the Sacraments or essentials of the faith. Christmas trees may have been pagan, and that is a custom that some have adopted, but they are not part of the faith, if that's the type of thing you're referring to.
Abuse of alcohol, food, tobacco, and sex to name a few, bring much suffering to humanity. But should the Church forbid them or set arbitrary limits?
An alcoholic needs help and can't drink in moderation. But should his problem of addiction prevent me from enjoying a glass of wine after dinner?
I have a serious problem when it comes to sweets, and they are extremely addictive to me. Many times I have sworn off them, and then later I figure I could start over "in moderation" and have a candy bar or cake once a week. But it doesn't take long for it to then be twice a week, then every day, then two or three candy bars a day, then bags of cookies being consumed weekly, and soon I am feeling horrible. And now that I'm in middle age could be in danger of diabetes and other disease, so I have once again sworn off, and intend to continue to remain that way the rest of my life. I don't know exactly where the line is regarding "moderation" of sweets, I just know that I cross way beyond it, and I think the alcoholic knows that too, or those around him should know it. But my problem with sweets should not be a reason for our parish to not "sanction" desserts at our picnics, etc. My problem shouldn't be a reason for others to be denied what they can enjoy in moderation.
Same thing with cigars or beer.
The Church uses bread and wine because Jesus commanded it. It's nothing more than that.
Abuse of alcohol is a serious sin, and the Church never encourages sin.
This subject is far too personal to be discussed online and you really don't want any more of me, or my opinions, on this subject.
Let's make a deal. I promise to stop disparaging the Catholics provided that you promise to stop disparaging Protestants. How's that sound?

reply from: B0zo

You are free to discuss or not discuss, but you've made assertions that are gross errors and distortions, and I think you ought to at least back them up with something substantial or withdraw them.
Further, I have nothing against Protestants, and do not disparage them. I would be happy to discuss differences with Protestants in a civil and charitible manner, though I would not hesitate to point out what I perceive to be errors in some Protestant thinking, but I don't "disparage" them. I honor and respect their desire to God's will as they think is best. Many non-Catholic Christians are wonderful people who from the Catholic perspective are better Catholics than Catholics (that's intended to be a compliment).
I am perfectly happy to consider your criticisms of Catholicism. But what you have posted thus far is not accurate or credible. Communion is not distributed in "glasses of wine." It is not distributed to non-Catholics, so I don't understand why you were in a Catholic Church receiving Communion, and there is absolutely no encouragements to convert to Catholicism because of alcohol.
And we have not adopted "pagan rituals" over the centuries. If you think we have, then what are they? Don't just leave us hanging like that. (And note that not all that is Pagan is wrong. Pagans too can be people of goodwill, believing as they do in good faith and with a desire to do good with whatever belief system they have).

reply from: faithman

SSSSSOOOOO you can't have "guests" at a KC hall?

reply from: B0zo

SSSSSOOOOO you can't have "guests" at a KC hall?
I suppose guests are allowed, but nobody converts to Catholicism there.

reply from: Shenanigans

The closest I have ever seen to the Precious Blood being distrubuted in glasses [plural] was when there was a really large service which required multiple minsters of the Eucharist in different parts of teh church, but no Catholic Church I've ever been in, and I've been in a LOT have ever given individuals individual glasses. I mean, really, it'd not only be a waste of time and money, it'd be a logistical nightmare.
So unless you were in some sort of culty version, Lefty, I can't see it happening.
And long and short of it, why do people always think we're makign "disparaging" remarks about Protestants when all we're doing is answering the gross criticisms against the Catholic Church.
Is it just me, or are Americans just really sensitive about these things? Someone makes a truthful comment and its suddenly "disparaging"?

reply from: Shenanigans

SSSSSOOOOO you can't have "guests" at a KC hall?
I suppose guests are allowed, but nobody converts to Catholicism there.
It is my understanding, if this thread is anythign to go by, that a lot of people don't know sh1t about the Catholic church, despite their assertations to the positive.
And we have Knights of the Southern Cross down here, it's like any club or organisation, members can bring guests, but the only place anyone 'converts' is in a Catholic Church at an Easter service, after about a year of RICA training.

reply from: B0zo

Just look at the topic of this thread.
At any rate, if someone wants to criticize our faith, I don't see why they see the need, but if they do, then they should use facts, and not just feelings and gossip.
I don't like to use the word "Protestant," since it seems to me to be a negative label. And what would they be protesting? Besides, there is no such thing as THE Protestant Church or Protestant dogma. There are thousands of non-Catholic Christian denominations that have differing interpretations of scripture and have different doctrines.
I say good for those people who are striving to be good, do good, be kind to their neighbors, and make it to Heaven, whatever their denomination or faith. I would not say they are in the ABC Church for the booze, unless I have proof.

reply from: B0zo

He meant indivual glasses of wine, which never happens. Each "cup minister" distributes the Precious Blood to those in the communion line, and they only take one sip and give the cup back, so I don't see the problem with the alcohol content for such a measly amount, and children can be restricted by their parents.
Personally, I don't like drinking from the cup, with all the flus and colds going around, and I wish it were as LN said, in individual glasses. We suspended use of the cup for some time at our parish during the last flu scare.
But I also wonder why he would claim to be receiving Communion in a Catholic Church. They can't knowingly give Communion to a non-Catholic.
Maybe he was referring to glasses of wine at a Catholic wedding reception?
At any rate, I would appreciate if he would clarify this, and it not be a hit-and-run job.

reply from: Shenanigans

Yeah, my mum says the same thing about the word Protestant, so I dont' use it in polite conversation, but I've found that it seems an acceptable term online, and a lot of Christians I've met are happy to use the label .
Plus honestly, its easier to type out that "non-Catholic Christians". heheh.

reply from: Shenanigans

I figured he meant like shot glasses or something.
Well, personally, I'm of the mind that its been consecrated, so, if I truly believe its the blood of Christ and is meant to act as a spiritual food and drink, then no amount of bacteria or viruses or cyanide floating in it is goign to harm me.
Though, when I said this to a nun she said "Wish I had your faith, but i wouldn't want to try it out".
Well, there's no way for most minsters to know that the person on teh receiving end is non-Catholic, but I'd thought that most non-Catholic Christians would be of the understanding that Catholic communion is not the same as non-Catholic Christian communion and to par take of it is a grevious sin and just plain rude.
I've been to both Catholic and non-Catholic weddings, and beleive you me, the grog levels were the same.
And I dont' understand this sometimes non-Catholic Christian anti-grog stance. Jesus drank. Sure, He didn't get pissed on the stuff, but a sip of wine at Mass isnt' going to tank anyone.

