The SimTropolis House of Worship

[Meg 368]

Date: 1/14/2006 12:15:57 PM Author: MC6Ash

I'm just curious (I haven't been keeping track of this thread), is this for discussing gd from a christian point of view? or is it a multi-religion thread?

~Ash~

quote>

It's a multi-religion thread, Ash.  Anyone is welcome to talk about their beliefs and experiences but bashing other people's is out of bounds.  General rule of thumb:  be careful of the word you to make sure bashing isn't involved.

[Joesocwork 4]

Date: 1/14/2006 12:15:57 PM Author: MC6Ash

I'm just curious (I haven't been keeping track of this thread), is this for discussing gd from a christian point of view? or is it a multi-religion thread?

~Ash~

Originally Dev meant it to discuss about being teased for being a Christian, but it has evolved to an overall venue to discuss religion.  Hopefully continuing in a safe, nonjudgemental, and inclusionary manner.

[Ma8thew 77]

Date: 1/13/2006 8:12:43 PM
Author: The_Family_Guy

So you don't believe in any of the Bible or any God? Because if you did, then you would stop at nothing to defend His honor and word.

I'm not attacking you, I'm just getting mixed feelings. Either there's God, or there is no God. God has been proven to me. I've looked around, and I've seen no proof of any Shiva, or Muhammad(pbuh), or some other man-made god. Once again, it's not a belief.

quote>
Wow. Check your facts. One of the most important beliefs in Islam is that 'There is only one God and Muhammad is his prothet'. Muhammad(pbuh) is only a man.

[ephorex_77 0]

timotheus: I recall you said in a previous exchange that tradition was as yet uncorrupted before 100AD (or thereabouts). So here is St Ignatius' (50AD- 98-117AD) words on the proper governance of the Church. He actually uses the words 'Catholic Church' in this instance.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

 

Of course, I believe that Calvin was one of the most fiery opponents of letters of any kind by St Ignatius seeing as they shattered his 'doctrines' regarding ecclesiastical governance. However, these letters were written during the time of the Apostles. I believe a number of them (at least one) were living at the time. Surely St Ignatius' letters could not have been corrupted so early in the timeline of the Church??

 

And as to your comments on burning heretics, Calvin did just that with the burning of Michael Servetus. Previously he had said, 'If he comes here and I have any authority, I will never let him (Servetus) leave the place alive.' He also punished the residents of Geneva with excommunication. When denied this power, the instituted a blanket ban of Holy Communion for the residents of the afore-mentioned city and were promptly expelled.

 

Another early Church Father, St Clement of Rome (60-99AD) said regarding the Church and its governance:

 

'Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.'

 

St Clement too, lived in living memory of the Ascension and the Apostles and some might even have been alive then. Do you think his letters too, had been corrupted in so short a period of time?? Barely 30 years had passed since Jesus ascended into Heaven and His Apostles started to spread the word. Do some members here remember what happened in the '70s?? I'm sure they would (provided they'd been born before then). It's quite ridiculous to assume that doctrines had been corrupted (to any extent) in so short a period of time. The same applies to St Ignatius and St Polycarp (of course, you mentioned you had bones to pick with some of St Polycarp's writings).

 

You acknowledge the early Church Fathers' writings, so I'm sure we're on the same wavelength. Read what they say and think about them.

[Meg 368]

Date: 1/14/2006 8:48:42 PM Author: ephorex_77

Do some members here remember what happened in the '70s?? I'm sure they would (provided they'd been born before then).

quote>

I remember the '70s quite well.  Not sure which part you are referring to. 

 

One thing I do remember from back when, relating to an earlier point: a debate about the infallibility of the Catholic Church.  I gave up on that one when I found out about Galileo and the Inquistion.  Last I recall, the church was debating whether or not to admit that they were wrong and Galileo was right, that maybe the earth does indeed revolve around the sun.  I didn't stick around for the outcome of that one.  I was done.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Date: 1/14/2006 11:28:55 AM
Author: zelgadis
Hell seems like the best place to be. It's diverse, multicultural, and well-populated. Shoot, probably even beings from other planets live there. Sounds also like a great place to invest in real estate. All in all, a very good place to be. Well, except for the fire and stuff.
ISF

quote>
Ian, you might be interested in the definition of hell that simply says Hell is the permanent absence of God.

No fire. No brimstone. Just eternal deprivation.

