[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< Same with churches.[/quote]Well the argument is that your numbers will plummet if you don’t conform to contemporary norms to a degree large enough to not be too much different than them. I agree. Your numbers WILL plummet and they should. Numbers have never been the object of true followers of Christ. Obedience is.
[quote]Karado wrote:
“Skyzkys” made the point I’m trying to make…It’s like there’s no acknowlegement there’s even a problem
in the Church…and do not get me started on these Church Accepted Non-Biblical Marian Apparitions,
I’m holding my Aces on this Fairy Tale and Deception that was Prophesied no where in Scripture
because I’m a Believer as Well, and we are commanded to call out unbiblical sightings and messages
brought forth by “Her”, whoever the F*ck that is, and question “Her” to the Max.
My Savior sending “Mommy” for Apparition messages? Really?? Find in the Bible where Jesus would send his Mother and I’ll paypal anyone
100 bucks, if that was in the Bible I would actually consider it, I love the REAL
Mary BTW, but even SHE never said or hinted for a moment that she would appear to
Fallen Humanity in the Future…Anyone can see somethin’s not right here when it’s not
written in the Ancient Text, if it is, where can we find that Mary or the Saints will
appear To Modern Humanity? Where?
[/quote]
What does this have to do with proving that the Apparitions of Jesus, Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Saints contradict the Bible?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I am always puzzled and amused when people complain about the Catholic Church (or any church, for that matter) being “behind the times” - it makes about as much since as complaining that the genre of classical music is “behind the times” because classic music won’t include Metallica or Britney Spears as part of the genre of classical music.
“Classical music” is a thing and is governed by certain definitions - you can love Metallica or Britney Spears till you weep, but that doesn’t mean that the definition of “classical music” must be changed to accommodate new music outside the definitions of classical music to make “classical music” keep up with the times.
Same with churches.[/quote]
The strange thing is that the Church is actually growing. Growing faster than the population is growing for some kind of a bench mark (either that is we produce more babies or that we’re taking in more than just babies.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I am always puzzled and amused when people complain about the Catholic Church (or any church, for that matter) being “behind the times” - it makes about as much since as complaining that the genre of classical music is “behind the times” because classic music won’t include Metallica or Britney Spears as part of the genre of classical music.
“Classical music” is a thing and is governed by certain definitions - you can love Metallica or Britney Spears till you weep, but that doesn’t mean that the definition of “classical music” must be changed to accommodate new music outside the definitions of classical music to make “classical music” keep up with the times.
Same with churches.[/quote]
Good post.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Who cares? One liberal nut thinks he knows radical change is what is needed for an institution that has been chugging along tirelessly for two millenia now.
What, you posted this because it reflects your opinion? Let me guess: You aren’t Catholic. How’d I do?[/quote]
The man devoted his life to Christ, was a cardinal, and the archbishop of Milan but because you disagree with his views - views much more learned than our own - he must be a liberal nut. I’m going to assume that you’re frustrated with the direction you think my question is taking rather than actually thinking Martini is crazy, but feel free to correct me.
I was raised Catholic, I attend mass weekly, my children are being raised Catholic and attend a Catholic school. So, how do you think you did?
I posted the article because it’s unusual to hear criticism of the Church from someone of Martini’s stature and experience.
[/quote]
An honest and devout person speaking out…and HE’S the one who gets attacked, just like the Pope’s butler.
Some church…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< Same with churches.[/quote]Well the argument is that your numbers will plummet if you don’t conform to contemporary norms to a degree large enough to not be too much different than them. I agree. Your numbers WILL plummet and they should. Numbers have never been the object of true followers of Christ. Obedience is.
[/quote]
Yep. Especially the ‘take orders’ bit…
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
These Priests NEED to Marry, as trying to control Sexual Desire is next to impossible in the long run, and time and time again their Sexual outlets are always the innocent in their proximity.
[/quote]
Stopped here.
More idiocy spouted off as if it were common sense.
I’m calling you out. Produce one, just one study that shows celibacy to lead to any form of sexual deviancy.
Since priests NEED to marry, in your hyperbolic language, it shouldn’t be that hard to produce. I’ll be waiting.
Btw, no one has ever been able to answer this challenge of mine. I even tried to do it, myself, and was not able to. Good luck. [/quote]
Could be the other way around.
Maybe celibacy acts as a shield for the sexually deviant.
Until, one day, it no longer does, which would look much the same from the outside. [/quote]
See Sloth’s post, above.
There is really no correlation, no evidence of it, none, not the slightest inkling, between celibacy and sexual deviancy. [/quote]
Why would there be?
Who has an interest to dig evidence up and how would he make priest be honest in a survey?
And that is if you do not count celibacy as a sexual deviancy, because then the numbers would be as high as 50% !!![/quote]
Good, then you agree with me that there is no basis for claiming any sort of correlation between the celibacy of Catholic priests and a tendency toward male child molestation or, more particularly, hebephilia.
And you also must agree that the data in particular do not support any such conclusion when pedophiles exist in at least the same and usually greater numbers of school teachers, uncles and males who happen to have access to time alone with children.
In other words, there’s nothing here. Move along. Find some other angle if you want to try and shit on the Catholic church.
[/quote]
I usually just read this stuff and don’t usually comment, but this post is disturbing.
It really seems as though you are saying that since there hasn’t been any evidence or studies created which show a higher correlation to pedophilia in the priesthood than in any other aspects of life, then it is not a problem within the Catholic Church, and there is nothing to address.
Is that actually your stance on this?
If so you truly are one sick unit. Having a higher incidence rate or corollary of child molestation in other aspects doesn’t mean that the Catholic priesthood isn’t a sick and fucked up institution. It only means that it is less fucked up than others.
That isn’t anything to be proud of.
[/quote]
Well, if what I was addressing had any resemblance whatsoever to what you are suggesting here, I might be inclined to agree with you. Since what you are assuming, though, has absolutely nothing at all to do with the issue I was addressing, I’ll just assume you are selectively reading whatever tends to support your preexisting bias against the Catholic Church.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Who cares? One liberal nut thinks he knows radical change is what is needed for an institution that has been chugging along tirelessly for two millenia now.
What, you posted this because it reflects your opinion? Let me guess: You aren’t Catholic. How’d I do?[/quote]
The man devoted his life to Christ, was a cardinal, and the archbishop of Milan but because you disagree with his views - views much more learned than our own - he must be a liberal nut. I’m going to assume that you’re frustrated with the direction you think my question is taking rather than actually thinking Martini is crazy, but feel free to correct me.
I was raised Catholic, I attend mass weekly, my children are being raised Catholic and attend a Catholic school. So, how do you think you did?
I posted the article because it’s unusual to hear criticism of the Church from someone of Martini’s stature and experience.
[/quote]
Argumentum ad verecundiam, I don’t have to be a Cardinal of the Catholic Church to know a liberal argument when I hear one. Nice try.
That’s great that you are Catholic and even better that you are raising your kids Catholic and sending them to Catholic school. I commend you, sincerely, and am happy to be wrong.
I think, I am, anyway…However, I’ve been around long enough to recognize the smell of fish wafting through the air. If you are as devout a Catholic as you claim to me, you should understand.
So, if you don’t mind, could you please tell us, do you agree or disagree with Cardinal Martini’s statement above?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
It really seems as though you are saying that since there hasn’t been any evidence or studies created which show a higher correlation to pedophilia in the priesthood than in any other aspects of life, then it is not a problem within the Catholic Church, and there is nothing to address.
Is that actually your stance on this?
[/quote]
Uh, no…That’s not what he’s saying. Did you even read what he was replying to?
Pedophilia is a problem in every aspect of life. Most pedophiles are molesting their family members, for instance. He addressed two things, that celibacy is (rather isn’t) correlated with pedophilia. You want a correlation? Male. Family. There I gave you two. Nor is it uniquely rampant within the church. The church, despite the media blitz, has about the same levels of incidence as other denominations.
Either you can’t follow a conversation, are you knew exactly what he was saying but decided to play stupid.
[/quote]
Yes, I did read what he was replying to. It is the reply that I was addressing.
The rest of your bullshit is just that. I can construct a false dichotomy in which neither choice is true just as well as you too, like this- “Either you are in support of child molestation by being catholic, or are actively engaged in it.”.
See? But I don’t go there because that kind of stuff makes the person who does it look petty and stupid.
[/quote]
The issue was an assumption, for which not a shred of evidence has ever been provided, that a life of celibacy tends to lead one to sexual deviancy, specifically male child molestation or hebephilia.
If you want to talk about the problems within the Church in this regard, you are welcome to start yet another thread about it or jump onto one of the 600 some-odd extant ones regarding this very subject.
Not what I was talking about, so feel free to take a break from the hard work of all the moral indignation you have dedicated yourself to.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
“Skyzkys” made the point I’m trying to make…It’s like there’s no acknowlegement there’s even a problem
in the Church…and do not get me started on these Church Accepted Non-Biblical Marian Apparitions,
I’m holding my Aces on this Fairy Tale and Deception that was Prophesied no where in Scripture
because I’m a Believer as Well, and we are commanded to call out unbiblical sightings and messages
brought forth by “Her”, whoever the F*ck that is, and question “Her” to the Max.
My Savior sending “Mommy” for Apparition messages? Really?? Find in the Bible where Jesus would send his Mother and I’ll paypal anyone
100 bucks, if that was in the Bible I would actually consider it, I love the REAL
Mary BTW, but even SHE never said or hinted for a moment that she would appear to
Fallen Humanity in the Future…Anyone can see somethin’s not right here when it’s not
written in the Ancient Text, if it is, where can we find that Mary or the Saints will
appear To Modern Humanity? Where?
[/quote]
What does this have to do with proving that the Apparitions of Jesus, Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Saints contradict the Bible? [/quote]
Let’s go further back, what does any of this have to do with the original assertion that priests “NEED” to marry.
An assertion for which, when evidence was demanded, none was provided, which is, I assume, why this guy’s “argument” is about as stable as a sand-dune.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I am always puzzled and amused when people complain about the Catholic Church (or any church, for that matter) being “behind the times” - it makes about as much since as complaining that the genre of classical music is “behind the times” because classic music won’t include Metallica or Britney Spears as part of the genre of classical music.
“Classical music” is a thing and is governed by certain definitions - you can love Metallica or Britney Spears till you weep, but that doesn’t mean that the definition of “classical music” must be changed to accommodate new music outside the definitions of classical music to make “classical music” keep up with the times.
Same with churches.[/quote]
The strange thing is that the Church is actually growing. Growing faster than the population is growing for some kind of a bench mark (either that is we produce more babies or that we’re taking in more than just babies.[/quote]
Yes. I provided a chart demonstrating exactly this in another thread. Just wish vocations to the priesthood were growing in the same manner.
Taken from: America’s Former Catholics | Pew Research Center
[quote]Washington (CNN) â?? Even though Roman Catholics are the second-largest religious group in the United States, the tradition has seen an exodus of members in recent decades. One in ten Americans is an ex-Catholic.
If ex-Catholics were counted as their own religious group, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists, according to the National Catholic Reporter.
If it werenâ??t for the infusion of Catholic immigrants, especially from Latin American, the American Catholic Church would be shrinking pretty fast.[/quote]
Taken From: 7 reasons Catholics leave church (in Trenton, #1 is sex abuse crisis) – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
Actually, it was this very thread:
Cortes wrote:
Here’s some data for the US:
And I especially like this one:
http://religion.lohudblogs.com/2011/02/28/catholic-church-still-growing-mainlines-still-not/
Here’s the money quote, which pretty much puts the lie to the liberal idiocy the apparently demented Cardinal Martini was frothing about on his deathbed:
[i]The Roman Catholic Church reported 68.5 million members, which translates into growth of .57 percent. You have to figure that much of that can be attributed to immigration. The church?s continued growth seems to belie recent findings that 10 percent of Americans are lapsed Catholics.
Other large groups boasting higher numbers include: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, up 1.42 percent to 6,058,907 members; the Assemblies of God, up .52 percent to 2,914,669 members; Jehovah?s Witnesses, up 4.37 percent to 1,162,686 members; and Church of God (Cleveland, Tenn.), up .38 percent to 1,076,254 members.
Then you have the usual paragraph about sliding membership in the mainline Protestant world: ?Mainline churches reporting declines in membership are United Church of Christ, down 2.83 percent to 1,080,199 members; the Presbyterian Church (USA), down 2.61 percent to 2,770,730 members; the Episcopal Church, down 2.48 percent to 2,006,343 members; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. down 1.96 percent to 4,542,868 members; the American Baptist Churches USA, down 1.55 percent to 1,310,505; the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), down 1.08 percent to 2,312,111 members; and the United Methodist Church, down 1.01 percent to 7,774,931 members.?[/i]
So in other words, “hardline,” conservative religions (including Mormons) have been experiencing growth, while members of more liberal offshoots that tend to embrace just the sort of “theology” Cardinal Martini suggests the Catholics adopt are falling away in significant numbers.
Forgive me if I don’t start pissing down my leg in over-excited support of Martini’s suggestion.
And the Catholic Church happens to be growing worldwide.
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=23018
[i]The latest Vatican statistics confirm that the church’s population and ministerial workforce are continuing to shift to developing countries, especially those in Africa and Asia.
Advertisement
Figures released Feb. 12 showed that the overall number of Catholics increased to nearly 1.12 billion at the end of 2005, an increase of 1.5 percent from the previous year.
The Catholic growth rate was slightly higher than the rate of overall population increase, which was 1.2 percent. Catholics now represent 17.2 percent of the global population, the Vatican said.
The statistics were released in connection with the presentation of the 2007 edition of the Vatican yearbook, known as the Annuario Pontificio, which catalogs the church’s presence in each diocese.
The church’s population grew fastest in Africa, where the number of Catholics increased 3.1 percent in 2005, about half a percentage point higher than the overall population growth rate on the continent.
In Asia, the number of Catholics was up 2.7 percent, and in the Americas up 1.2 percent. In Europe, there was a very slight increase in the number of Catholics, the Vatican said. [/i]
So where are all these new Catholics coming from? Must be immigration, right? Come to think of it, maybe I did notice a few new parishioners with unusually large eyes last Sunday…
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And the Catholic Church happens to be growing worldwide. [/quote]
This is really all that matters. There is no American Catholic Church. There are particular Catholic Churches located in America. People that point out that the Church is declining in America (though I have reason to doubt it) is equivalent to pointing out that Christians are declining in Iraq and Egypt.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< This is really all that matters. >>>[/quote]Is that really all that matters Chris? Numbers?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< This is really all that matters. >>>[/quote]Is that really all that matters Chris? Numbers?
[/quote]
Oh shut up you tool. You know that’s not what he meant.
It’s funny reading these threads and seeing the purported religious men of T-Nation succumb to calling religious men who have non-traditionalist views as “liberal loons” and other derogatory terms.
I thought the Bible was supposed to teach compassion and understanding?
Christianity and the Church have evolved over time, there is no denying that and it will continue to evolve to catch up with the times.
The Muslims on the other hand are still stoning and decapitating people (although they are transforming their views on women, albeit very slowly).
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< This is really all that matters. >>>[/quote]Is that really all that matters Chris? Numbers?
[/quote]
Oh shut up you tool. You know that’s not what he meant.[/quote]No I don’t. And why would you care. You’re not some kinda secret Catholic plant are ya? Lurking here to make sure the schismatic heretic doesn’t make any headway with your sheep. Cardinal Clandestine, is that you? What kinda tool do you see me as cardinal? How bout this?
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:<<< I thought the Bible was supposed to teach compassion and understanding? >>>[/quote]Not the thread, but I’ll be more than happy to help you with this misunderstanding.