reply from: B0zo

So long as you receive the host, you are receiving both the Body and Blood of Christ, which is not divided between the bread and wine, but is entirely present in both (as you probably already know).
But even though my faith tells me the wine is now the Body and Blood of Christ, it does not mean that the spittle that enters it from the people in front of me is also that, and I can still get sick from their germs.
I wanted to be a Eucharistic Minister (or more properly called Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist) at one time, but one of the duties was to drink what is left in the cup, and I didn't like the idea of drinking it after 100 people drank from it.

reply from: Banned Member

OK B0z.. if you really want to know.. then all you have to do is copy and paste this phrase.. (pagan beliefs catholicism).. into Google and press enter. Hundreds of references on the subject come up. How in the world could you not be aware of the history of cultural absorption that the Catholic church has practiced since it's inception. When missionaries witness in a foreign land they often would blend Christianity into the cultural practices already being practiced as a means to ease the transition from their old ways to the new ways of Christianity. I can't believe you are making me explain this to you. I suspect that you are yanking my chain.
Whether wine is offered up by chalice or shot glass is irrelevant to the discussion. Do you deny that minors are allowed to participate in the consumption of watered down wine with some alcohol content?
Consider this. The problem of alcoholism was not as rampant back in the days when Jesus walked, as it is today. This was due to the crushing poverty that typified ancient times, which precluded most common peoples from being able to afford to buy enough wine to consume on a daily basis. It was a relative luxury. Jesus choose wine because of it's color and availability. Wine was available throughout most of the ancient world due to the convenient fact that even just a small amount of alcohol present in grape juice acts as a preservative and will prevent it from spoiling. This enabled our ancestors to store it in sufficient quantities to last throughout the off season. No refrigeration.. = no grape juice, Of course, canning principles had not yet been perfected either.
The time for alcohol being served in church is past and prudent steps should be taken by all faiths to switch to grape juice or colored water. Wine has nothing whatsoever to do with the symbolism and is no longer necessary to support the practice of taking communion.
You are still intentionally ignoring the central point to my initial post concerning the lack of wisdom inherent in the practice of suppling alcohol, in any form, in public, to minors, as a part of a seriously solemn ritual.
When you demand that the conversation be only about the certain narrowly focused points that you feel are relevant, then you begin to remind me of my true opponents in this forum. Can you stop feeling indignant long enough to discuss the cultural problem of sipping alcohol laden wine in the modern day church, or are you still too torqued off to indulge me?

reply from: Spinwubby

Wait - If Baptists don't drink alcohol, then how do you explain the actions by the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church?
They behave that way SOBER?

reply from: Banned Member

No one said Baptists don't drink alcohol. We just don't feed it to our children.

reply from: B0zo

I think it's relevant to ask the specifis about "glasses of wine" you were given at Catholic services.
Especially since I have never heard of such a thing, and especially since non-Catholics are not to participate in Holy Communion, though ignorance would be an excuse.
Why can't you supply the details about this, especially since you claim it happened more than once?
OK, then all you have to do is copy an paste the phrase "rebuttals to ridculous lies and distortions about Catholocism" and read everything that comes up, and that settles it, and the case is closed, right?
But what were your reasons for saying pagan beliefs were introduded into Catholicism? What were they before you did the google search? And because they come up in a google search it doesn't mean they are valid. You're expecting me to research your assertion? No..that's your job. You should back up what you say with something specific. I don't intend to wade through all the anti-Catholic websites and read the sungod bs and all the rest I've seen over and over. If you know about pagan rituals and beliefs that were added to Catholicism, it should be an easy matter to explain at least one of them, especially one that was on your mind when you made the post.
It most certainly does matter. It is not a Catholic practice to distribute the wine/Precious Blood in individual glasses, as you claimed you received, implying a large serving is distributed. And according to your post, this happened more than one time, so please explain further. Is it possible you are mistaken and that it did not happen in a Catholic church?
And I do not deny that minors may receive of the chalice, and that there is alcohol content in their sip of wine.
But again, it is just a sip, but you're claiming that "glasses of wine" are received, which I admit, would be a lot, especially for a minor, but that's not what happens, which is why I persist in asking you to clarify this.
This is pure opinion based on appears to be a fear of alcoholism. If you have been an alcoholic or lived in a family with alcoholism, I'm sorry. It must have been horrible, if that's the case. But I think you are way overreacting to a ritual that involves a SIP of wine.
And it is not required that anyone partake of the chalice. I don't do it myself, and many others refrain, though not usually because of alcohol content but because of santiary reasons. Certainly those who have alcohol problems should. And if I didn't want my children to drink from the cup, I could prevent them.
But you keep saying that alcohol is "served" in church, and that ain't so. You are giving the impression that a significant quantity is being consumed, and that is not the case.
I don't demand the conversation be only about certain narrowly focused points, but I am being perfectly reasonable to ask you to followup with the details about the glasses of wine, and also about pagan rituals/beliefs that have been introduced. I'm not asking too much for you to be specific about that.
I do not see any problem whatsover with a sip of wine/Precious Blood once a week at Mass. We're dwelling so much on the miniscule amount of alcohol, and forgetting that we are receiving the resurrected Body and Blood of Jesus Himself. Now if you can't buy that, I would understand, and that would seem to be a much better reason to reject Cathlocism.
I have heard that there are some priests who have alcohol problems and who by special permission may use non-alcoholic wine, but I don't know much about it. Priests often have to consume more than just one sip, and might do two or three Masses on a Sunday, and often daily Mass too. You might say that since they could do it for those priests, why not do it for all, and my thinking is that it would send the message that wine could not be enjoyed in moderation. But I would have no problem if that's what they wanted to do--I just don't see a need for it.
Lastly, you said that alcohol was some kind of "perk" to draw converts.
With no intent to be rude, that is about the most ridiculous accusations against the Church that I have ever heard, and I thought I heard them all.
To become a Catholic often means much in the way of self denial and it's not an easy road. One must not practice sex outside of marriage, including solitary sex, must not use any form of contraception within marriage, of course must not abort any pregnancy or encourage abortion, must attend Mass weekly and on Holy days of obligation, must financially support their parish, and if you screw up, which most of us do, must go to Confession, and though it's a beautiful sacrament, it's not an easy thing to do sometimes to make yourself confess a sin to a priest.
If I wanted to drink, I would just drink, and avoid all the other constraints and live it up. But that's not why people become Catholic. They do so because they believe that it is the one Church Jesus founded on Peter, and feel compelled to be a part of it. Never ever is anyone enticed by alcohol or anything else. For the most part becoming Catholic means turning one's back on a pet sin or some form of sacrifce. Of course much is gained in exchange, and the goal is Eternal Life and Eternal Happiness--not a six pack.

reply from: B0zo

If mothers fed their children a thimble full of milk once a week, I wouldn't call it "feeding" them, but starving them.
You don't seem to believe or don't seem to have any concept of how different a "sip" is from drinking an entire cup, and don't seem to appreciate the difference between a profound ritual and recreational imbibing.

