I hate Pope Benedict XVI!

Asiaprod

Cantab. wrote:

You could just as well be talking about the Pope. Now what was your point again?

You surprise me, the point of course is that I was NOT talking about the pope.

I was talking about a very influencial Humanist....who just also happens to be the world leader of a very big group of followers.

Asiaprod

bluewolf wrote:

I also like the "Try it and see if you agree, and if you don't, that's ok" kind of approach.

Yeah, I followed that one and look at me now. Up to my neck in it.:)

Excelsior

Asiaprod wrote:

If you own a Harley Davidson, a lot. Ever try to start one of those things on a cold morning, and keep it going. You would be quicker walking:)

You and The Atheist should track down one of my favourite Christian authors, Don Miller, who published a book a few years ago called Prayer and the Art of Volkswagen Maintenance. Some of us do have a sense of humour.

I have to echo the secular humanist Robindch in his superior knowledge of the Bible (over many Christians) when he says there is no support for anti-contraception teachings in the Bible.

UU

Cantab. wrote:

You could just as well be talking about the Pope. Now what was your point again?

Em . . . no! We were talking about the Dali Lama not the Pope so sorry about you. In my opinion, The Pope is nothing compared to the Dali Lama whom I have deep respect for. I'm refusing to argue with you Cantab. as I may as well be talking to a brick wall!

Vangelis

NeilJ wrote:

If this is the case why is it that certain Christain churches allow the use of contraceptives and others don't. Are they using different versions of "God's truth"? Surely as Christains they are all using the same holy scripture? What is being followed is as you said.

I cannot see any other reason than lack of biblical knowledge and culture. Things that don't have anything to do with the Bible.

So to boil it down to a simple case of following God's law is not quite true. What you are following is one groups interpertation of that law. If it was simply down to following the Bible there would be only one Christain church, but we all know this is not the case.

You know, I've read a lot about differences between churches. It seems to me that some churhes are infused with additional teachings. The Catholic traditions are by the CC itself considered equal with the scriptures. I think this is a foul thought. Who needs more than the Bible? That's something I don't understand.

One of the most shocking things I read was from the Catholic Catecism saying that "physical attraction(between man and woman) is sinful", or something along those lines. Read it on vatican.va. Where does it say anything about that in the Bible?

Unless a Catholic comes forth to prove this true, of course. I will be humble if anyone claims to have evidence of that. Though it would certainly be quite self-destructive to me. Am I not allowed to look at my husband as think of how gorgeous he is? Obviously, that would be a perversion to the CC.

What I have learned from studying different churches and orders is that they all emphasize very different thing. But I don't see many obstructions for a unified Christian church. Except the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses.
I will learn more about these differences in the future. Perhaps I can get back to the question in greater detail then!

Vangelis

UU wrote:

The last Pope said that it was homosexual nature he didn't agree with but he would still treat homosexuals with love and compassion like Jesus would. This one is now saying that us ourselves are immoral and doesn't really represent Jesus on Earth. I'm sorry if my "blasphemy" insulted you so I suppose I should not say I hate George Bush just in case I offend his supporters then?

You seem to believe that compassion and love for homosexual is the same as accepting homosexuality. It isn't! As a man of God, the Pope, as all other Christans, are obliged to teach the true word of God. If Christians accepted homosexuality as natural, that would be contradictory to God's word. No one can expect a Christian to abandon the teaching of his God just to please someone else's demands for being accepted. Accepting homosexual priests into the church for instance, means to accept sin. And sin is to be fought. Christians are responsible for teaching people about the right way to live. That does not mean that the truth will always be pleasant.

Likewise, all priests and other Christians are resonsible for their own sins and for striving towards a life in accordance with God's law.

God's justice is superior to humanity's version of justice.
And so it will be forever. It's not necessary for anyone to say more than that.

robindch

> Accepting homosexual priests into the church for instance, means
> to accept sin. And sin is to be fought. [...] God's justice is superior
> to humanity's version of justice.

Certainly, any justice at all would be superior to *your* justice.

Nobel prize-winner Stephen Weinberg made the following comment:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.

I think Vangelis has demo'd the truth of that to us quite neatly.

Cantab.

robindch wrote:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.

Yeah, and the corollary of there being no religion is that Weinberg's life is just one big cosmic joke (not unusual for a physicist though).

Vangelis

robindch wrote:

> Accepting homosexual priests into the church for instance, means
> to accept sin. And sin is to be fought. [...] God's justice is superior
> to humanity's version of justice.

Certainly, any justice at all would be superior to *your* justice.

It isn't MY justice. It's God's justice. But you don't seem to get that anyway. I never put words in God's mouth allthough I know that many people do that. Sometimes even priests.

Nobel prize-winner Stephen Weinberg made the following comment...

And because he is a nobel price winner makes this superior. You clearly emphasize the fact that he is a renowned person, one who has achieved a lot. Good for him. I'm sure his research is interesting.

But no matter what... Weinberg is only human.

Vangelis

Cantab. wrote:

Yeah, and the corollary of there being no religion is that Weinberg's life is just one big cosmic joke (not unusual for a physicist though).

So much for human dignity. :rolleyes:

bmoferrall

Vangelis wrote:

What I have learned from studying different churches and orders is that they all emphasize very different thing. But I don't see many obstructions for a unified Christian church. Except the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses.
I will learn more about these differences in the future. Perhaps I can get back to the question in greater detail then!

Well, you could start your research here*

*Don't tell the moderator I gave you this

Excelsior

Hey bmo! I am a mad raving ecumenicist. I am ecumenical up the ying yang. I love that document you linked to with all those heavy weights behind it. I have on my selves here all the documents JI Packer has ever written on unity. I think you've got me pegged totally wrong.

bmoferrall

Excelsior wrote:

Hey bmo! I am a mad raving ecumenicist. I am ecumenical up the ying yang.

Yep, I had gathered that from your posts.

Excelsior wrote:

I think you've got me pegged totally wrong.

My apologies if I do.
I feared the author's doubts about the merits of this movement might make you gag on your monkfish

John Doe

What is an ecumenicist?

Excelsior

To some Christians on this board it is the worst insult you could throw at someone.

When I describe myself as an ecumenicist I mean to communicate that I believe that any church or denomination which teaches the core truths of Christianity can work together with shared purpose. It basically means that I think "Catholics" and "Protestants" have as a major and primary responsibility, the task of getting on with each other and sharing the task of continuing Jesus' mission.

John Doe

Thanks. Yes, I can see how that would get right up some people's noses. *sigh*

John Doe

Vangelis wrote:

I never put words in God's mouth allthough I know that many people do that. Sometimes even priests.

I would imagine that, God being so much better than and different to humans, and omniscient and omnipotent and so on, surely attributing any specific 'words' to God is indeed putting them in his mouth? What I mean to say is that I find it spectacularly unlikely that any God could have told his people in Hebrew or whatever language to do anything specific. I'm not describing this very well, but it's the reason that I think the idea of a Bible and the commandments (not just the ten, but everything God 'says' to do) is fundamentally flawed and is putting words in God's mouth. And he doesn't have a mouth, silly billy.