@ephorex_77: Isn't it interesting that St. Ignatus Loyola (a latter saint) should be the founder of the Soceity of Jesus? Do you happen to know if there is a parallel or are the names coincidental?

@Timotheus4: In the 1970's? That's when I finally left the Catholic Church. I really couldn't stomach some of the things that went on in Vatican II.

[timotheus4 39]

Ephorex - as you are debating remnants of an IM conversation in public forum I will send you a private message when I get the time. Maybe I'll even be on MSN.

[Meg 368]

Date: 1/14/2006 9:17:29 PM Author: N_O_Body 

 @Timotheus4:  In the 1970's?  That's when I finally left the Catholic Church.  I really couldn't stomach some of the things that went on in Vatican II.

quote>

 

My parents didn't last until the 70s because they felt the church was backing out of the Vatican II reforms.

 

The way they explained it to me was there are certain conditions under which what happens is supposed to be the inspired word of God.  I forget what the conditions are (the Pope and Cardinals meeting somewhere, doing something) but the Vatican II reforms were written under those conditions so it was supposed to the the inspired word of God.  Then the church basically said oh, never mind, we really didn't mean that and refused to implement key portions of the reforms.  

 

My parents felt that was hypocritical and we left the church.  We (my brother, sister, and I) were told we could still go if we wanted to.  All of us declined.

[The_Family_Guy 2]

Well, what happened to you is common among the church of today (and the 70's). Pulpits are being filled with what John Hagee called (today, in fact) cotton candy preachers, preaching the feel-good philosophies which are leading droves of people into the buring pits of hell. These feel-good philosophies are based on simply living a nice life, free from burden, when in reality, our sins would easily rule our lives.

Because of this, people are less convinced that sinning ticks God off, therefore you end up with corruption to the highest degree. Hagee mentioned several things that arise, including neo-environmentalism, the splitting of denominations into false Christian doctrines, and so forth. There have also been 800+ original ancient manuscripts of the Bible found with nothing different except language and simple words like the.

 

Hagee also spoke of the immenent return of Jesus. People read the paper and watch the news without realizing that the events taking place are nothing more than Revelation! The times that we live in are what John the Revelator saw in his vision; he saw all kinds of modern day weapons, including nuclear ones, as well as people and natural events, not knowing what any of them were of course. With the explosion of technology comes a greater anticipation of a world government (or the new Babylon), as well as a world currency (currently the EU's goal), as well as the philosophy of 666, or the worldwide barcode that people will need to buy food, or starve to death.

 

These things are so obviously, that it amazes me that people aren't getting this!

 

Please consider the churches you are in, and ones you have visited and ask yourself: is this the cotton-candy preaching? Because you need to get out of there quick, and open up that Bible that's been collecting dust and make some connections for yourself.

 

Now, more than ever, people need to start getting into a proper, uncorrupted church with a full Biblical philosophy that teaches them to ask forgiveness for their sin, and keep it off, just like losing weight.

 

 

[Meg 368]

Well, I don't know much about cotton candy preachers.  The services I remember spent a lot of time telling us how we were sinners going to hell.

 

Nor do I understand the concept of a nice life, free from burden.  As I understand it, all of our actions, or inactions, have consequences and we all have responsibilities we have to live up to.  We can't escape it; one way or another, sooner or later, we must resolve our karma.

 

What is the definition of neo-environmentialism and how does it relate to sin? 

 

People have long connected the upcoming years to revelations or Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar predicting the world will end 2012 or several other theories floating around.  Depending on who you listen to, we are either on the brink of new age of enlightenment or the coming the Second Dark Age.  Personally I see more evidence pointing to the latter.

[brancra 1,140]

Whew...when someone asked about the seventies, the first thing that popped into my mind that had anything to do with religion was Jim Jones and his followers down in Guyana. IO know it's sad that that was the first thing I thought of, but...it was. Oh, and there were three popes in 78'.

Speaking of popes, does anyone think Pope Benedict XVI is creepy looking? Shallow, yes, but he scares me somewhat.

 

I myself am a member of the United Church of Christ, a fairly tolerant sect. My family went to the same church for fifteen years until my grandmother died. The church bought her house and tore it down for a parking lot. Needless to say, my family wasn'ty pleased.