reply from: Shenanigans

I never thought of it that way. But my immune system is pretty agressive, its been known to attack stray dogs so I'm not worried by some old nana's spit.
As it stands, when I made my first Communion they only had the host available, so while I know that the host is both, I still feel like I"m not supposed to be taking the Blood, despite it being completly silly of me to think so.
Yeah, I was a Eucharistic minster for my school and we didn't have the Blood at our services, but our nun who put us through the training was also in attendance at my Parish, so she'd call on me when we were short. And yeah, drinking what's left after 300 people is a bit dicey. But usually there wasn't anything left!

reply from: Shenanigans

You talk like that's a bad thing. Yeah, there are some habits that are boarderline, but the love for Christ in some of those countries is far stronger than what Westerners sitting in their air conditioned pews on Sunday have. There's a lot of Maori traditions in the NZL Catholic Church, they don't belittle the message of the Catholic church, they simply make it easier for a different culture to understand.
As for minors and alcohol, you better not go to France. (And its one sip, not a glug. If any Catholic parent is concerned with their 7 year old becoming an alchie at the promise of one sip of a watered down wine, then I'd say they've got other issues than the faith.

reply from: B0zo

Can you give some examples of what they do? It's one thing to allow for the liturgy to reflect the culture, but the essentials of the Mass would be the same.
For example, in the western Church using drums is not usually acceptable, but in an African Catholic Church it would be, and actually strengthens the message, since it means that the king is coming.
My issue is not with the idea that the Church allows some of the culture to prevail, but that we have adopted pagan rituals, which we have not done, at least as far as the essentials of our faith and the Holy Mass. Unless he's referring to having a Christmas tree, which could have pagan origins, I'd like some examples of what he means below.

reply from: Shenanigans

Well at the church I go to, after the priest says "This is my body.... blood..." a woman sings in Maori "come Lord Jesus" and the community responds "welcome Lord Jesus".
I've been in Pacific Island churches in NZL and they use teh drums and tamborines.
Occasionally, we have entire Masses in Maori. There was a Maori Girls' Catholic secondary school near where I lived and their chapel was designed with a Maori motiff, so a Maori madonna (which is truly beautiful but hard to come by). They also had a carved altar. A lot of Churches in NZL have Maori images or art works.
Hakas have even been done in Masses, and a Haka is traditionally a war dance or a performance showing great respect.
And really, if people are goign to get their panties in a bunch over the Catholic Church's adoption of pagan rituals, then they better not celebrate Christmas on 25th Dec, or have Easter Eggs or bunnies.

reply from: Banned Member

You talk like that's a bad thing. Yeah, there are some habits that are boarderline, but the love for Christ in some of those countries is far stronger than what Westerners sitting in their air conditioned pews on Sunday have. There's a lot of Maori traditions in the NZL Catholic Church, they don't belittle the message of the Catholic church, they simply make it easier for a different culture to understand.
As for minors and alcohol, you better not go to France. (And its one sip, not a glug. If any Catholic parent is concerned with their 7 year old becoming an alchie at the promise of one sip of a watered down wine, then I'd say they've got other issues than the faith.
I never said it was a bad thing.. I merely mentioned the fact and B0zo went berserk. We'll have to disagree on the necessity of offering up alcohol in church. You guys want alcohol in your church and that is that. B0zo wants an explanation of how I happened to (accidentally on purpose) receive communion in a Catholic church, but due to his exaggerations and demanding attitude, I am not inclined to oblige him and let him call me a liar. You speak of overly sensitive Americans and I have to agree with you.
All the things we've talked about during this rhubarb are nothing compared to the one biggest and most disappointing development that the Vatican itself is responsible for. I am referring to, of course, the scandalous and rampant child molestation debacle. Never has the Christian faith, (Catholics and Protestants alike), suffered such a blow to our integrity. Just when secularism is making huge leaps forward in America and just when the peoples of Earth are in the time of greatest need of moral guidance, this calamity occurs. Oh.. great.
This is what I've read concerning why this situation ever occurred in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong. The Vatican's decision to forbid Priests from marrying and requiring that they remain celibate, was due to their reaction to some real estate property disputes. Apparently, back in the old days, any Church that a Priest might build became his personal property and was solely financed by contributions from the very flock that he had personally gathered. Upon the passing of some of these holy men, more than a few of the Priest's wifes were claiming property rights to the Church buildings and grounds. This was because they felt, and rightly so, that they had worked very hard all their lives to this purpose and therefore deserved to benefit from the fruits of her's and her husband's legally acquired, and owned, estate. When local laws came down on the side of the Priest's wifes the Vatican instituted the current new policy of celibacy and perpetual bachelorhood as well as instituting a new policy of Vatican ownership to all new Churches built. This was done as a means to insure that a congregation would be able to have a church to go to as opposed to being left church-less if and when a Priest's wife should decide to sell off some or all of the property rights.
This turned out to be a very effective solution indeed. Except, as is the case with most decisions, there were unintended and unanticipated consequences. It turns out that more than a few homosexual pedophiles recognized the opportunity to live a life of leisure and power and have a built in excuse for not being interested in women, simply by entering the priesthood. This gave them access to loads of young, fresh and easily manipulated children. God Damn It To Hell.
If you don't agree with this little essay then you can chose to ignore it.. or you can choose to learn more about it. Either way, nothing will change the status quo and the stupid idea of celibate and unmarried Priests will perpetuate and lead to more of the same results it is currently rendering. Pedophiles don't stop being pedophiles for nobody or nothing. Thanks Vatican.

reply from: B0zo

I have been asking about the "glasses of wine," and you have refused to indulge me. What is so hard about explaining that situation?
I'm not "exaggerating" and I'm not "demanding." If you can provide the details, then I could understand why you would have a problem with a child receiving alcohol in church, if you have somehow come to the conclusion that entire glasses of wine are consumed.

reply from: B0zo

Regarding priestly celibacy--contemplate the words of St. Paul:
Thorough history and explanation of clerical celibacy:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

reply from: joueravecfous

The origin matters little and the policy has already been changed once. Left's very valid and commonly accepted point (outside of your church, of course) is that the priesthood has been and become even more of a haven for homosexual pedophiles. The celibacy issue is related through association and appearance. It's also tied into the punitive teachings about sexuality and sin and how unhealthy such biological repression has been proven.
We fully understand how you have to toe the party line and all that, but there is no defense and every reason for the policy to be revised given the massive damage caused. "The Church is this and The Church is that" only get you so far when its representatives and authority are not only morally bankrupt while preaching piety, but criminally complicit and repsonsible for the loss of what credibility and respect they had left.

reply from: B0zo

There are very practical reasons for celibacy, but more importantly spiritual reasons.
Celibacy did not cause the scandals in our Church. That was caused by "free thinking" and giving into cultural pressures and not screening out undesirable applicants. Of course this was magnified by coverups. It's a horrible scandal, but celibacy was not the cause of it.
And we are focusing on a small point in time and a small group of men, compared to 2,000 years of church history, and thousands and thousands of priests. It's sad for the majority of good priests who do keep their vows and who make the sacrifice to serve their parishioners and the Church.

