Legally - What is the Catholic Church?

legspin

As an aside, EU policy is equally equivocal on what or who a religion is allowed to descriminate against. I refer specifically to the issue of Mount Athos in Greece and how no woman (or female of any species, except chickens ) is allowed on the peninsular, whereas under EU law this place should not be allowed to exist, but exist it does. There have been some attempts at getting the Greek government to insist on the lifting of the ban through the EU but they keep getting beaten back.

Raze the place to the ground I say.

Henry VIII had the right idea (if for the wrong reasons):rolleyes:

Dades

Welcome back archduke. (I posted this originally yesterday though it seems to have disappeared. Anyone else losing posts?)

archdukefranz wrote:

The title of the post was about the Catholic Church and how they hire people, how can someone be a leader of a catholic church when their lifestyle contradicts what they have to teach?

Members of a student committe are not leaders of the church. He/she is not applying for the papacy.

archdukefranz wrote:

Again I didn't say that gay people can't be Christians...
All we request is that anyone who is gonna become a committee member would believe this IFES Doctrinal Basis

One's sexual preferences do not preclude you from believing in this doctrine, any more than any other sin* does.

* In the eyes of the RC church, not mine.

archdukefranz

The Atheist wrote:

Welcome back archduke. (I posted this originally yesterday though it seems to have disappeared. Anyone else losing posts?)

Members of a student committe are not leaders of the church. He/she is not applying for the papacy.

One's sexual preferences do not preclude you from believing in this doctrine, any more than any other sin* does.

* In the eyes of the RC church, not mine.

Ok seperate the Catholic Church from maynooth cu for a sec

I was defending the Catholic Chruches stance on not allowing homosexual priests not saying that we wouldn't allow a homosexual to become a member of the committee.

Its a paralel not a perfect match

coffee_cake

archdukefranz wrote:

Ok seperate the Catholic Church from maynooth cu for a sec

I was defending the Catholic Chruches stance on not allowing homosexual priests not saying that we wouldn't allow a homosexual to become a member of the committee.

Its a paralel not a perfect match

Do any of the committee members eat shellfish and wear mixed fabrics?

archdukefranz

bluewolf wrote:

Do any of the committee members eat shellfish and wear mixed fabrics?

look at some christian apologetics website I'm sick of answering that question

coffee_cake

archdukefranz wrote:

look at some christian apologetics website I'm sick of answering that question

Well it's along the same lines isn't it?

archdukefranz

bluewolf wrote:

Well it's along the same lines isn't it?

along the same lines as?

Dades

archdukefranz wrote:

Ok seperate the Catholic Church from maynooth cu for a sec

I was defending the Catholic Chruches stance on not allowing homosexual priests not saying that we wouldn't allow a homosexual to become a member of the committee.

Ahh, well that I can agree with - assuming we are talking about the active sexuality you referred to in your original post.

Though I'll still maintain that your sexual preference does not mean you cannot believe in the RC doctrine you also linked to earlier. You might find yourself at odds with it, but doesn't everyone by virtue of being a sinner one way or another.

archdukefranz

The Atheist wrote:

Ahh, well that I can agree with - assuming we are talking about the active sexuality you referred to in your original post.

Though I'll still maintain that your sexual preference does not mean you cannot believe in the RC doctrine you also linked to earlier. You might find yourself at odds with it, but doesn't everyone by virtue of being a sinner one way or another.

You can believe sure, but what good is belief its worth nothing without the changes it makes to your life.

Cantab.

legspin wrote:

Raze the place to the ground I say.

Henry VIII had the right idea (if for the wrong reasons):rolleyes:

Henry VIII was a fat murderer.

But the Lord sometimes uses the evil intentions of men to bring about His glory.

The Catholic Church of today is immense in power/size compared to the Church of England with their effeminate priests (kinda ironic seeing as great Henry VIII himself outlawed buggery with the penalty of death by hanging in 1533), airy-fairy services and warped theology that has a mongrel monarchy as part of its hierarchy.

Asiaprod

Cantab. wrote:

But the Lord sometimes uses the evil intentions of men to bring about His glory.

Have to say this for you, you are consistent in your efforts to paint your chuch with glory. A God who uses the evil intentions of men, which he created, to bring about his glory!!! That sounds like insider trading to me.

pH

Cantab wrote:

The Catholic Church of today is immense in power/size compared to the Church of England with their effeminate priests (kinda ironic seeing as great Henry VIII himself outlawed buggery with the penalty of death by hanging in 1533), airy-fairy services and warped theology that has a mongrel monarchy as part of its hierarchy

The only reason I can think of that they have 'effeminate priests' is that suprisingly some are women, and you can't get much more effeminate than being a woman!

I am also somewhat confused, what has buggery got to do with being effeminate? Also can you explain the irony?

legspin

Cantab. wrote:

But the Lord sometimes uses the evil intentions of men to bring about His glory.

The Catholic Church of today is immense in power/size compared to the Church of England with their effeminate priests (kinda ironic seeing as great Henry VIII himself outlawed buggery with the penalty of death by hanging in 1533), airy-fairy services and warped theology that has a mongrel monarchy as part of its hierarchy.