 

I think that it's appalling that soem churches are built like stadiums and use fancy lights and singers to draw parishioners in. It just doesn't seem right. I'm thinking of the title of an book when I write this, but what would God say? (Or any other supreme being for that matter.)

 

SkiGeek, I repsect your views. It reminds me of how before WWI, people thought we were on the brink of utopian society. And of course, there have been numerous predictions on the end of the world. I have been inspired to quote some predictions *cited*.

 

 Nostradamus predicted it to be the year 3786 or 3797, depending on which Nostradamus expert you believe. -http://www.didyouknow.org/nostradamus.htm

According to the Mayans the present era began 13^th August 3114 BC and ends on 21st December 2012 AD.  -http://exodus2006.com/6maya.htm

 This is interesting---  Yellowstone and Etna volcanoes - 2010 eruptions -http://exodus2006.com/yellcode.htm

Oh, heck, that whole site is interesting. Filled with catastrophes for the future.

 

Didn't some religious group in the 1840s think the world was going to end at that time, and they're still around today after saying they miscalculated? I almost want to say it's the Seventh-Day Adventists, but forgive me if I'm wrong.

[ephorex_77 0]

Date: 1/15/2006 3:02:46 PM Author: The_Family_Guy

Well, what happened to you is common among the church of today (and the 70's). Pulpits are being filled with what John Hagee called (today, in fact) 'cotton candy preachers,' preaching the feel-good philosophies which are leading droves of people into the buring pits of hell. These 'feel-good' philosophies are based on simply living a nice life, free from burden, when in reality, our sins would easily rule our lives.

Because of this, people are less convinced that sinning ticks God off, therefore you end up with corruption to the highest degree. Hagee mentioned several things that arise, including neo-environmentalism, the splitting of denominations into false Christian doctrines, and so forth. There have also been 800+ original ancient manuscripts of the Bible found with nothing different except language and simple words like 'the'.

Hagee also spoke of the immenent return of Jesus. People read the paper and watch the news without realizing that the events taking place are nothing more than Revelation! The times that we live in are what John the Revelator saw in his vision; he saw all kinds of modern day weapons, including nuclear ones, as well as people and natural events, not knowing what any of them were of course. With the explosion of technology comes a greater anticipation of a world government (or the new Babylon), as well as a world currency (currently the EU's goal), as well as the philosophy of 666, or the worldwide 'barcode' that people will need to buy food, or starve to death.

These things are so obviously, that it amazes me that people aren't getting this!

Please consider the churches you are in, and ones you have visited and ask yourself: 'is this the cotton-candy preaching?' Because you need to get out of there quick, and open up that Bible that's been collecting dust and make some connections for yourself.

Now, more than ever, people need to start getting into a proper, uncorrupted church with a full Biblical philosophy that teaches them to ask forgiveness for their sin, and keep it off, just like losing weight.

Althought I have no idea which denomination you subscribe to hefamilyguy, most of what you say I agree with (including most parts about Revelation). Cotton candy preaching and the 'soft' reforms of Vatican II (which some people believe was a pastoral council, not a dogmatic one, and therefore is not binding) are some of the reasons why people are leaving the Catholic Church in droves.

 

For the Catholic Church, ever since the 1960s when the Vatican II reforms were implemented, every conceivable statistic regarding Church attendance and clergy numbers have declined quite frighteningly. People turn to religion for a sense of direction and balance in ther lives. If dancing, singing in the church and social gatherings are what they seek, then they should look elsewhere.

 

The happy dappy, 'Jesus loves you (no matter what)' message is also quite erroneous. Sin entails punishment, simple as that. If you can't deal with that, then that's your loss. As thefamilyguy said, it's tough love and not refined punishment that God metes out. Religion, most people would agree, is God's (or whichever deity you would prefer) vision for man leading a life.

 

As far as I'm aware, there doesn't exist a religion where they have polls asking the laymen whether or not they would like ceremony so and so or doctrine so and so in that respective religion. God's wishes, and not those of mere man, are implemented. That is what religion is. Religion cannot conform and mould itself into what some men would prefer it to be. Man follows God and not the other way around. If that particular doctrine doesn't sit comfortably with you (even though it's quite reasonable), then tough luck. It's God who decides what's right or wrong and not men.

 

Religion is a guiding path and a light for which men can, and should follow in life. There are so many pitfalls around us. Just saying 'But I'll be good' is certainly not good enough. Otherwise, why else would God have instituted a Church?? He could have just made Bibles fall out of the sky or whispered in everyone's ear 'Just be good, and when your time is up, you're gonna go to Heaven'. He didn't for the obvious reason that this is not what He wishes.

 

Certainly, being good is of paramount importance, but there are things that being good cannot do. Jesus' Grace saves us, but this grace can never be 'earned' through good works or faith alone. He dispenses this Grace through the Church by faith that works in charity (being good/good works). Faith (in this sense, and not 'belief') requires certain things that only the Church is in a position to provide, for instance the Sacramentals. Without faith, works (being good) is dead, just as the body without a soul is dead.

 

EDIT: You had me quite worried I'd missed something there.  I thought you meant the year where three Popes reigned at once, which last happened hundreds of years ago. In 1978, three Popes followed each other in quick succession with John Paul I reigning only 33 days (incidentally, the lifespan of Jesus in years).

 

I also agree with what you've said regarding fancy lights and singers. The Church should be a place to worship God and not to detract from His presence in it. It is His house after all, and silence or minimal noise should be observed.

 

And yes, Pope Benedict XVI looks a little scary. I think it's because of his eyes; they look a tad sunken.

 

I also think it was the Seventh-Day Adventists (or the Jehovah's Witnesses) that did that, but it could've been another one. I can't really be sure. I think they built a stadium or some structure to await His return, but it never happened, so they were forced to repredict, and then again, and then again.

[Zelgadis 638]

Wow, reading many of the comments here makes be glad I don't believe in such things...

One of the big reasons why I am not a Christian is I don't believe in sin. It is an alien concept to me.

I also am uncomfortable with the notion of humans being God's children together with the concept of sin and punishment. If that is so, is he ever going to permit us to grow up? Are we to be just children to him for eternity? I get the sense of a god who cannot trust his creation; a god who is somehow compelled for some reason or another to treat us like infants. I cannot accept that.

I believe that we should and do make our own decisions and live only with the consequences that are a direct result of our actions. I see no reason why it cannot be this way. Human beings are evolved enough for that. Divine punishment is hardly necessary. We're pretty darned good at messing up our own lives all by ourselves.

@N_O_Body: Yes, I am aware that Hell is supposedly the absence of God. However, I was using sarcasm to make a point. Evidentally, nobody noticed.

ISF

[ephorex_77 0]

Date: 1/15/2006 8:18:59 PM Author: zelgadis Wow, reading many of the comments here makes be glad I don't believe in such things... One of the big reasons why I am not a Christian is I don't believe in sin.  It is an alien concept to me. I also am uncomfortable with the notion of humans being 'God's  children' together with the concept of sin and punishment.  If that is so, is he ever going to permit us to grow up?  Are we to be just children to him for eternity?  I get the sense of a god who cannot trust his creation; a god who is somehow compelled for some reason or another to treat us like infants.  I cannot accept that. I believe that we should and do make our own decisions and live only with the consequences that are a direct result of our actions.  I see no reason why it cannot be this way.  Human beings are evolved enough for that.  Divine punishment is hardly necessary.  We're pretty darned good at messing up our own lives all by ourselves. @N_O_Body:  Yes, I am aware that Hell is supposedly the 'absence of God.'  However, I was using sarcasm to make a point.  Evidentally, nobody noticed.  ISF

N_O_Body: Nope, I had no idea. But he was probably named after the earlier St Ignatius though.

 

If there ever is a time when you'll have children zel, I trust punishment would be in order after recalcitrance (recalcitrance is, as you probably know, is repeated defiance) is demonstrated. God already does let us have the free run of the mill when it comes to doing whatever we're doing, hence all the evil and injustices in this world. He respects the freedom that He gave us, as free creatures, BUT He cannot abide by the notion that sin is left unpunished. If one sins too much without thought as to the consequences and makes no attempt to rectify his repeated sinning, then he is doomed forever. The same applies to those who have heard of God, yet defy His power and make no attempt to investigate further as he is morally bound to do.

 

The normal counter to this is that Jesus forgives. Yes, this is so, but He forgives the sin, and not the associated punishment. We still have to pay for our sins committed. It's not as if you're going to let a robber off with your goods (if he's still in a position to pay it back) after you've forgiven the act. God demands punishment for sin; it assuages His honour.

 

I wonder how the concept of sin is alien. Sin is something bad. Something not good. Sinning (the act of committing sin) has consequences. The consequences are determined by God. And yes, it also happens after life as well. The consequences of mankind's sins are manifested in this world (breakdown of the family unit, murder, rape, theft, social degradation etc.) and affects pretty much everyone unless you live on a mythical self-sufficient island. The consequences of sin is also divine punishment which takes place after this life on earth is over.

 

Your apparent indignation as being 'treated as a child' by God and the rejection thereof is lamentable. My parents still lend a helping hand and are there to comfort and console in times of difficulty. They will probably do the same after I become independent. However, God is our Heavenly Father and is much more powerful and loving than our earthly father. He loves us, guides us, helps us. However, like most parents (except for those who abhorr punishment of any sort), He also punishes misdemeanours.

 

Pride is the ultimate sin; our pride at our apparent prowess in all walks of life. We have soared to the highest reaches of the sky and above and dived down to the deepest depths of the ocean. We have gadgets and conveniences of every kind, but yet, we are so small compared to God's power. We cannot dispense of God. If we do, consequences of the highest order are inevitable.

[MrCinatit 30]

i do find one thing rather perplexing - how do you threaten someone with something in which they do not believe? if i do not believe in hell, then saying my punishment will be to go to hell is irrelevent.

[ephorex_77 0]

I'm not threatening zel per se. I'm stating something which I believe, as does almost every Christian.

Surely not many Christians will argue against the fact that there is a hell and that there are punishments. If some do not believe in hell, then I cannot really make them believe so. But my statement is still there as a statement and not a condemnation.

 

It's a little like saying: If you touch fire, it'll hurt. A statement, but one that can be construed as a condemnation of people who like to touch fire.

[Zelgadis 638]

I may adopt a child or two someday. And punishment will be a factor in response to misbehavior. But certainly not after he grows up. Now that I am grown up, my parents are solely a source of love and companionship now and are no longer arbiters of justice. They have done their job and now they may step back. That's what growing up is all about. You'll understand this when you're older. I sure wish God could let us grow up. But he cannot, evidentally, which is one reason why I'm a Shintoist.

Lamentable that I am indignant over being treated like a child? Not for one minute. The god of many religions appears to suffer from a distinct lack of trust in his creation. We are building a society here on this planet. And while it is nowhere near perfect, we're doing a pretty decent job of it. If our civilization is actually incapable of succeeding without the help of a god, then I see no reason for it to continue. Humans would be, in essence, hopelessly defective, I believe.

It is also the idea of a god as a parent that I cannot believe. I tend to believe in gods and spirits as respected teachers educating their respected scholars. Teaching, not punishing. I do not expect you to understand this analogy right now, but if you ever seek a post-graduate degree, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Sin isn't just something bad. I'm not exactly sure what it is, but we wouldn't have a special word for it nor would it be a word used predominantly for religious purposes if it were just something bad. I will not worship any god who demands obedience nor one who employs divine punishment. Such a god, in my opinion, is not worthy of worship, creator or not. It wouldn't be any different if I had an abusive parent. He/she would also not be worthy of mine nor anyone else's love.

Then there is the issue of pride. A certain amount of pride is essential to my existence, not to mention my mental health. I will also not worship any god who will not allow me to have my pride.

However, I'll grant that pride in excess, like so many other things in excess, will have disasterous consequences. Titanic and Challenger are good examples. But again, we paid for those errors in judgment already as a direct result of our actions. No divine judgement necessary.

Also, you said, God demands punishment for sin; it assuages His honour. That is pride.

I'm not unhappy with my choices nor do I believe that any of my choices have been lamentable. I have no need for a god. I do believe that I have my deceased grandfather watching over me. I've met him a couple of times in the past several years. Not directly, but he does have an uncanny way of making his presence known from time to time. He doesn't judge. He doesn't punish. But he's often there at unexpected moments to give a little nudge from time to time. That's all I need. And it is much appreciated.

ISF

[Meg 368]

Date: 1/15/2006 7:51:03 PM Author: ephorex_77

For the Catholic Church, ever since the 1960s when the Vatican II reforms were implemented, every conceivable statistic regarding Church attendance and clergy numbers have declined quite frighteningly.

quote>

While we are talking about that, let

[DuskTrooper 314]

Date: 1/15/2006 10:05:47 PM
Author: zelgadis
I will not worship any god who demands obedience nor one who employs divine punishment. Such a god, in my opinion, is not worthy of worship, creator or not.

quote>


That would be like having a father that loves you, yet, you tell him you hate him, and disobey him. And when you finally realize his love, it is too late.



All I can say is, Maranatha, knaves!

[ephorex_77 0]

ski: The accused are subject to Canon law (Church law) and trialed by an all-clerical court and the usual punishment is defrocking. Civil law deals with the crime separately. The Vatican has also centralised such procedures in recent times. The investigations are subject to secrecy; such a move is nothing new. Excommunication is reserved for certain things, and this is certainly one of them. There are also differing degrees of excommunication, but that's something a little bit of track.

Seeing as you quote wikipedia, allow me to do the same: ' His (Pope Benedict XVI) Good Friday reflections in 2005 were interpreted as strongly condemning and regretting the abuse scandals, which largely put to rest the speculation of indifference.'

 

Of course, clerical scandals are not the sole domain of the Catholic Church, in a manner of speaking. Evil and scandal exists everywhere. It's laughably easy to notice a black spot on a pure white background. Less than 1% of clergy actually engage in this kind of behaviour. It's easy for the media to report this kind of thing; it makes them money. Also, who wants to report the countless virtues the Church performs?? It's boring, so they don't want it. I can, if asked to, provide a whole host of material regarding scandals and sexual abuse by clergy of other faiths, be they rabbis, pastors, etc. I won't now because some details might be too icky.

 

As to your experience, I've already said how there are members of the Church (even members in high places like cardinals and bishops) who are corrupt. That's the harsh reality of this world. Sin permeates every corner of our world.

 

Also bear in mind from history, the Church is like a fluctuating graph. The Church has endured worse scandals before in the past. Jesus chose Judas, the traitor as an Apostle. I'm sure you all know what happened to Judas. Jesus chose him, but respected his freedom to sell himself to the devil. After the Reformation brought about by Luther, God raised up great men and saints to combat the evil corrupting and dividing His Church. St Francis de Sales was one such person. He preached throughout Switzerland where Calvinism was rife at the risk of his life. He was beaten and nearly died on numerous occasions.

 

St Francis de Sales said of scandal: 'While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder (destroying other people's faith in God by their example), those who take scandal - who allow scandals to destroy their faith - are guilty of spiritual suicide.

 

Suicide of the spiritual kind leads to eternal death.

 

Also, just because a priest is awaiting death row for sexual crimes doesn't mean that he cannot perform his duties. He can still provide Holy Communion, the Sacramentals, hear confession etc. Just as Jesus worked through Judas, God can still work through His annointed priest regardless of how sinful the priest is. If this wasn't the case, the Church would be in trouble. God Himself would have to do everything seeing as He is perfect.

 

St Francis of Assisi had an exchange with a fellow brother. The brother said: Brother Francis, what would you do if you knew that a priest celebrating Mass had three concubines on the side? Francis replied, When it came time for Holy Communion, I would go to receive the sacred body of my Lord from the priest's anointed hands.

 

Scandals do not detract from the purity of the Church. Napolean, who famously declared his intent to destroy the Church (Je d

[Meg 368]

Date: 1/16/2006 1:27:28 AM Author: ephorex_77

ski: The accused are subject to Canon law (Church law) and trialed by an all-clerical court and the usual punishment is defrocking. Civil law deals with the crime separately.

quote>

But they weren't defrocked.  They were given another parish and sent back into the population.  and civil law didn't deal with the crime because it was covered up.  It was an ongoing, decades-long policy that allowed the behavior to continue.  By what standard is this okay?

 

and, yes, I know these things happen elsewhere.  That doesn't make it okay for alleged men of God to engage in this kind of behavior.

[ephorex_77 0]

Date: 1/16/2006 1:34:36 AM Author: SkiGeek

Date: 1/16/2006 1:27:28 AM Author: ephorex_77

ski: The accused are subject to Canon law (Church law) and trialed by an all-clerical court and the usual punishment is defrocking. Civil law deals with the crime separately.

quote>

But they weren't defrocked.  They were given another parish and sent back into the population.  and civil law didn't deal with the crime because it was covered up.  It was an ongoing, decades-long policy that allowed the behavior to continue.  By what standard is this okay?

and, yes, I know these things happen elsewhere.  That doesn't make it okay for alleged men of God to engage in this kind of behavior.

quote>

It is not ok. I have never said it's ok. Don't be under the impression that I make light of these grave sins. There are certain members in the Church who would wish for this scandal to continue to happen, tarring the Church, and thus, act accordingly to make sure priests are moved back and forth amongst parishes, and not defrocked, as is usually what is supposed to happen. I'm not denying it doesn't happen. Granted, some member reflect badly on the organisation, but that does not mean that everyone in the Church is engaging in frivolous sexual acts of dubious nature.

 

Currently, the Church takes a dim view of those who would perpetrate this evil. They do not condone it and are taking steps to minimise it and punish the perpetrators. It is not ok for men of God (no doubts there) to engage in this. It shames and angers God and it destroys the Church. How can you condemn or shun 1.1 billion people and their shepherds because of some sinful priests?? They will receive their just reward from God if repentance is not demonstrated. I never said or implied that just because clergy of other faiths do it, so can the Church.

 

What is one to do in this sinful world then?? I'm part of an organisation. I'm sure you are, as is everyone else (bar social recluses and those who reside on mythical self-sufficient islands). Are we to throw our hands up and say, I'm corrupt!!! I kill people, rape them, steal from them etc by proxy because I'm associated with them. Ridiculous. By what standard is tarring everyone with the same brush ok??

[deadwoods 542]

Date: 1/16/2006 1:27:28 AM
Author: ephorex_77
...

Also bear in mind from history, the Church is like a fluctuating graph. The Church has endured worse scandals before in the past. Jesus chose Judas, the traitor as an Apostle. I'm sure you all know what happened to Judas. Jesus chose him, but respected his freedom to sell himself to the devil. ...

quote>

There was an interesting article in the paper the other day regarding this. Apparently the learned bishops in Rome are trying to change the Church's position on Judas. They're trying to get recognition for his act being the key to Jesus' crucifiction. If he hadn't betrayed Jesus, there may not have been a cucifiction and all that followed.

[hello_SC4 1]

Date: 1/15/2006 11:27:35 PM Author: SkiGeek

Date: 1/15/2006 7:51:03 PM Author: ephorex_77

For the Catholic Church, ever since the 1960s when the Vatican II reforms were implemented, every conceivable statistic regarding Church attendance and clergy numbers have declined quite frighteningly.

quote>

While we are talking about that, let

[Zelgadis 638]

Date: 1/16/2006 1:13:38 AM
Author: DuskTrooper

Date: 1/15/2006 10:05:47 PM

Author: zelgadis

I will not worship any god who demands obedience nor one who employs divine punishment. Such a god, in my opinion, is not worthy of worship, creator or not.

quote>

That would be like having a father that loves you, yet, you tell him you hate him, and disobey him. And when you finally realize his love, it is too late.

All I can say is, Maranatha, knaves!

quote>

Actually, that's not at all what it would be like. If I had father who told me that he loved me and yet persisted in demanding absolute obedience from me at my age (29) or else face punishment, I'd never speak to him again. Such a father may indeed love me, but there is nothing in the universe that would make me put up with that.

Y'all will understand that when you're older.

@Ski and Joe: Not easy to have this debate with young-uns, is it?

ISF

[The_Family_Guy 2]

I'm seeing a few major problems here, as I read these great debate points.

Number one, people seem to be set on the fact that the Catholic church is THE church, when in reality, it is often the least of the churches. With corruption, criminalization, and the adulteration of the Bible, the Catholics have some serious reading to do. The Pope, however holy he is, is still nothing more than a human being, whom God loves just as equal as anyone else, including, say, a prostitute, or even a terrorist. Shocker, eh? Well, that's not the point. God's eternal love may be instituted on earth, but His eternal punishment is served in hell. Forever. Just like a father disowning his child, God does the same with his children.

 

The Catholic church is wrapped up in far too much politics and legality; so, as a Christian, I can only sit back and shake my head. For a church that's so old and respected, it sure is immature. Of course, not all Catholic churches are like this, so I digress.

 

Number two: People are forming opinions about God. Since when does God have tolerance for opinion? The Sodomites sure had an opinion about Him. The Babylonians ignored him completely. The Philistines underestimated His power. Israel couldn't stop undermining His authority. All because people thought God was a soft, all-forgiving man, who cotton-candied His words and actions, and everybody would go to heaven...etc... God is who He is, and will never change, even if the entire universe had a different opinion of Him. He does not conform to any church principal or personal ideal. His Word says that clearly. As for the Bible being clouded with politics...I'm not really seeing the connection there. Of course, words have been changed due to translation, but the message has been the same since Jesus died. I discussed the 800+ manuscripts in my above posts.

 

So, in this era of individuality and open-mindedness, the truth is the only opinion to far too many people. There is but one truth! Don't be discouraged by false doctrines, and broken churches; denomination only clouds the facts. Maybe just a few, but a few is too many. The Bible is what it is. There are no changes in the stories between each Bible.

[Meg 368]

Date: 1/16/2006 2:05:07 AM Author: ephorex_77

How can you condemn or shun 1.1 billion people and their shepherds because of some sinful priests??

quote>

whoa! I don

[G4ce 0]

Well, first I must say that I think this by far my favorite thread on this website, so i'd like to thank Dev for starting it and SkiGeek for moderating it.

As for my opinion, well, I'm Hindu by birth, I've gone through Catholic Schooling all my life, and I am now Agnostic.

I chose to be agnostic for many reasons. The main one I see, the main problem with most major religions, is the fact that we personalize God as something humanistic in a way, who cares about humans. In a Universe as massive as ours, can we truly believe we are the only intelligent life there is? And since there must be some sort of life out there, does God care for them any less then He cares for us. In the grand scheme of things, we don't matter, it's a simple, though depressing, fact. All 6 Billion of us could die right now, and not a single creature in this Universe would shed a tear. I think it is brutally egotistical of us as a Species to think that God would spend so much time on one part of his creation when there is so much around us that is equally, if not more, brilliant and magnificiant. We consider life a miracle, and in many aspects it is, but no more a miracle then Gravity, then Matter, then Magnatism. It simply exists, just like all the things stated.

When people ask where God came from, we are told that he has always existed, infinite. But then, why do we need to go to that step. Can we not think of the Universe itself as infinite, or atleast cyclic, always expanding then contracting then expanding again, forever and ever. Do we need to go the extra step to say it came from something.

I guess what I'm saying is that God does not need to exist, and I come back to the fact that is horribly egotistical of us to think he exists and we are his favorite creation. We've only existed for 4 million years, a infinitaley small amount of time when compared to the universe around us, and in a blink of an eye we can be destroyed, just like so many species before us. To me, religion is a phase for humanity, something we will eventually grow out of. It provided us with something that made early humans behave well, it was a tool for law makers to make sure people followed there instructions, or else God would punish them, God was humanity's Boogie Man.

Eventually we will not need our Boogie Man and we will discard it, just like we discard it as a child. I know it seems harsh, but if you look at the cold facts, it seems acceptable too.

 

Simply my opinion though, and yea, it's a bit all over the place, just sort of typed what came to my head. Yet again I would like to say what a great thread this is, can't wait to keep reading the Replies.

 

G4ce

[timotheus4 39]

One note. God is not just like a father. There is really no human analogy to Him, but I suppose we could approximate by saying He loves His people like a father and rules creation like a king.

[ginchael 1]

I've been reading two very interesting fiction books recently, that both offer very interesting theories about religion and its role in the development of the human species.

Evolution by Stephen Baxter is the story of the human race, from the first mammal that survived the impact of a comet 65 million years ago to the last descendants of man at the end of earth. The most fasinating section, however, is about a woman in one of the first tribes of modern man in Africa who single handedly creates the first religion. The book proposes that religion is necessary for the conscious mind to remain sane--if there was a belief of being alone in the universe, or the very highest of thinking (whether that is true or not) the mind would go insane, unable to deal with the emptiness of being alone.

In the Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson is an alternate history where Christianity dies out with the plague of the 1300s, and Islam and Buddhism became the two main ideologies of the world. In it, when China beats the so called Dar al-Islam is a devastating war, some characters begin to discuss why it seems that Islam is on the decline. They look to location and history--the multi-god religions of the East worshipped many gods because they were a farming people in a tropical, fertile area and saw gods for everything needed for farming, like a god for rain and sun and good soil. Meanwhile, the monotheistic religions of the Middle East saw a single god because they were nomadic sheperds, and saw patient one god who overlooks the flock.

Some interesting theories there.