reply from: B0zo

There are people in the secular world who are voluntarily celibate for a variety of reasons, "punity teachings about sexuality," not being one of them. Do they need to have sexual relations to be healthy?

reply from: B0zo

PS Wouldn't abortion and contraception be the ultimate in "biological repression"?

reply from: B0zo

PPS Is Tiger Woods' therapy for sexual addiction a form of "biological repression"?
It seems to me that Tiger was just practicing "biological freedom" to the fullest.

reply from: joueravecfous

You don't see how choosing to be celibate (and it's usually a temporary, not a lifelong one) is different from agreeing to follow a rule? How many people who are celibate actually WANT to be? How many are engaging in masturbation to satisfy their desire? Church ordered celibacy is a discipline, not dogma and any practical reasons have ceased to exist. A man who wants to be a priest is still and always will be a man first and to deny his sexuality is absolutely punitive and unhealthy.
p.s. The biological repression to which I was referring was sexual, but I'm sure you knew that.

reply from: B0zo

You don't see how choosing to be celibate (and it's usually a temporary, not a lifelong one) is different from agreeing to follow a rule? How many people who are celibate actually WANT to be? How many are engaging in masturbation to satisfy their desire? Church ordered celibacy is a discipline, not dogma and any practical reasons have ceased to exist. A man who wants to be a priest is still and always will be a man first and to deny his sexuality is absolutely punitive and unhealthy.
p.s. The biological repression to which I was referring was sexual, but I'm sure you knew that.
Most people who choose the priesthood WANT to be celibate, likewise with religious orders involving nuns and brothers. There are BENEFITS to being celibate.
And those who are following the "rules," CHOOSE to do so.
I was celibate until I was 24, not because I wanted to be, but because I hadn't found anyone, and didn't masturbate either. I don't think I'm unique. If someone is in the habit and practice of not "getting off," then those desires and needs are not so strong. I was then married and had a very abundant sexual life for over 20 years. (And note that there were times I had attractions and temptations regarding other women, but didn't give into them. Was remaining faithful "biological repression"?) Then, because of an illness situation, and the possibilty of pregnancy being a danger, and because as practicing Catholics we desired to obey all the "rules," I was forced into celibacy. I didn't like it at first, but after seven years of it, have grown accustomed to it, and it's not so hard as I would have thought, no pun intended.
Choosing to not have sexual relations is not "repression" anymore than for Tiger Woods to have been faithful would have been "repression."
At any rate, the lifestyle of celibacy is chosen, and the purpose is to be able to serve God more fully.
Everyone is so cynical about this--fellow Christians as well. It's for GOOD reasons, regardless of those who have failed.

reply from: B0zo

Yes I did know that, but it's funny that denying oneself the pleasure of participating in the reproductive act is "bad bioligical repression," but making an effort to prevent successful reproduction is "good biological repression," as is terminating a biological success.

reply from: joueravecfous

The ages of rape, homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships and children born to those unions belie that claim. I don't believe at all that most people who choose it want to be celibate. They may agree to it, but many do not stay that way. The church authority is the one ordering the repression. They are insisting that being a priest is only possible if one turns off or denies their sexuality and it is simply impossible for many. Many younger priests are not virgins prior to entering the seminary and for them to agree to the restraint is problematic. There is simply no necessity for it and to insist that a priest can only be closest to god that way is grounded in papal control and the perpetuation of sex as sin concepts.

reply from: B0zo

The ages of rape, homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships and children born to those unions belie that claim. I don't believe at all that most people who choose it want to be celibate. They may agree to it, but many do not stay that way. The church authority is the one ordering the repression. They are insisting that being a priest is only possible if one turns off or denies their sexuality and it is simply impossible for many. Many younger priests are not virgins prior to entering the seminary and for them to agree to the restraint is problematic. There is simply no necessity for it and to insist that a priest can only be closest to god that way is grounded in papal control and the perpetuation of sex as sin concepts.
Then you are ignoring all those men who practice celibacy and sing its praises. Have you ever met priests or spent much time attending Mass or seeing priests in action? Do you think they are all like the few you hear about in the news?
And how do you know that "many" do not stay celibate and what is your definition for "many"? What are your statistics and your source?
Priests do not "deny" their sexuality. They deny themselves the practice of sex, as should ALL the faithful who are not married.
Priestly celibacy is a discipline and not dogma, and could be changed. But that's the way it is now, and nobody has to be a priest who doesn't want to be one.
But let's get back to biology for a moment. You accept only part of the biological process of sexuality, and repress the rest of it, which magnifies the importance of the sexual urge part of the equation, and turns the reproductive act into one of mutual masturbation, similar to the person who eats all day, but vomits it up to prevent getting fat.
The natural result of this biological act are offspring, but they are not wanted, since they would interefere with the process of enjoying only one aspect of the reproductive act.
Is it possible that those who cannot perceive the beauty of celibacy have inordinate sexual appetites due to a distorted and one-sided approach to reproductive act?
And is it possible there is more to human sexuality than just "biology"?

reply from: B0zo

Addressing the sex abuse scandal from a Catholic perspective to Catholics:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea2.asp

reply from: Banned Member

When I read your harping over this, I can feel the life force draining from me. You can be one very tedious clown.
Here's what you've been waiting for. I once attended Mass with my Aunts, Uncles and cousins. They offered me the cup (mistakenly) and I willingly accepted it even though I was fully aware that I wasn't supposed to. Ooo.. what a bad boy I am. It was a long time ago and I miss-remembered the glass part, probably due to the fact that we baptists always receive (grape juice) communion in a small individual glass. This is our solution to the whole germ phobia issue. It is only your obsession with the contrived notion that I implied that entire glasses of wine were being handed out that is bothering you. It's all between your ears.
Now, if that ain't good enough for you then I am going to have to conclude that you are merely using this irrelevant and ridiculous sticking point in your thinking as a means of diverting this conversation away from the real point, which is.. the sanctioning of the consumption of alcohol in church. It doesn't matter if it's one drop or a flippin' barrel of alcohol, the point is obvious, and if you didn't have your underwear in such a bunch, you'd be able to stop feinting with falsehoods and being so disingenuous with me.

