Gay Marriage: Traditional Marriage Predates State and Church

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Worse, you claim to be God’s chosen ones, who for no reason other than to glorify Himself, will be saved while everyone else on the planet, despite anything they desire or do, will be damned to suffer forever. >>>[/quote]Do you believe what I preach and thereby desire to be saved? I will PM you my phone number right now and pray with you if you do.[/quote]That’s exactly the arrogance I’m talking about. You insist that only those who believe what you preach will be saved, and moreover that people can only have that belief if God imposes it on them against their will.[/quote]Is that a no? I’ll deal with your gross misrepresentation of the call of God, despite my repeated declarations, after you answer, but I won’t be home for a while so later.
[/quote]

It’s a very accurate summary of the position you’ve repeatedly outlined in this forum. You have insisted that God does the choosing. You’ve made it perfectly clear that nobody deserves to be chosen, and that the very will to be chosen is granted by God. You have admitted that you never would have chosen God, had He not chosen you first. There is ZERO personal choice in your dogma. God is 100% responsible for choosing who to save and who to damn. You’ve said this over and over again, why are you trying to wiggle out of it now?

[quote]Train4sport wrote:

[quote]Worse, you claim to be God’s chosen ones, who for no reason other than to glorify Himself, will be saved while everyone else on the planet, despite anything they desire or do, will be damned to suffer forever.

I don’t think you elevate yourself over others in the sense that you’re more “deserving”, but only in the sense that you’re more “chosen”. [/quote]

We’re neither more deserving nor more chosen. We are saved from the damnation others will suffer, not because we are better than others, but because when God provided a Way to have our sins erased and escape damnation, we trusted in His way of escape rather than trying to figure out our own way. That option is open to anyone, so you are just as chosen as we are. And even though you have not yet accepted God’s choosing you, He still loves you where you’re at and wants you on His side. [/quote]

That’s what most Christians believe, but it is not what Tiribulus has said. He insists that people only “trust in His way” when God intervenes, and grants them that trust. He believes it’s impossible to trust in God unless God first chooses you, and makes you want to trust in Him. In his dogma, God is a puppeteer that does all the choosing, and without first being chosen by God, men always choose evil and damnation.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I wonder how long that guy ran the “I’ll hang around recovering addicts and push my religious views on them! I’ll tell them that MY God…er, GOD, wont leave them recovering forever, but will deliver them from their addiction!” scam.

Its religion at its finest: pinpoint weak, vulnerable, suffering people and tell them YOUR religion is the one that will help them.

I wonder how many other struggling people caught this guys bullshit and thought “This must be a sign from the LORD! The LORD sent this man just for me, there can be no other way!”[/quote]

It’s a classic pattern you see across most religions. As a Mormon missionary, I quickly learned that those most open to “inspiration by the Holy Ghost” were those struggling most with life, or with the greatest need to find absolute answers. People who had recently lost a loved one, or had a child, or were unemployed, or struggled with alcohol/drug abuse, were always the most receptive to my message. And after praying to God to find out if what I taught them was true, sure enough! God communicated to their souls, in a powerfully undeniable way, that the Book of Mormon was true, and Joseph Smith was His prophet.

Tiribulus was vulnerable, and when the promise of stability and security was offered, he clung to it like his life depended on it. And maybe it did.

Of course, none of that makes the message any more real than the message received by my converts.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I wonder how long that guy ran the “I’ll hang around recovering addicts and push my religious views on them! I’ll tell them that MY God…er, GOD, wont leave them recovering forever, but will deliver them from their addiction!” scam.

Its religion at its finest: pinpoint weak, vulnerable, suffering people and tell them YOUR religion is the one that will help them.

I wonder how many other struggling people caught this guys bullshit and thought “This must be a sign from the LORD! The LORD sent this man just for me, there can be no other way!”[/quote]

Who are you talking to? I’m sorry, just curious, as I’ve never done this myself.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I wonder how long that guy ran the “I’ll hang around recovering addicts and push my religious views on them! I’ll tell them that MY God…er, GOD, wont leave them recovering forever, but will deliver them from their addiction!” scam.