Hypocrisy of the highest order.

Most of the 'effeminate priests' I have met are a lot more humane and Christian than the purveyors of the universal (my arse) church.:mad:

Zombrex

Cantab. wrote:

The Catholic Church of today is immense in power/size compared to the Church of England

Not in England :rolleyes:

BTW I think the British Armed Forces (under the Queen, head of the Church of England) could kick the ass of Vatican Swiss Guards any day of the week and twice on Sunday

And in relation to size, there are more non-Catholic Christians than Catholic Christians, so what does that tell you about Gods glory in relation to Catholics?

robindch

> But the Lord sometimes uses the evil intentions of men to bring about His glory.

Indeed, and the ever-quotable Gibbon agrees with you in his infamous Chapter 15:

Our curiosity is naturally prompted to inquire by what means the Christian faith obtained so remarkable a victory over the established religions of the earth. To this inquiry an obvious but unsatisfactory answer may be returned; that it was owing to the convincing evidence of the doctrine itself, and to the ruling providence of its great Author. But as truth and reason seldom find so favourable a reception in the world, and as the wisdom of Providence frequently condescends to use the passions of the human heart, and the general circumstances of mankind, as instruments to execute its purpose, we may still be permitted, though with becoming submission, to ask, not indeed what were the first, but what were the secondary causes of the rapid growth of the Christian church?

NewOxfordReview

Duke person, forgetting homos for a second, could I point out that the IFES statement that you use also excludes Catholics? Unless they change of course, along with the gays. What do Catholic members think, or do you neglect to point out the contradictions?

Dades

NewOxfordReview wrote:

Duke person, forgetting homos for a second

Homo sapiens? Homo floresiensis? You'll have to be more specific.
Or more mindful of your choice of terms, I suggest...

NewOxfordReview

Homos, short for homosexuals. Homophobic, if you think about it, means someone who has a fear of things the same, but it's used for people who disagree with homosexual acts. Gay and queer are also words which used to refer to something other than homosexuals. There's no need for me to be more specific, I'm sure you knew what I meant.

Your message was nothing to do with the subject of mine. Hopefully the NUIG CU chap will reply.

Dades

NewOxfordReview wrote:

Your message was nothing to do with the subject of mine.

You're right, my message was to do with the terminology of yours, so address it if you want to continue to post here.

Zombrex

NewOxfordReview wrote:

Duke person, forgetting homos

The point Atheist is making, and which you seem to be ignoring or are ignorant of, is that the term "homos" used in the context of homosexuals (and not any of the ones Atheist mentioned in an effort to try and show you what you were doing) is a derogatory term, like Ni&&er is short for Negro.

Now I don't know if you meant it like that, or if the "..sexuals" bit would just have taken you too long to type, but I think you better watch the terms you used to describe homosexuals in this forum from now on.

NewOxfordReview

Oh fock off

Asiaprod

NewOxfordReview wrote:

Oh fock off

Tut tut,
You already got one warning on this, from our beloved moderator The Atheist no less

Wickednight
very nicely pointed out the point Atheist was making, the term "homos" used in the context of homosexuals is a derogatory term.

Your very intelligent reply prompts me to ask you to mind you language and be aware that quite a number of Gay people are respected members here and you are being just plain rude for no apparent reason. I would appriciate it if you would take all this to heart.

Dades

NewOxfordReview wrote:

Oh fock off

I was dubious from the outset as to whether you had anything to offer here. And now we know.
A ban for you, sir.

As you were, people.

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

I was dubious from the outset as to whether you had anything to offer here. And now we know.
A ban for you, sir.

As you were, people.

Oh dear, does this mean I have to call you sir from now on:eek:

Dades

Asiaprod wrote:

Oh dear, does this mean I have to call you sir from now on:eek:

Or 'Your Worship' if you're not into the whole brevity thing.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

Or 'Your Worship' if you're not into the whole brevity thing.

"I'm Your Worship. You know? So you can call me Your Worship. Or your worshipness, or worshipireno."



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118715/

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118715/

Watched it again Saturday (it is my favorite film of all time).
My old car used to have a "Nice marmot." bumper sticker.:D

*must... get back... on topic...*

Yossie

The Atheist wrote:

I was dubious from the outset as to whether you had anything to offer here. And now we know.
A ban for you, sir.

Here! Here!

Check out the "New Oxford Review" website if you want to give yourself a scare - It's a rather ugly example of Catholic militants.
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/index.jsp

Asiaprod

Yossie wrote:

Here! Here!

Check out the "New Oxford Review" website if you want to give yourself a scare - It's a rather ugly example of Catholic militants.

Sheesh, the opening caption is a killer'

Have you the guts?
Yes, many hate us. Ah, but they also fear us.
Thats why many others love us.
If you hunger for the red meat of Catholicism, subscribe
(No bozos or sissies please)

Is it a religion? Think I will stay vegiterian its safer.