reply from: B0zo

When I read your harping over this, I can feel the life force draining from me. You can be one very tedious clown.
Here's what you've been waiting for. I once attended Mass with my Aunts, Uncles and cousins. They offered me the cup (mistakenly) and I willingly accepted it even though I was fully aware that I wasn't supposed to. Ooo.. what a bad boy I am. It was a long time ago and I miss-remembered the glass part, probably due to the fact that we baptists always receive (grape juice) communion in a small individual glass. This is our solution to the whole germ phobia issue. It is only your obsession with the contrived notion that I implied that entire glasses of wine were being handed out that is bothering you. It's all between your ears.
Now, if that ain't good enough for you then I am going to have to conclude that you are merely using this irrelevant and ridiculous sticking point in your thinking as a means of diverting this conversation away from the real point, which is.. the sanctioning of the consumption of alcohol in church. It doesn't matter if it's one drop or a flippin' barrel of alcohol, the point is obvious, and if you didn't have your underwear in such a bunch, you'd be able to stop feinting with falsehoods and being so disingenuous with me.
Your explanation makes perfect sence.
Thank you.
Back to your point--you are missing the point of what Holy Communion is. It is not about "alchohol" but about Christ. What is being "sacntioned" is the sacramental reception of the Body of Christ. The alchohol is incidental.

reply from: Banned Member

Thorough history and explanation of clerical celibacy:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm
Avoidance behavior. This bears no relevance to the causal factors regarding homosexual pedophilia and the Catholic church. Perhaps you should start a celibacy thread as a means to gaining relevance.

reply from: Banned Member

Continued avoidance behavior. This bears no relevance to the causal factors regarding homosexual pedophilia and the Catholic church. Perhaps you should start a celibacy thread as a means to gaining relevance.

reply from: Banned Member

There are people in the secular world who are voluntarily celibate for a variety of reasons, "punity teachings about sexuality," not being one of them. Do they need to have sexual relations to be healthy?
Please consult your prostate and get back to us.

reply from: Banned Member

I'm not exactly sure what biological repression is or where you got the term from, but I'm fairly certain that it is not the same thing as sexual repression. You are starting to wander off on us.

reply from: Banned Member

Can you say naiveté? Who knows what lurks in the hearts of men?

reply from: B0zo

You're a cynical man, ln.
Are you that way about all Christians and laity, or just Catholics?

reply from: Banned Member

No surprises from that spin machine think tank. How many abuses were not reported? How many thousands of abused are now dead. How many centuries has this been going on? What is the legacy that the abused have left. According to http://helpguide.org/mental/child_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm "It is true that abused children are more likely to repeat the cycle as adults." Even if all the pedophile priests died today it would be generations before the damage they've caused would dissipate.. if ever.

reply from: Banned Member

I certainly am not missing the point of Holy Communion. You are missing the point that alcohol is no longer necessary in this sacrament. The alcohol is incidental in concentration but not in concept. You don't see the evils of alcohol as I do. I wish more people did. But what's new eh?

reply from: Banned Member

All humans are suspect. History demands it.

reply from: B0zo

I don't know. I think it is a modern phenomenon, and it is not restricted to the celibate or to Catholic clergy.
I think better screening needs to be done. Men with homosexual orientation should not be allowed to be priests, and I think it was a mistake to be so "open minded" and inclusive back in the 60's when most of these men were ordained.
Homosexual predation is not caused by a celibacy. The discipline of celibacy does not lead to disordered behavior.
No less the the Apostle Paul stressed the importance of celibacy for those who want to fully devote themselves to service to the Church.

reply from: B0zo

I certainly am not missing the point of Holy Communion. You are missing the point that alcohol is no longer necessary in this sacrament. The alcohol is incidental in concentration but not in concept. You don't see the evils of alcohol as I do. I wish more people did. But what's new eh?
I see the evil of the misuse and abuse of alcohol.
I actually once believed as you do, and wouldn't drink a drop of anything. I thought the alcohol itself was evil. I would not drink even a beer or a glass of wine on a special occasion or if offered by a friend or relative. I eventually loosed up a little in my late 30's and realized it could be consumed in moderation without abuse, but never really developed a taste for it.
I sense you've experienced alcoholism in your family or in someone close to you. And of course alcholism is horrible, but the alcohol is not evil--the misuse of it is. You have the same abuse with sexuality and food, yet we don't say they are objectively evil.

reply from: Shenanigans

The problem with this the media, they have made quite a bigger mess of this than was needed.
I am by no means excusing it, though I do like the truth to be made known. In persepective, the child abuse committed by those bastards is statistically lower than what is found in teaching, and other Christian sects, not to mention the LDS debacles.
Secondly, most of the cases are decades old, not only was such thigns dealt with differently back then due to lack of understanding of the situation and how to help victims, but most of the priests accused of these acts have been long dead.
I support the truth, but I also support an individual's right to defend themselves, and dead men cant' defend themselves.
The other thing I have noticed, that these "attacks" always happen around Christiaindom's most holiest dates, Christmas and Easter. Already, a month or so after Easter, the drums aren't being banged as loud.
There's a lot of stuff not being mentioned in the media, and quite frankly, if people are going to leave the Church or not become a Christian because of teh media blowing out of porption actions that were committed decades ago, then those people didn't have the faith needed in teh first place.
My parents value education, I was given one heck of a good one, and had access to good teachers and good encylopaedias, my brother's a history major and I'm two papers away from a combined Classics/History BA, I know all about the real estate concerns of the Church.
And while this tradition probably grew out of less than holy ideals, it is a good one to maintain, and honestly, go back and read the link I posted on the first page. It states a good opinion as to why its not good to be a Priest and married, its too big a committement, especially in this day and age.
The reality is, chastidy or refusing priests to marry does not prevent acts of sexual abuse. Plenty of paedophiles and child abusers have been married, if anything, it acts as good cover.
If anything, these acts committed by scum bag priests had more to do with homosexuality then not being able to have a wife.

reply from: Shenanigans

No surprises from that spin machine think tank. How many abuses were not reported? How many thousands of abused are now dead. How many centuries has this been going on? What is the legacy that the abused have left. According to http://helpguide.org/mental/child_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm "It is true that abused children are more likely to repeat the cycle as adults." Even if all the pedophile priests died today it would be generations before the damage they've caused would dissipate.. if ever.
You know what all those paedophile priests have in common? What those priests have in common with a lot of teachers, ministers of other faiths, coaches, et al.?
They're all men.
So, what does that say about teh male gender?
Perhaps we should sit around and attack the Y carriers for a while, God only knows what the legacy of the Y carriers are, all the thousands of children who were abused, what a terrible legacy indeed! And not just kiddies, but women, other men, all sorts...

