More rare than true faith? I hate to say it, but look at how messed up every religion has become at some point in its history. It's pretty rare.

Pfft, of course... and, yes, Phonics's hook was indeed brilliance. Few realise to this day the close similiarity to a question mark was no mere accident.

(ya know, someone so has to make this comic....)

I didn't say they weren't meaningful, but you said it yourself they are guidance, not rules. Thanks for making my point for me though.

True faith is what caused all those problems. If someone doesn't take their religion too seriousely they won't go kill people in the name of their god.

That's what happens when you have "true faith" to a person - someone uses religion as a way to disguise their feelings of hatred as revelations from or orders sanctioned by God. True faith isn't necessarily the same thing as blind faith.

I'd go out with someone who had no religion (i'm a christian) but it might become a bit too much of a rift if i went out with someone who had a different religion. Depends on the person i guess..

First off, let me say that the vast majority of Catholics (at least the ones that I've had contact with), are not anti-Protestantism, and have no problems with others having different religions. However, many Protestants (my mother's immediate family included), are vehemently anti-Catholic. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but try sometime and see if you find more 'unfriendly' anti-Catholicism than you find 'unfriendly' anti-Protestantism. You may be surprised. I believe that we are all one body under Christ (though some are a little misdirected ;)), but others believe that I'm going to hell for being a Catholic. Who's to judge? Certainly not me.

Before someone jumps down my neck; I am a former Protestant. I was very anti-Catholic..our family had attended an Advent Christian Church, a Presbyterian Church, and we even started our own 'home fellowship', since we didn't agree with everything the other churches were teaching. Then...guess what? We started to disagree with each other. Without an authority in place, it just doesn't work.


Christ told Peter that upon him, He would build His church -- and that it would last forever.


So do I -- what else could explain the multitude of straying denominations?

If you are truly open-minded about the Catholic faith, try reading something from a Catholic source, like Catholic Answers. If you're not willing to listen to my side, it is pointless for me to debate.

As far as the Assumption of Mary goes -- since no Protestants believe it, I have to use Catholic sources. Do you believe that Elijah was taken up to heaven on a chariot of fire, as it is directly stated in the Old Testament? If so, what is so hard to believe about the Assumption of Mary?

You can't rely on the Bible alone. It says so itself.





I thought this was interesting, so I'll toss it out here:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=9621

You have it quite backwards. If people took their faith seriously in the first place, they would know that their religion doesn't condone hate and violence because they would've actually studied it.
There are examples of this in every religion.

I don't think I said you were going to hell. In fact, I know I didn't.

Christ is the head of the church, correct? That's you're figurehead. I don't need middlemen in my way.

You did not establish that this is the Catholic church. Further, it is prophesied several times that the church would fall away. Thirdly, if Christ is to build his church upon Peter, then he formed the foundation of the church, not the finished product.

There are many. But I hardly think they've all strayed.

What's interesting is that it was Catholic sites from which I learned of the Assumption of Mary.

How about the fact that one of the early popes declared ex cathedra that the Assumption of Mary was a heretical teaching (a second confirmed it), and excluded it from the cannon. Now, it's an established doctrine of the church.

Here's a more detailed summary from some reasearch I did a while back:


There you have it.

No. It doesn't. Surely you've seen this verse before:
2 Timothy 3:16-17(RSV) - "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Consider also these verses, which are similarly related to this topic.
Romans 10:17(KJV) - "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Matthew 15:6-9(NIV) - "Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men."

Some translations say "doctrines" instead of "rules." Pretty much the same thing.


That was interesting, indeed. Whoever posted it managed to contradict himself in the first complete sentence.



And what about the thing with Mary being a virgin all her life? I'm still curious if this is doctrine.

Yes I would.
I'm catholic, she's jewish.
Does that matter to me?
No.
Is she dating me?
No.
Why?
Already with someone else.

I could wait...
College won't though


bingo!

You should know this better than most here considering your position. Rules tell you what you can and cannot do. They guide you. Therefore, they provide guidance. I didn't make your point so much as you completely missed mine. Those letters of guidance, by inclusion in the Bible, became rules.