Its religion at its finest: pinpoint weak, vulnerable, suffering people and tell them YOUR religion is the one that will help them.

I wonder how many other struggling people caught this guys bullshit and thought “This must be a sign from the LORD! The LORD sent this man just for me, there can be no other way!”[/quote]

Who are you talking to? I’m sorry, just curious, as I’ve never done this myself.[/quote]

The man who scammed Tiribulus when he was vulnerable (the way he preyed on countless vulnerable recovering alcoholics before and since).

Er… the man GOD sent specifically to notify Tiribulus of his exalted election into the fine arms of the ever loving LORD.

You guys are a blast. I was already clean and sober over year, had a job and a beautiful (quote so actually) girlfriend who I lost when I met Jesus. 26 years later now. You guys are no less vulnerable than I was. He just let me know. Forlife was once “Elder Forlife” huh? That explains a lot.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…who I lost when I met Jesus. [/quote]

Where did you meet Jesus? At the grocery store? Movie theater? Flea market?

Is this the same as when people claim to “find” Jesus?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Please explain to me how I do not ‘concur’ with the Father? Do I not rebuke those who sin? Do I not love the sinner? Do I loath the sick man, instead of his illness? Do I not refrain from soothing the sinner and adding fuel to his sin? Do I not use prudence in my judgments?

I am no following, either you’re seeing something I am not or you didn’t watch and listen to the Father.[/quote]That’s not what he said Chris and it’s right there for all to view. He said specifically that to say that GOD loves sinners while hating their sin is a satanic lie. He went so far as to remove all doubt by saying God will not be casting acts of sin into the lake of fire, but sinners who He hates. I agree. Watch it again. That’s very reformed of him =] In fact if you’ll remember I commended the man with eyebrows raised when you first made the mistake of showing me this. I could have almost said just about everything he does in this homily (sermon, but who cares) myself. I do hasten to add that this does not mean that we are so privileged as to know the elect and thereby permitted to hate sinners like God does. He can do it and we can’t.
[/quote]

I transcribed the sermon for you, let’s take a look.

Emphases [MY COMMENTS]

If you remember that part of the Gospel and the devil tempts our lord in the desert, he sites sacred scripture, misusing the word of G-d to deceive the son of God. The devil today is still capable of using the same technique. He cites the word of G-d in order to deceive the sons of G-d. It seems that the favorite scripture passage that the devil uses today is from St. Matthew’s Gospel 7:1, “do not judge, that you may not be judged.” How often do we hear that cited today?

“Do not judge, lest thou be judged.” And, it goes right along with this that the Devil’s favorite virtue today is non-judgmentalism, an imprudent tolerance. [ALMOST ANYTIME I TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT I SAY WE HAVE TO USE OUR PRUDENCE WHEN WE JUDGE, IF WE GO AS FAR AS SAY A CALVINIST AND SAY THEY ARE GOING TO HELL, WE’RE STEPPING OUR BOUNDS. IF WE SAY THEY ARE GOING TO HEAVEN WHEN THEY ARE AN OPEN SIN WE’RE NOT BEING PRUDENT] And believe me, many Christians have been fooled by this who have all sorts of qualms of conscience about being judgmental, but they won’t have any problem with missing mass on Sunday. [I HAVE NO PROBLEM JUDGING MY FELLOW BROTHER AND REBUKING HIM, AND I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE MISSING SUNDAY MASS.]

So, what is the proper understanding of our Lord’s words, “do not judge, that you may not be judged”? Our Lord here is referring here to rash judgments. To come to negative conclusions about someone with no reasonable foundation. [SOUNDS LIKE A CERTAIN CALVINIST I KNOW] He’s talking about making judgments that are motivated by envy or detraction.[WHAT, DETRACTION, I WONDER WHY A CALVINIST WOULD SAY ALL CATHOLICS ARE BASICALLY GOING TO HELL?] Or, to judge a person’s intentions with no clear evidence.[LORDY, LORDY. AMEN, FATHER! PREACH IT!] Or, to judge the subjective state of someone’s soul, [THAT HAS TO STING FOR OUR FELLOW CALVINIST GOING AROUND CONDEMNING FOLKS TO HELL, MUST GET THE BLOOD BOILING, WITH SUCH MEDIEVAL, NON-REFORMED SPEAKING!] which of course is hidden to us – we can’t see that.[OORAH!]