reply from: Banned Member

No surprises from that spin machine think tank. How many abuses were not reported? How many thousands of abused are now dead. How many centuries has this been going on? What is the legacy that the abused have left. According to http://helpguide.org/mental/child_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm "It is true that abused children are more likely to repeat the cycle as adults." Even if all the pedophile priests died today it would be generations before the damage they've caused would dissipate.. if ever.
You know what all those paedophile priests have in common? What those priests have in common with a lot of teachers, ministers of other faiths, coaches, et al.?
They're all men.
So, what does that say about teh male gender?
Perhaps we should sit around and attack the Y carriers for a while, God only knows what the legacy of the Y carriers are, all the thousands of children who were abused, what a terrible legacy indeed! And not just kiddies, but women, other men, all sorts...
OK, let's talk. Odds are that you shall never know the blessing and burden it is to have copious amounts of testosterone flowing through your veins. It effects your bones, skin, hair, heart, and mostly, the brain. Testosterone in the brain acts as an agent for eroticism as well as violence. This is the blessing burden I mentioned.
The Human brain has a built in libido that is supercharged by testosterone. The small amount of testosterone that women have, comes primarily from the kidneys and even this small amount can have profound effects upon a womans sexual desire as well as hair growth.
But you knew all that. Do I have your sympathy for the burden I am forced to bear as a man? (rolls eyes)
Both men and women can be seen as victims of biology but I'm not complaining.

reply from: FatherMulhaney

Well sure'n ye be knowin" that all sex is not reproductive acts? Ye mentioned mutual masturbation an thot be sex, but not reproductive.
An ye knows we allow the natural family plannin' fer the purpose of gettin' it on without the full risks of conception doncha, son?
Sure'n it be true what ye say, that reproduction is a biological process, but thot's not necessarily a "biological process of sexuality." Ye want to say thot sex should not be set apart from reproduction so as to imply thot others is hypocritical if'n I be readin' ya right, but me thinks ye missed the boat on thot'un.
Thar be no "biological process of sexuality." Sex an' sexuality be two distinct creatures, an' it be only the traditional heterosexual union (vaginal intercourse) thot plays a role in reproduction, and then only some of the time as we allow for sex at infertile times or even between infertile couples. Catholics o'course object to contraception, but feels it's ok to deliberately have sex only dirin' the times when the wife is not ovulating and chances of conception is at the lowest, the object bein' ta have sex strictly fer fun an' avoid pregnancy, rationalizin' the very thing they claim to object to.
Mote, meet beam.

reply from: FatherMulhaney

Not all rapists/pedos are men. If'n ye mean priests, they don't allow women to be priests do they?
There be very few female rapists, thot be true, but thar's good reeson fer thot. Ye can't rape the willin'.

reply from: B0zo

There are people in the secular world who are voluntarily celibate for a variety of reasons, "punity teachings about sexuality," not being one of them. Do they need to have sexual relations to be healthy?
Please consult your prostate and get back to us.
This is the second time you've mentioned the prostate in relation to celibacy or not masturbating.
Do you think the sex act is necessary for bodily health? If no partner is available, do you think making love to oneself is then a necessity?

reply from: Shenanigans

I think you missed my point, Padre.

reply from: Spinwubby

WOW!
Baptists have TONS of sex scandals:
http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm
Many involve children:
http://stopbaptistpredators.org/scandals.html

reply from: Banned Member

There are people in the secular world who are voluntarily celibate for a variety of reasons, "punity teachings about sexuality," not being one of them. Do they need to have sexual relations to be healthy?
Please consult your prostate and get back to us.
This is the second time you've mentioned the prostate in relation to celibacy or not masturbating.
Do you think the sex act is necessary for bodily health? If no partner is available, do you think making love to oneself is then a necessity?
There's a good chance it is.. if you can't find any help. It's funny the way you put it though. Rodney Dangerfield said that he was really scared the first time he had sex, really scared, really scared... he was alone!
There's another old joke; On the way out of the Doctor's office, a man's physician pulls the man's wife aside and explains to her that if she doesn't help in the relieving of her husband's prostate pressure by having sex with him every day, that her husband would not likely live much longer. When the wife gets into the car, her husband asks her what it was that his physician and her were talking about, and she responded; "He was informing me about some very disturbing news,.. you're not going to make it."
An old friend of mine was advised to have frequent orgasm by his physician for the purpose of improving his prostate health and that was nearly 35 years ago. I guess I've always thought that frequent orgasm is necessary for good prostate health.
Google returns mixed results/opinions and doesn't seem to reveal any definitive studies on the subject. (Use it or lose it) seems to be the consensus and the operating principle.

reply from: faithman

Not all rapists/pedos are men. If'n ye mean priests, they don't allow women to be priests do they?
There be very few female rapists, thot be true, but thar's good reeson fer thot. Ye can't rape the willin'.
Then your backwards collar self hasn't paid much attention to the news. Minors do not have the legal right to consent. It is becoming epidemic of female teachers having sexual relations with students. They most assuredly are charged the same as a man doing the same thing. This is what decades of Planned Parenthood sex ed has given us. Not only are they teaching that the big bad wolf ain't so bad, but here's how to "pet" one...

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Oh, puhleeeeeeeeeeeze...
Go to the Army of God site.
They feature John Burt as a "hero" of their movement, even though he's currently serving time for raping a 15-year-old at his home for unwed mothers.
Army of God's comment? They said he should have known that girls that age "cannot keep their mouths shut."
http://www.armyofgod.com/JohnBurt.html

reply from: B0zo

Comments, ln?
You can't pin this one on celibacy.
I blame abuse of children in whatever church on evil, sin, and weakness, and certainly not on a spirtitual devotion, and a higher calling (or so says St. Paul if his words ring true to you) such as celibacy.

reply from: B0zo

So you are an advocate of masturbation for health reasons? For men and women, or men only? (How do you feel about inflatable dolls?)
What should be the frequency of this therapy?
Does your church have anything to say about masturbation?
For a Catholic it is a serious sin. Would forbidding solitary sex be yet another evil of Catholicism?

reply from: Shenanigans

What about beastiality? Maybe a spot of necrophilia? What about porn use, as "auditioning the finger puppets" often goes hand in hand (no pun intended) with porn.
How young does one need to start wanking off in order to ensure proper health maintainance? When a man gets too old to initiate his self loving, should he invest in pharmocological intervention to assist with his wanking?

reply from: B0zo

Can we also assume that Baptist ladies might have a dildo or two in their drawer?
I hope leftnemesis will let us know if his stamp of approval on solitary sex is his own interpretation of Baptist teaching, is contrary to Baptist teaching, or is totally in line with Baptist teaching.

reply from: Shenanigans

http://www.chastity.com/chastity-qa/pornography-etc/masturbation/whats-wrong-with-ma

I found this good little article after i was purusing a Catholic forum.
It really is a disordered and sinful behaviour, I think the acceptance of this action came hand in hand with the non-Catholic Christian acceptance of contraception, which twisted sex from a gift from God that is to be shared to an action where one can use it for their own desires.

reply from: Banned Member

Comments, ln?
You can't pin this one on celibacy.
I blame abuse of children in whatever church on evil, sin, and weakness, and certainly not on a spirtitual devotion, and a higher calling (or so says St. Paul if his words ring true to you) such as celibacy.
I didn't try to pin the Catholic sex abuse scandal on celibacy and I have no idea where you got that from. I was pinning it on the perfect cover certain homosexual pedophiles find by feigning celibacy while pretending to the Priesthood. Are you having trouble concentrating lately?