If you have a faith, thats fine, but I would never be able to date someone that is an extremist of a faith, or a born-again (Sorry, its just how I feel about them)

The church doesn't dictate who you can and cannot marry. The church has it's rules but it's your choice to follow them. Remember, religion isn't forced. If you value a relationship more than faith, then by all means find someone who feels the same. My first priority is my faith. I believe that I will be led to the right person at the right time and that neither of us will have to sacrifice our faith to be with each other. In my opinion, that's a quality I couldn't stand in a partner. I want my partner's first priority to be their faith as well. I want to come second.

A rule is not the same as a guideline. A rule is something that is considered wrong to break, a guideline is something that is considered to be generally unwise to break.

There are repercussions for breaking rules, there are none for breaching a guideline (except a warning that you might be getting close to breaking a rule).

What do you mean by born-again? From what I understand that includes every Christian religion. What does it mean to you?

All rules are guidelines, not all guidelines are rules. A guideline is like a lesser rule. There are repurcussions for both. The difference is that with a rule the repurcussion usually comes from somwhere...tangible. For a guideline it's more of a "You'll regret it" repurcussion. You seem to see the latter as not being a repurcussion, however I do.

No, because breaking a guideline can have a beneficial consequence. Like finding someone you really love for example.

I'll use an example from my tournament at the weekend, it was in the tournament guidelines that "we recommend you don't do any laying-out (dives)". The consequences of my ignoring this guideline meant my team did substantially better than we otherwise would have and the only negative consequence was a bit of light bruising. I wouldn't go around telling anyone else that a layout is the best way to win because for many people it wouldn't be a sensible idea, but that doesn't mean it's not a perfectly good option for those who can pull it off safely.

With a rule, it's a case of if everything is as it should be (ie in the case of crime that the police are capable of catching everyone) then there will always be a negative consequence for breaking it. With a guideline it's possible that there could be a positive outcome.

Using your first sentence, breaking a rule about school attendance could also allow you to find someone you love outside of the school environment. Your example of the tournament is exactly what I meant when I said that guidlines are like lesser rules. Like you said, breaking that guideline could result in some bruising (or serious injury apparently) but not hurt your score. If it was a rule, you could get the injury and the point deduction. Both provide negative results, but one is possibly less severe. That doesn't detract from the negative outcome however. By the same token, a law is a more severe rule. It's really just a matter of magnitude when considering the three.

I'm kinda fuzzy on the issue. I know the Bible says to love God with all your heart. But it's not love only God with all your heart. (unless I'm mistaken, but bear with me a moment.) It is, however, worship only God. Note that above, love is being used as a verb. And most likely, the Greek word meant a specific type of love. There are, after all, four words for love. But that's not really relevant to my point, nor have I researched to see what word is used. So I'll put that aside.

So I'll use an analogy, as I usually end up doing. I'll compare this to lifting something. Something small and light requires only an arm to lift, while something heavy requires you to use your arms, legs, back, and everything in-between. Yet you can use these same parts of your body for a different task.

Apply that idea to the various forms of love. Not all love is the same. You may love more than one with all your heart, or love others with some of your heart.

Is it wrong to love another more than you love God? I honestly don't know, because not all love is the same. What's sad is that if I spoke Greek, I could more likely answer that question, because there are different words for different love. But in English, I cannot. So I shall use the word agape (not to be confused with the English word). This refers to a love that is spiritual, and does not include physical love, such as sex. That is the love you should have for God, because it was the love expressed by Jesus.

Honestly, I need to do more research on the forms of love to get a better grasp around it, because this doesn't nearly go deep enough.

Now, my priority of faith vs. relationship is not "one comes first, the other comes second," but more of "if my partner contradicts with my faith, my faith wins out." And this, in a nutshell, is why I'm looking for someone of the same faith as me. Then, I shall not need to concern myself which comes first, because they will already be in alignment with each other.

I hope I didn't bore anyone too much.

I mean born-again christians, those which accept the faith later in life, and the church neglects all that they have done previous in their lives.

They tend to be hyper-religious, and annoying.

MY PRINCIPAL!!!! GRAHHGHHHGHHHH!!

Dogsrool:

The Bible states that the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church -- the church..not any church you happen to find. Also, like it or not, it does say to hold fast to tradition. You pointed out another contradictory verse --- so who are we to decide what it really means? And how do we determine which church? You can't say 'churches in general', since the vast majority of them disagree. Are we predestined or not? Infant baptism or adult baptism? The list goes on...

As far as the figurehead goes..yes, it's Christ's church -- but we can't exactly ask Him directly what something means. That's what I mean by authority.

I know you didn't say I was going to hell, but many believe that Catholics aren't Christian, and so they go to hell.

You keep bringing up more points whenever I say something that's starting to make sense..I honestly don't think I'll be getting anywhere. I'm far from a proficient apologist, and for that I apologize.

Being a christian I dated a jew.. and yeah, wasn't too exciting. *insert 2 cents here*

Yet the church you so defend has not done this - as was given, the Assumption of Mary has changed with popes, the ability for priests to marry, the status of salvation for those outside of the church, as well as (recently) allowing homosexuals into their clergy.

Also, your use of the quote in which Jesus implies that it is upon Peter that the church will be founded can and is also interpreted differently. When Jesus says, "Peter, your name means rock, and it is upon this rock that the church will be founded" (paraphrasing; forgive me), Jesus was implying Himself as being the rock upon which the church is founded.

You seem to be confusing "church" with "temple." I would suggest studying that passage in Greek.
Peter = Petros (masculine form), meaning single rock.
rock = Petra (feminine form), meaning collection of closely "knit" rocks, forming a single body.

Or in other words, the collection of churches who truly hold to the word of God and form the single body of Christ.

The passage does NOT say "You are Peter (Petros), and upon you, Peter(Petros), I will build My church." Christ said "You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church." Which shows plainly that the rock the church was built upon was NOT Peter.

I'll chop that misunderstanding up to the wonderfully crappy English language (for the billionth time).

I might also point out the word "pillar." I don't know of many things supported by only one pillar.

And specific traditions are outlined in the Bible, such as communion. Not the little "extras" added by various churches.
Our "forefathers" in the context of the verse are the apostles, and it's their traditions we are intended to follow.


"Do they follow the Bible, or make up their own stuff?"

That's how.



That's a lie developed by Catholic figureheads to "keep you in your place." Show me any one of the following.
1.) Where Christ set up heirarchy in the church.
2.) Where Peter set up heirarchy in the church.
3.) Where Christ said he would only communicate with figureheads and/or elders/leaders of the church.

You can't. In fact, the Bible illustrates quite the opposite.
I would like to bring to your attention the types of people God spoke with and communicated with in the OT, and the types of people Christ was with in the NT. Was it people with religious position? Or was it more often the common man. Think about that.
Heck, Saul murdered Christians before he actually met Christ, and what happened to the man? He ended up as the apostle Paul. And did the appostles have any special position? No. They were common people. So what of those with position?
You tell me how much God was using the Pharisees.

Such as what? I've already shown evidence that at least one Catholic doctrine is corrupt one way or another, and simultaneously refuted the pope's alleged infallibilty ex cathedra. What more do I need to show you?

Conversion? Do you know what that means? If that were true, that would mean that no Christian could ever get married. Or do you mean converting them after they're married? Be more clear. As for a Christian marrying a non-Christian, the Bible does say your not supposed to do that.

He meant converting to your partner's faith wouldn't be an option.

Well if I was ever in a situation that my partners faith differed from mine conversion would be a definate opinion I would like to explore but in the end it is her choice. You kinda have to know that going into the relationship.

I probably wouldn't convert and I wouldn't expect her to.
Just something to work around....

I'll have to assume he means conversion after marriage since that's what I've also been taught from the Bible.

DogSRoOL:

I understand what you're saying but that's not PRECISELY what I mean. I was talking specifically about dedication. I want my partner to be more dedicated to God than to me. With myself second of course. Take this passage from Matthew 10 for example:

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

That's the love I'm talking about. I want my partner to consider God as being more important than I am.

Dogsrool: Let's clarify one point at a time..incidentally, this covers "1.) Where Christ set up heirarchy in the church."



It's not quite so plain as you would like to believe, since Christ spoke Aramic, not Greek.

Jesus called Peter "petros" ("stone" or "rock"). Whenever Christ changes someone's name, something significant happens (eg Abram to Abraham -- "exalted father" to "father of multitudes").

1 Peter 2:4-5 says: "Unto whom coming, as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men but chosen and made honourable by God: Be you also as living stones [Greek: lithoi] built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

Each Christian is a "stone," a lithos (singular of lithoi). If it had been Jesus' intention to tell Simon that he is merely one of many little stones, He would not have renamed him into Petros, nor would there have been a reason to single Simon out.

To clarify further, we can look at the Aramic:
John 1:42: "And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon [Simon], said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter. "

Cephas is Aramic for "rock", and Christ spoke Aramic, as did lots of people back then. It was obviously left untranslated. "Cephas" means rock and rock only, not "stone".

With that in mind, namely, that Simon is the Greek Petros and the Aramaic Cephas, we can now proceed to further clarify who is the rock of Matthew 16:18 upon whom or which the Church is built. Now, the Aramaic cephas means "rock," and "rock" ONLY; it does NOT mean "stone." Therefore, we conclude that when Jesus said that Simon was now Peter, He meant to apply the title "rock," petra in Greek, to him, since the other translation of "Peter" is Cephas, which means "rock." So Christ built His Church "upon this rock"--Peter. The reason Jesus did not call Simon Petra is very simple: the word petra has a feminine ending because it is a feminine noun. It is not appropriate to give a male person a female name. So Jesus makes this female noun "male" by switching the female -a ending into the male -os ending, so that the Greek word "rock" can be applied to Simon. Again, we know that Jesus means to call Peter ROCK and not STONE because in Aramaic He calls him Cephas, which can only mean "rock" and not Evna, which is the Aramaic name for "stone," and because he could have called him Lithos instead, the Greek word for "stone," which even possesses a male ending already.


Since I won't claim to have a good enough memory to recall all this on my own, my reference is at cathinsight.com.


May I ask -- how are you sure that your church, or any church for that matter, is the 'right' one? If there is a 'right' one, what is it, in your opinion? If you would outline your own beliefs, that would be helpful -- do you believe 'sola scriptura'?

How ignorant.

The code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner.

Sorry, couldn't help myself....

Since I don't feel like reading thoruhg 3 pages of stupidity, what's every one arguing about?

We're agruing about whither or not we should find you and flog you with a trout. So far, you're side is losing.

Wolfy -- I missed your earlier comment. When did the Catholic Church officially allow homosexual clergy? Link me please..

I'm pretty sure it's only the "spin-off" or "fake" churches as I like to call them that allowed homosexual clergy.

And it was the catholics who harboured all those quiet ones secretly molesting small boys...

*Ducks*

But no, really, I'm not religious, but I'm all for openly gay clergy. So long as the message of love thy neighbour and other such groovy things are still being disseminated, who cares whether the clergyman/woman is bi, gay, black, white or whatever.

*Runs*

SavageX: You remind me of those turds that hold up "You are all going to Hell" signs. I splash them with my car when it rains.


Not really, but I hate them that much.

Yes, it was ignorant of you to say that. Instead of accepting the fact that Arden Lyn would only date Christians, thereby refusing your apparent God-given right to have a chance to date Arden Lyn, you just decided to call Lyn's choice (which, I might add, has absolutely no effect upon you outside of the fact that you apparently have no chances with her) ignorant.



Having difficulty finding a specific number, but this site says, "Some estimates have put the number of gays and straights as about even, with a higher percentage of gays having gone to the seminary or entered religious life in the last three decades."