Our Lord is not talking about making judgments regarding things that are evident to us.[PAY ATTENTION! AS I HAVE DONE HERE, I HAVE CONDEMEND SEXUAL IMMORALITY, DRUNKNESS, MURDER, &C. I HAVE REBUKED THOSE WHO HAVE ADMITTED TO THOSE THINGS, HOWEVER I TRY AND COME WITH…LOVE AND CHARITY] For example, someone openly dissents from the Church’s teaching on contraception. Well, that is heresy! That is clear! That is evident to us! And, we should point it out. We can and we must make these kinds of judgments. Although, we should always try and interpret our neighbor’s actions in the most favorable light. At the same time we have to remember that saintliness is not silliness. St. Jerome says in regard to this scripture passage, “Christ does not altogether forbid judging, but directs us how to judge. The thing that does not regard us, we should not undertake to judge,” that is some things just aren’t any of our business. [I AM SURE THE BUSY BODIES ARE JUST ROLLING OVER IN THEIR COMPUTER CHAIRS RIGHT HERE, ASKING THEMSELVES, “NONE OF MY BUSINESS?” â??BUT, I CREATED THIS CHURCH, IT IS MY BUSINESS.â?? I THINK YAâ??LL MIGHT HAVE REPLACED G-D WITH YOURSELF, THEN] But he says, bare faced vice and notorious sinners should be condemned and reprobated by all. [OORAH!]

[Here it is tirib; here is your favorite part]

Another popular saying that we hear today, thought it’s not from scripture is also very much used by the devil in order to promote his false virtue of tolerance and that is love the sinner but hate the sin. [YEP, HE FINALLY CONDEMNED, CAN’T LOVE THE SINNER! DO NOT COME WITH HOPE AND CHARITY; DO NOT PASS GO, GO STRAIGHT TO HELL!] While there is a certain truth to this, [UH…ABOUT TO DO A 180?] we must at the same time recognize the limits of this saying. [PREACH FATHER!] We cannot go so far as to remove personal responsibility from the sinner for his sin. [CHECK, GOT THAT DOWN] After all, crimes are not sent to jail, but criminals are.[OKAY, GOT THIS ONE DOWN, TOO] G-d does not condemn sin to hell, but he does condemn sinners.[I MUST HAVE BLINKED, DID HE SAY SOMEWHERE IN HERE “SINNERS WHO G-D HATES”, OH BOY, THIS GUY IS SOUNDED LIKE HE LIVES IN THE MIDDLE AGES, AND HE’S A MARY WORSHIPPER, TOO! ANATHEMA!!!] In a very real way, sins are not entirely distinct from the one that commits them. [OKAY, THIS MUST BE THE WHOLE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY SLASH FREE WILL SLASH WE HAVE TO GO TO CONFESSION AND DO PENANCE THING CATHOLICS ARE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT.]

Personal sins have a real effect on our person. A man who regular steals renders himself a thief. A woman who is in an adulterous relationship makes herself an adulterous. You see how what we choose the misuse of our free will has a real effect on our being. [HOLY BABY JESUS, BLESS US! WE HAVE FREE WILL; HE MUST BE A THOMIST, A PAGAN WORSHIPER!]

St. Augustine [OH, HE’S BRINGING OUT THE AUGUSTINE, HE’S GOING TO DO A 180 AGAIN AND CASTE THE SINNERS INTO HELL AND ADMIT THAT G-D HATES SINNERS, NOW SHH…LET’S WATCH!] happens to mention both of these things making judgments and also hating the sin and loving the sinner. He mentions both of these things in one single quote and so we finish with his words, he says, "concerning those things then which are known to G-d, unknown to us, we judge our neighbors at our peril [PREACH IT FATHER AUGUSTINE, PREACH THE GOOD NEWS!] …of this the Lord has said, ‘judge not,’ but concerning things which are open and public evils we may and ought to judge and rebuke,[AMEN!] but still with charity and love.[THE WHEELS ON THE CALVINIST BUS GO ROUND AND ROUND, ROUND AND… EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR…WHAT? CHARITY AND LOVE, THIS IS NON-SENSE CONDEMN THEM TO HELL, FATHER AUGUSTINE! G-D HATES SINNERS!] Hating not the man, but the sin. Detesting not the sick man, but the disease. [LET ME JUST REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME…HATING NOT THE MAN, BUT THE SIN. DESTING NOT THE SICK MAN, BUT THE DISEASE!] For unless the open adulterer, thief, habitual drunkard, trader unless they should be judged and punished that would be fulfilled which the blessed martyr Cyprian has said, 'he who sooths the sinner with flattering words administers fuel to his sin.â?? [PREACH IT BROTHER CYPRIAN!]

In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, amen

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
In other words, you can’t point to even one scripture where Jesus said anything negative about gays. And you’re wrong about Peter as well. As I pointed out earlier, Paul is the ONLY person in the entire new testament to hate on gays, and this is the same man whom most cherry picking Christians choose to ignore when it comes to his condemnation of women speaking in church and having their heads uncovered. Why? Because misogyny is no longer socially acceptable. Nor is homophobia, increasingly even in this country. [/quote]

I haven’t said anything negative about gays. All I said was that acting on one’s homosexuality is wrong. Paul didn’t hate on gays, if you read carefully, Paul is referring to homosexual acts. Yeah, I don’t ignore Paul either on the women speaking in Church. If you haven’t noticed, there are no female priests and most women in my parish wear veils to the Liturgy.

Lol, that’s not misogyny, and Paul wasn’t homophobic, unless I’m homophobic just because I believe that homosexual acts, just like any other sexual acts outside a valid marriage are wrong.

I haven’t said anything negative about fundamentalist, literalist Christians. All I said was that expecting others to share your emotional beliefs driven by an insecure need for black and white answers is wrong. [/quote]

Not a fundamentalist, literalistic Christian – at least not int he way you speak of it. I have reportedly explained that I don’t expect anyone to believe what I believe if they are not Catholic.

[quote]
Why do you think Peter and Paul disagreed and argued about key doctrines? Why did Peter say that Paul was notoriously hard to understand, and many would misinterpret his writings? As a Catholic, I would think you’d give precedence to Peter over Paul, and to Jesus over both.[/quote]

Yes, but Jesus also said, who hears you, hears me. And, who doesn’t hear you, doesn’t hear me. The See of Peter cannot be sifted like wheat by the teeth of the lion.

And, yes Peter and Paul disagreed and argued. However, if you notice Peter eventually claimed what he knew to be true. That is why we need the Church, because the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church which Jesus built on Peter from the wound in his Side on Calvary.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Kanada wrote:
Slavery? That is forcing someone to contribute to society and then taking their rewards. At least give someone the options of death. Plus, slavery often took the form of raiding civilians populations. I dunno, how is slavery good?[/quote]

Matters what form of slavery it is, I suppose. In some countries slavery came in the form of indentured servants. That in itself (paying of debts) is good, because it allows that can’t afford to take out a loan and repay it to do so through labor. As well, when countries waged war against each other, the victor would enslave those who lost. Now, if you’re talking about what happened to those in America in which their human dignity was non-existent, then yes that is bad. But the forms of slavery are so broad, that to generalize slavery as bad would be laziness of our reasoning faculties.

As well, generalizing slavery as bad brings into the question the legitimacy of the government. Can someone be a master over one’s country? Or, isn’t only just to dissolve into radical individualism?[/quote]

slavery means that some humans are other humans property. From an egalitarian perspectiv thats just wrong, but I give you this: The slavery of the antic world where different than the mass-slavery of more modern times. A slave in old greece, Rome or in arabia had a better situation, than the black slave in america. If your master was of high class, the slave had a life wich resembled that one of a high class citizen. In the ottoman empire an entire slave army( mameluks I think they where called ) had the control of egypt for a long period of time. The army functioned as governing class. So yes there is difference between slavery, but a libertarian like you should see the extrem violation of individual freedom and property rights slavery is.[/quote]

In a conservative perspective egalitarianism is just wrong. Some men are meant to be masters over others. And, life is worth living.

Egalitarianism destroys what G-d has ordained. As well, egalitarianism still leads to aristocrats in which there are masters. After all anyone who votes with more than their own vote is an Aristocrat. So, egalitarianism is just one aristocrat moving into the office of another.

I am no longer a libertarian.[/quote]

I can’t let this go unchallenged. Some men are meant to be masters over others? I’ll give you a chance to explain first.[/quote]

Example: Obama.[/quote]

Obama isn’t my master. He doesn’t own me and I am not his slave. Are you?[/quote]

He can make laws in which you have to follow, he taxes you does he not, and he makes you pay the bill when he goes to war? Did you vote for Obama, if you did he commanded more than his own vote, making him an Aristocrat and by that I mean master and slave = Aristocrat and commoner.

[quote]
Oh, you meant to say that some men are meant to lead others, rather than some men are meant to own others. Glad you clarified that.[/quote]

Still master and slaves, one’s master wasn’t always his owner.[/quote]

Merriam-Webster definition of slave:

A person who is considered the property of another person.

Whatever, just wanted to ensure you weren’t implying some people were meant to own other people.[/quote]

I was. However, it matters in which form. Does a queen and king not have their own subjects? Merrian-Webster is a nice resource, however it’s not really the be-all, end-all of philosophy.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I was talking about this recent rash of statements from you. When you shared the observation by a priest that you are medievally myopic in your perspectives[/quote]

I am prone to medieval thinking and myopic piety. A big difference from what you said, and he was referencing me becoming a priest and dealing with parishioners.

[quote]
, it suddenly all made sense. My appeal to Pat was to point out that being Catholic doesn’t mean you have to be stuck in the middle ages in your morality.[/quote]

I’m not stuck in the middle ages, my medieval ‘thinking’ is in reference to my Catholic faith. Unless believing there is a G-d, believing there is right and wrong, and that loyalty to the Church and Country is middle ages. The reference to the medievalness was to my following of Thomas.

[quote]
Biblical morality is certainly regressive. The old testament is regressive compared to the new testament. And the writings of Paul are regressive, on issues like slavery, women’s rights, and homosexuality, compared to what we’ve learned in the subsequent 2,000 years of social enlightenment.[/quote]

Do you think Thomas Aquinas is regressive?[/quote]

So what did the priest mean when he said you are prone to medieval thinking and myopic piety? To me, that phrase stongly implies a regressive tendency that could hurt your effectiveness as a priest. I don’t know Thomas Aquinas well enough to have an informed opinion on how regressive his views are.[/quote]

Lol, he said it would make me a great priest, but have a horrible time getting into seminary unless I picked a faithful seminary.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I wonder how long that guy ran the “I’ll hang around recovering addicts and push my religious views on them! I’ll tell them that MY God…er, GOD, wont leave them recovering forever, but will deliver them from their addiction!” scam.

Its religion at its finest: pinpoint weak, vulnerable, suffering people and tell them YOUR religion is the one that will help them.

I wonder how many other struggling people caught this guys bullshit and thought “This must be a sign from the LORD! The LORD sent this man just for me, there can be no other way!”[/quote]

It’s a classic pattern you see across most religions. As a Mormon missionary, I quickly learned that those most open to “inspiration by the Holy Ghost” were those struggling most with life, or with the greatest need to find absolute answers. People who had recently lost a loved one, or had a child, or were unemployed, or struggled with alcohol/drug abuse, were always the most receptive to my message. And after praying to God to find out if what I taught them was true, sure enough! God communicated to their souls, in a powerfully undeniable way, that the Book of Mormon was true, and Joseph Smith was His prophet.

Tiribulus was vulnerable, and when the promise of stability and security was offered, he clung to it like his life depended on it. And maybe it did.

Of course, none of that makes the message any more real than the message received by my converts. [/quote]

Well, glad I was successful and used reason when I became Catholic then. Proof Catholicism has a monopoly on the truth as John the Great once said. :wink:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I transcribed the sermon for you, let’s take a look. >>>[/quote]I stand corrected. I must have been seeing what I wanted to see.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I wonder how long that guy ran the “I’ll hang around recovering addicts and push my religious views on them! I’ll tell them that MY God…er, GOD, wont leave them recovering forever, but will deliver them from their addiction!” scam.

Its religion at its finest: pinpoint weak, vulnerable, suffering people and tell them YOUR religion is the one that will help them.

I wonder how many other struggling people caught this guys bullshit and thought “This must be a sign from the LORD! The LORD sent this man just for me, there can be no other way!”[/quote]

Who are you talking to? I’m sorry, just curious, as I’ve never done this myself.[/quote]

The man who scammed Tiribulus when he was vulnerable (the way he preyed on countless vulnerable recovering alcoholics before and since).

Er… the man GOD sent specifically to notify Tiribulus of his exalted election into the fine arms of the ever loving LORD.[/quote]

Ah.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”. [/quote]Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content. Homosexuality, as is all sin, is stiff necked defiance of the clearly declared created order of almighty God. My church is full of black people who will propound for you the sins of black America (and homosexuality) better than I can. I am a minority there.
[/quote]I’m sorry Trib. Here’s your original quote above. More troubling, “Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content.” Perhaps the foregoing is so poorly written that I am not understanding your revisionist version. [/quote]You cannot see that I was saying that the fact of being a black person carries with it no statement of that person’s morality in itself? You don’t see that? Do you disagree?
[/quote]

No. I don’t see that. “Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content.” I can see it if I strain but really, you think this is a well constructed sentence?[/quote]

Yup… been reading this thread so far and that sentence really irked me… still does.

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:<<< Yup… been reading this thread so far and that sentence really irked me… still does. >>>[/quote]So which people are more moral than others by simple virtue of their race? I don’t believe race carries with it any moral content good or bad in itself. You disagree?

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

It doesn’t bother me that you are a fundamentalist, literalist Christian any more than if you were an alcoholic, a glutton, or a sloth. The problem is not the emotional insecurity requiring absolute answers to life’s biggest questions. It is the acting on that insecurity, particularly trying to force others to accept the same emotionally driven answers as facts. I am not anti-Christian; I am talking about all fictional (i.e., faith based) beliefs driven by what people want to be true rather than by what actually is true. I understand that some people hate all Christians, however I am not one of them. That would be the same as shunning an alcoholic. Now, if you’re trying to legislate your fictional beliefs, there is a difference in that. However, just shunning you because of your emotional beliefs is wrong.[/quote]

Sweet jesus, I’d kiss you for this.

[/quote]

x2

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t believe race carries with it any moral content good or bad in itself. You disagree?/[quote]

I’d really like to believe you…

Yeah, your pastor may be black, your best friend might probably be black, but with the way you’ve been going on about homosexuals, I can’t even begin to think what you truly feel about race or women in general. would you have any ties with the Phelps clan by any chance?

Trib, the sentence was badly constructed. While I understood what you were trying to say (only b/c I’ve been foolish enough to be on this forum awhile), A strong mea culpa would clear things up.

Capped, while I understand where you are coming from, I’ve been around enough “real” religious folks who see…(sorry, I’m a bit too drunk to word this well)… who hear a calling to help the poor/needy. In fact, I think this is the hear of “true” Christianity (for me). That said, I’m not much of one for “conversions” when it comes to helping the poor and destitute; however, I feel a need to point out that helping the poor is a calling to some (many?) Christians, and one that should be applauded.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Trib, the sentence was badly constructed. While I understood what you were trying to say (only b/c I’ve been foolish enough to be on this forum awhile), A strong mea culpa would clear things up.

Capped, while I understand where you are coming from, I’ve been around enough “real” religious folks who see…(sorry, I’m a bit too drunk to word this well)… who hear a calling to help the poor/needy. In fact, I think this is the hear of “true” Christianity (for me). That said, I’m not much of one for “conversions” when it comes to helping the poor and destitute; however, I feel a need to point out that helping the poor is a calling to some (many?) Christians, and one that should be applauded. [/quote]

Helping the poor is one thing. Helping the poor with the obvious ulterior motive of convincing them to believe what you believe is another.