reply from: B0zo

Okay, my bad.
Sorry for the misinterpretation, but I thought you were linking the two.

reply from: Shenanigans

I know the Pope is infalliable under certain circumstances, but how does the Pope, or anyone for that matter, know someone is a homosexual paedophile pretending to be ceilbate?
Yeah, there were a few Bishops who got the wrong end of the stick and didn't deal with their information correctly, but if someone is gay, there isn't a blood test to confirm their gayness.

reply from: Banned Member

So you are an advocate of masturbation for health reasons? For men and women, or men only? (How do you feel about inflatable dolls?)
What should be the frequency of this therapy?
Does your church have anything to say about masturbation?
For a Catholic it is a serious sin. Would forbidding solitary sex be yet another evil of Catholicism?
So.. when exactly did this turn personal for you B0zo?
I am trying to figure out your angle here, so are you:
A. Interested in my personal sexual behavior?
B. Interested in inflatable dolls?
C. Fascinated by the topic of masturbation in general?
D. Claiming that Catholics don't commit serious sin?
E. Interested in female baptist's dildos or just dildos in general?
F. Attempting to prove your lack of class and couth?
G. Hoping to defame me with this juvenile line of questioning?
H. Thinking you were clever in setting up your little masturbation trap?
I. Setting an example as to how to engage in civil public discourse?
I wonder what your fellow parishioners would think if they were to read the slander and inappropriate filth that you have been adding to this thread. Does your spouse know you talk smack?
What would your Priest say of this vengeful crudeness?
Keep spewing your arrogant hatred clown.. this is the best way for me to get to know you.
You too Kiwi. Don't be afraid to get yourself dirty. It all washes clean in confession.
What a friend we have in Jesus and what strange company he keeps.

reply from: B0zo

This is an interesting angle, but is this the only reason you oppose priestly celibacy (if you do oppose it, that is)?
Better screening processes can weed these people out in the future.

reply from: B0zo

A. Interested in my personal sexual behavior?
Only if you're picking up 20 year old babes.
B. Interested in inflatable dolls?
Yes, please tell me about them.
C. Fascinated by the topic of masturbation in general?
I'm actually revulsed by the idea of it, and prefer not to discuss it, but you've alluded to benefits it provides the prostate.
D. Claiming that Catholics don't commit serious sin?
I know they do.
E. Interested in female baptist's dildos or just dildos in general?
I would be interested to know if you think the use of a dildo is morally wrong.
F. Attempting to prove your lack of class and couth?
I don't have to prove it.
G. Hoping to defame me with this juvenile line of questioning?
I didn't know you had any fame to begin with.
H. Thinking you were clever in setting up your little masturbation trap?
I would be perfectly happy with a straight answer as to whether you believe masturbation is a sin, and what you believe your church has to say about it. I don't see that as a "trap."
I. Setting an example as to how to engage in civil public discourse?
Sometimes I do. Sometimes I fail.

reply from: B0zo

What I got out of the comments in this thread is that you think masturbation is good for one's health (at least for men), and you seemed to show moral approval of it.
Did I misinterpret you? If so, please set me straight.

reply from: Shenanigans

To jump in here:
We are on a pro-life forum. Women come in here and tell us about their abortions, we either jump down their throats if they're unapologetic or we comfort them if they are mourning. (for the most part).
We have had discussions on this forum about shooting abortionists, denying baby's milk from a nursing woman on a desert island, abstience and many others. Is it really that confusing for you that people here would consider your sexual antics?
Subsquently, for a Catholic, masturbation and other disordered sexual actions, for example, the use of inflatable dolls, is a sin. As Christians, Catholics are concerned with the souls of their brothers and sisters and want to save them from sin.
Just as, i would imagine, most pro-life Christians are interested in saving teh souls of abortion minded women.
The recent mischeif should prove that Catholics do commit grevious sins. Something like 27% of women aborting are Catholic (how Catholic remains to be debated).
I for one would like to know the sexual teachings of Baptists and of other non-Catholic Christians, I find it easier to refute the claims of others if I know their opinions. Just like I read pro-abort literature to understand their mindset.
I don't know if Bozo was out to defame you, but you did open yourself up to various lines of questioning with some of yoru statemetns.
Given the differences in Catholic and non-Catholic Christian and non-Christian thinking, it was only natural that a discussion abotu Catholics, paedophiles and sexual deviancy was going to end up on the M word.
How is it, that simply discussing, albeit somewhat heatedily, the differences between the Chrisitan faiths get classed as "vengeful crudeness".
Discussions abotu Catholic teaching often ends up on sexual matters, it seems to be a reflection of society's misunderstanding of Catholic teaching and of society's overt sexualislation.
I think the thread topic title along with who started it should justify any grumbley response from any of us Papists.
I'm not affraid to get myself dirty, as for confession, I think this is another example of non-Catholic misunderstanding. Feel free to ask questions about the sacrament of reconciliation.
The Guy hung out with hookers and tax collectors, and you're surprised at our behaviour?

reply from: B0zo

My admitedly wise-ass question about using inflatable dolls was to make a point.
We might think it's very pervy or strange to use one (or some of us would), but how is it any different than masturbating? It seems like an identical process.

reply from: Banned Member

OK you two.. you want to know what I think eh?
First, I was taught by my Catholic raised Mother that masturbation was wrong and by my health class teacher that masturbation was "self abuse". I've learned from the medical community that not having frequent orgasms is unhealthy and society has taught me that people do whatever they want to do and most people are hiding or lying about some things all the time.
Life has taught me that some things are private and should remain so. This is especially true with matters of sex. Beyond light humor, I am a little trepidatious about discussing sex in mixed company or online and, as I've stated a few times already, would prefer not to. If you were truly interested in the Baptist position on matters of sex, it would be simple enough for you to research and discover the answers you hope to find. I have no obligation or inclination to discuss personal matters of sex with you or anyone else. Whether you chose to to respect my personal boundaries remains to be seen. This is the internet after all.
I recognize the awkward position and demeanor this thread predisposes a papist to.. and have tried to take it easy, but you are a persistent clown and Kiwi knows how to stoke the flames as well.
I have Catholic relatives and friends and hold no ill will against them... except when they fail to hide their true feelings of superiority with statements like, "We practice the original Christian faith," or, "Ours is the only church sanctioned by Christ". This kind of arrogant crap irks me to no end.. but, if you've been paying attention, you already knew that too.
Consider the wisdom of taking the position your particular belief practices are better than someone else's. This, of course, is the root of the whole problem of disunity in the Christian community as well as the rub between the various religions of the world. It represents to me the whole stuck on stupid problem that the human race has been, and always will be, plagued with.
Perhaps we could instead discuss possible solutions to the problems of distrust and animosity between the various Christian belief systems opposed to taking swipes at each other. But that's probably too big of a subject to tackle.

reply from: B0zo

I agree with both your mother and health class teacher. I disagree that those who deny that they masturbate are liars. It's a vice that can be avoided or conquered.
I don't believe there is a need for frequent orgasms, and that this is a case of providing information that some desperately want to hear.
I don't give two hoots about what you do personally. I don't want to know and don't need to know. But you alluded to the idea that orgasms are necessary for health, and I wanted to see how that squared away with your religion. I did not want to know what you personally do or do not do.
I have done some "research" and from what I can find is that Baptists are "neutral" regarding both contraception and masturbation, though I stand corrected if more authoritative information is provided.
Do you realize that the term "papist" is insulting?
I don't think Catholics should make statments like that unless there is a good reason to do so, and should instead celebrate what they have in common with you. But what do they think when you tell them the Catholic Church lures converts with alcohol? Doesn't that irk them just a little?
Consider the fact that on this forum most of us Catholics are just minding our own business and then we get hit with an attack thread such as this one. Did you join the discussion to help us out, or to pile on? It sure seemed like the latter. Then we are forced to expain ourselves and to defend against distortions and misrepresentations, and naturally what we believe about our church will come out as part of the process.
I don't have any problem with the Baptist faith. I haven't taken any swipes at it. I believe they hold their beliefs with the best of intentions and desire to live according to what they believe Jesus taught, and I believe that of all the Christian faiths, and I believe other faiths outside of Christianity also are doing what they perceive to be best to be good and to good to others. I prefer to see the good, and prefer not twist someone's doctrine and practices into something ugly and motivated by evil or selfishness, as is done to us over and over.
Unfortunately, many outside of Catholicism do not feel that way, especially about Catholicism, and the faith is bashed regularly by the secular world, and sadly and too often, by other Christians, such as in this thread. (See the title of this thread and the first few posts if you've forgotten how this started).

reply from: Shenanigans

From my information, there was one study a few years back that suggested that orgasms were useful, one study. And the medical community were slobbering all over it. Yet, how many studies have found that abortion is linked with breast cancer, how many studies found the pill dangerous? Lots. Certainly lots more than how many studies have said wanking off - aokay. So frankly, I think everyone can understand my cyinicism regarding the medical happiness of having a good solid wank.
Subsquently, men have "special dreams" that is sufficent for your man hood's health.
Honestly, I'm not sure if other people are being arrogant brats abotu this, I have seen it in some other young catholics who dont' understand their faith fully.
But really, its not arrogant if its true. If you have info to the contray, please, save our souls and provide it.
Well, preventing threads titled "I know the papist pagans won't read this" might be a good starting point.
Seriously, if you want to see the nastiness of Christian vs. Christian, you just have to go rummaging around the anti-catholic sites.
I'm simply defending myself, my keyway eksent coupled with my cultural influences leads some of my posts, I admit, to look arrogant, its simply my method of stating facts and defending my faith, which, need i remind you all, was attacked first.
This is one of the problems of Protestant vs. Catholic, the majority of Protestants I've met in such debates are more than happy to out and out attack the Catholic faith, but the moment we hit back with logic, reasoning and scriptual defence the Protestants pee their pants and start pouting their little lips and furrowing their little brows adn clenching their little fists and crying for their mummies that teh big mean catholics are beign arrogant again.

reply from: Banned Member

Well.. you sweet talking thing you.
I am left feeling disappointed. A careful re-read of this thread will show how Augustine started this hurtfest with his insult of protestants in which he referred to the KJV as a "Protty" bible. This was the insult that started this little dance between you, B0zo and I, which has left me discouraged by it's fruitless divisiveness.
I am unhappy to report that I've learned something here: When offering up the olive branch of peace, make sure it's a small one.. because your opposition might decide to just thrash you with it.
This has been a game changer for me so you guys keep up the good fight and maybe I see you around. Try to have some fun will you?. I got work to do.

reply from: B0zo

The KJV is not a Catholic Bible. That's a true statement, as well as calling it a Protestant Bible, though I hate to use the word "Protestant."
What was hurtful? His use of the word "protty"? I thought that was a friendly nickname and not an intentional insult, though I don't use it myself.
My main problems were the initial posts saying that Catholics surpress the bible and kill people, and the notion that we offer cocktails as a sales tool to get converts.
This is a hurtfest?
How long have you been on the internet? I've been on boards where I was called a c*ntface, a d*ckhead, and invited to die in fires, crashes and by heart attack. And the people who hated me said even worse things.
I've endured vulgar comments about my children, my religion, and even me own mother.
This thread was fairly civil, except for the first couple posts, but I don't expect any better from that fine fellow.
I don't see that there was any divisiveness.
I didn't previously and do not now harbor any ill will toward you or your religion. I respect the Baptist faith, and Baptists in general, though as far as some of their beliefs about baptism, I respectfully disagree, and think they are all wet.

reply from: Banned Member

Urban Dictionary
1. protty
A derogatory term used by mostly irish people of catholic descent to bash those of protestant descent.
A direct quote from you; "Do you realize that the term "papist" is insulting?"
This is an out and out distortion of the facts. If this were actually said you would have simply quote, cut and pasted it. I'm noticing a trend with you B0z.
And the trend continues. Because you've been lied on and your words twisted by deceivers then this is justification to do the same? Because you perceive the internet as a shallow and hurtful place where anything goes, this is justification to continue the use it that way?
I've noticed whenever I get a leftist up against the wall they play that same old snarky get out of jail free card, "How long have you been on the internet? You think anything up here matters? hahaha... ect." Now you've played it.
I tell you this my friend, the internet is what we make it. It only has the value you bring to it. Personally, I refuse to be something I'm not, so what you see of me is what I really am. I don't play games and I am very serious about whatever it is I'm thinking about and it doesn't change because I'm on the Web, or the phone or standing right next to you.
I think that you are a good person and have generally good intentions but I also perceive that you are being changed by the time you spend with these amoral ideologues. Perhaps you could use a little time away from these damnable fools as a means of regaining some perspective and saving yourself from the cultural drag these haters cast. Personally, I'm getting away from this dust bowl for a while. Cya l8tr.

reply from: Shenanigans

Oh come on Lefty, stop playing the victim and grow a set. Either debate the facts or have a good old fashioned whinge about how nasty we all are to you. If Augustine, Bozo or myself wanted to insult you, I think we'd think up something a little harsher than "protty", its not like there isn't a wide range to choose from.
And seriously, Bozo, someone called you a c*ntface? That sounds like someone was singing you a sweet lullabye compared to some of the forums I've played in.

reply from: B0zo

I think it was a compliment.
You should have seen the insults.

reply from: prochoiceinNY

wow 12 pgs of christin verses christin.
So much for the religon of love!

reply from: Banned Member

you shouldn't be an <a href="http://essay-writer.org/---->essay writer</a> to notice that this event is just well planed political action.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics