Religious Controversies: The Right Religion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
There isn’t a right religion. There are definitely wrong religions though. These are ones that close minds, tell people it’s right to do something they are against, or wrong to do something they agree with.

If you disagree with something, but follow it, I would say you’re following the wrong religion. Use your heart and mind as a guide in this world first and foremost. Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.[/quote]

So, Child molesters and serial killers should just find a religion that goes along with their heart and mind? Wonderful.[/quote]

You seemed to have missed my last part:
“Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.”

Ironic, you bring up child molesters to criticize my viewpoint when your religion has the majority of them.[/quote]

I am going to stick up for the Roman Catholic Church on this one. I do not agree with all of their doctrines as many can see, but they can and are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I heard a study and the Catholic Church by percentages of men have a lower percentage of Child Molesters than the public. This does not abolish the crime, because the priest should be above reproach, but the priests are humans just like you and me, and they have their sins. I think the Catholic Church really screwed up by allowing these men to be placed in another church with children. They should have sent them to a monestary to never be arond children ever again. They will be judged for this. The Pope really screwed up no matter which one allowed this to go on. They have apologized, and hopefully will pay restitution and not go through the bankruptcy proceedings to keep their money in the Vatican.[/quote]

dmmadox, I respect and value your opinion. But you shouldn’t stick up for these people on this issue. They have done this for decades. When a priest gets in trouble, they move him to another church rather than sending him to jail. They should sent these people right to jail for a long long time. These people should never be defended.
[/quote]

Sorry, no one here is defending rapists, they are defending the Catholic Church. Most people would want them to go to jail. Me? A catholic? I want to hang 'em from the tallest tree around. All of them, all hundred or so of them.[/quote]

Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]

I was looking at America as that was the statistics I was looking at, yes the number is in the thousands for the RCC, and if the Pope offered me a years wages to hang 'em all, I’d decline and do it for free.

What some people have to understand is just because I Catholic and other people are Catholics does not mean we lack empathy for those that someone of the same religion hurts. To me, they have obviously showed they are not Catholic otherwise why would they do that.

Kill 'em all the fucking perverts, bring down justice.[/quote]

Sorry Brother but for the US Church we are talking thousands, possibly tens of thousands. Considering how close you are to the US Catholic Church I am surprised that you are not aware of this.

Again, these numbers are no higher than you would see from any other organisation (a fact that in itself is pretty disgusting.)

The issue is not the number (though there should be a certain expectation that a group putting themselves out as moral guardians of the world should have lower levels of child abuse than the norm,) the issue is the reaction of the Church to the situation. I know there are changes happening but there are still a large number of apologists in the Church trying to play down the significance. You stating hundreds when the number should be thousands is indicative of this.

102

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ you can’t build an interpretational foundation on the English . . . .[/quote]

Couldn’t agree more. That is what makes me laugh about some of the denominational arguments. You two sides arguing about how to interpret a document that has been badly transcribed and badly translated multiple times. Even going back to the original language you have huge problems with transcription errors.

103

CB, you were doing fine until you wandered into textual criticism . . . addressed this at length before - textual accuracy is not a winning line of argument for you . . .

104

[quote]69GoatMan wrote:
Do a study on the language, conversations between Jesus and Peter, or Jesus and Simon. Include the other apostles too as they speak among themselves. While we understand that Simon and Peter are the same, Simon was the “old and earthly” Peter. Peter, finally “a rock”, was what Jesus intended him to be.

When Jesus addresses Simon as Peter here, it’s cause he finally “gets it”. There is no validity to any church being built upon a man, although all “churches” are put up because of man and his insight and wisdom. I am speaking congregations here, not on the body of Christ.

Peter himself records in 1 Peter 2 that those who come to know Christ are also living stones upon which is being built a spiritual house. Continue on and see that Peter quotes that the stone which was rejected has now become the chief cornerstone. Was Peter rejected as this stone? No. Christ was rejected. Yes.

He has become the chief cornerstone, unless you infer that Christ, being rejected, was replaced by Peter and surely you can’t mean that. There is no language that refers to papacy. The language is of elders/bishops, those that oversee the flock, and deacons, those that oversee the works, teachers…well, they teach, and preachers those who proclaim the word…which should be all of us.

Study without blinders and broaden the mind. Keep your core values and adhere to them, seek out those things that don’t affect the soul…aren’t heaven and hell issues. Bible study can be fun and not at all drudgery as some would have it to be. There are many good computer programs to help dig deeper and deeper. PC Study Bible is awesome. I’m a member of the Church of Christ.

I study with baptist, methodist, catholic and many other commentaries, to see what they all have to say and to figure out where they come from on their ideas. Very interesting.

Have a good day. [/quote]
Hey goatman didn’t notice your posts in this thread before, they are full of win, the body of Christ cannot be limited to any man lead congregation.

105

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ you can’t build an interpretational foundation on the English . . . .[/quote]

Yes I can, it is an approved version of the Bible. Therefore, I did, and therefore I will.

106

[quote]69GoatMan wrote:
Do a study on the language, conversations between Jesus and Peter, or Jesus and Simon. Include the other apostles too as they speak among themselves. While we understand that Simon and Peter are the same, Simon was the “old and earthly” Peter. Peter, finally “a rock”, was what Jesus intended him to be. [/quote]

I have, Peter was very whimsical man. Jesus was calling him a rock, because Peter was a rock. I’m not sure how you figure out that is what Jesus intended. I’m pretty sure he means to name Simon, Peter and make him the physical rock of His Church.

That seems like you are inferring a lot. I’m pretty sure he is just telling Simon he is His Church’s physical rock. Really because it sounds like Jesus just said that, And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Sounds very plain to me that He just told Simon that his new name is Peter, and he (Peter) is the rock which Jesus will build His church. Or cannot G-d do this?

Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Sounds like Peter is calling us to also be like/as living stones, in our spiritual (or domestic) homes. Just like the church advocates the Domestic church. Does not mean that Peter is not the Physical rock of His church.

So is there a spot called Jesus’ office? No, Peter’s office is the material rock of His church.

The Pope is a bishop, what of it?

Yes, but we have to be one church, not divided, so if everyone is preachers (which they are) and there is no hierarchy to bound and loose, and to figure out squabbles how would we be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church?

By the way, the church teaches everyone is called to be priests, kings, and prophets. Those are our three duties, and the family is instrumental to fulfilling those duties. Not everyone has to have a ministry like Jesus, some people are called to be ministers of their domestic church - the family.

I have studied without blinders (being Catholic does not mean I am not rational), that is how I got to the Catholic Church after going to Protestant church for 5.5 years. Church of Christ?

My core values include following the Bible which simply tells me that Peter is the rock of His physical church, and that His church has the powers to bound and loose, and evil will not prevail.

All things affect the soul. Thanks for the tip on bible study, I am sure you are trying to hint if I actually study the Bible that I’ll be persuaded to become Protestant, again? No, I was Protestant, but once I started asking questions of ministers and studying the Bible, I found that the Catholic Church was the His church. And trust me, I study my bible, everyday, multiple times a day.

[quote]
I study with baptist, methodist, catholic and many other commentaries, to see what they all have to say and to figure out where they come from on their ideas. Very interesting.

Have a good day. [/quote]

As well, as I study with different commentaries (not very much anymore), but find that most Protestant commentaries have a slant against Catholicism and/or other Protestant teachings, and they usually do not follow the Bible.

107

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

the issue for me was more the reaction of the Church (trying to hide the issue instead of dealing with it.)[/quote]

This is hitting the nail on the head. This is the issue I also have.

Sin is just like yeast in dough. You keep it secret and give it enough time and it will spread throughout the entire system. Sometimes people need to sit down and compare themselves to God. You do this and you will see all the stains on your soul. I just trust in the cleansing power of Jesus to wash all those stains white as snow.[/quote]

Thanks for comparing us to an inanimate object that has no control over ourselves, plus the Holy Ghost would not let us become completely corrupt or the Jesus would have lied and it would all be in vain. And I trust in His word and His church to cleanse my stains.

Sorry about the perverts, I still got that rope in my shed if you want to go lynch some perverts? What more do you want from us?

108

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
There isn’t a right religion. There are definitely wrong religions though. These are ones that close minds, tell people it’s right to do something they are against, or wrong to do something they agree with.

If you disagree with something, but follow it, I would say you’re following the wrong religion. Use your heart and mind as a guide in this world first and foremost. Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.[/quote]

So, Child molesters and serial killers should just find a religion that goes along with their heart and mind? Wonderful.[/quote]

You seemed to have missed my last part:
“Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.”

Ironic, you bring up child molesters to criticize my viewpoint when your religion has the majority of them.[/quote]

I am going to stick up for the Roman Catholic Church on this one. I do not agree with all of their doctrines as many can see, but they can and are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I heard a study and the Catholic Church by percentages of men have a lower percentage of Child Molesters than the public. This does not abolish the crime, because the priest should be above reproach, but the priests are humans just like you and me, and they have their sins. I think the Catholic Church really screwed up by allowing these men to be placed in another church with children. They should have sent them to a monestary to never be arond children ever again. They will be judged for this. The Pope really screwed up no matter which one allowed this to go on. They have apologized, and hopefully will pay restitution and not go through the bankruptcy proceedings to keep their money in the Vatican.[/quote]

dmmadox, I respect and value your opinion. But you shouldn’t stick up for these people on this issue. They have done this for decades. When a priest gets in trouble, they move him to another church rather than sending him to jail. They should sent these people right to jail for a long long time. These people should never be defended.
[/quote]

Sorry, no one here is defending rapists, they are defending the Catholic Church. Most people would want them to go to jail. Me? A catholic? I want to hang 'em from the tallest tree around. All of them, all hundred or so of them.[/quote]

Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]

I was looking at America as that was the statistics I was looking at, yes the number is in the thousands for the RCC, and if the Pope offered me a years wages to hang 'em all, I’d decline and do it for free.

What some people have to understand is just because I Catholic and other people are Catholics does not mean we lack empathy for those that someone of the same religion hurts. To me, they have obviously showed they are not Catholic otherwise why would they do that.

Kill 'em all the fucking perverts, bring down justice.[/quote]

Sorry Brother but for the US Church we are talking thousands, possibly tens of thousands. Considering how close you are to the US Catholic Church I am surprised that you are not aware of this.

Again, these numbers are no higher than you would see from any other organisation (a fact that in itself is pretty disgusting.)

The issue is not the number (though there should be a certain expectation that a group putting themselves out as moral guardians of the world should have lower levels of child abuse than the norm,) the issue is the reaction of the Church to the situation. I know there are changes happening but there are still a large number of apologists in the Church trying to play down the significance. You stating hundreds when the number should be thousands is indicative of this. [/quote]

Well I apologize for not seeing my mistake earlier, for some reason I was thinking the number was around 800-900. But, that does not change my belief that something needs to be changed (if the number was 1 I would want something to change).

I am an apologist, but I am not down playing the seriousness of this issue. The issue needs to be fixed, and those that are culpable should be excommunicated, as well as receive corporal punishment either by the church or domestic authorities.

However, I can give a reason for this happening, during the 60’s and the Vatican II there was a move for liberalism to move into the church, and prudence for some reason when out the door. This allowed the hell-bound perverts to be let into the church, and now that we have caught our mistake, I hope justice be served sharp and swiftly.

109

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ you can’t build an interpretational foundation on the English . . . .[/quote]

Yes I can, it is an approved version of the Bible. Therefore, I did, and therefore I will.[/quote]

lol - and there you have it . . . didn’t know the JW’s and RCC had so much in common . . .

110

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ you can’t build an interpretational foundation on the English . . . .[/quote]

Yes I can, it is an approved version of the Bible. Therefore, I did, and therefore I will.[/quote]

lol - and there you have it . . . didn’t know the JW’s and RCC had so much in common . . .[/quote]
I fear I may have contributed to the creation of a monster right before my very eyes. Brother Chris here started out with a very empirical method of argumentation and then along the way made a couple comments about how he was beginning to favor my more presuppositional method (which isn’t mine). Now it appears all over these threads that he has attempted to adapt reformed epistemology to catholicism with the church standing in the place of God. =] Brother Chris, I doubt if you would phrase it that way, but take a look that how it’s playing out.

111

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
CB, you were doing fine until you wandered into textual criticism . . . addressed this at length before - textual accuracy is not a winning line of argument for you . . . [/quote]

Why would you say that. I am pretty well read on the detail of some of the earliest documents. I find it fascinating.

112

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
There isn’t a right religion. There are definitely wrong religions though. These are ones that close minds, tell people it’s right to do something they are against, or wrong to do something they agree with.

If you disagree with something, but follow it, I would say you’re following the wrong religion. Use your heart and mind as a guide in this world first and foremost. Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.[/quote]

So, Child molesters and serial killers should just find a religion that goes along with their heart and mind? Wonderful.[/quote]

You seemed to have missed my last part:
“Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.”

Ironic, you bring up child molesters to criticize my viewpoint when your religion has the majority of them.[/quote]

I am going to stick up for the Roman Catholic Church on this one. I do not agree with all of their doctrines as many can see, but they can and are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I heard a study and the Catholic Church by percentages of men have a lower percentage of Child Molesters than the public. This does not abolish the crime, because the priest should be above reproach, but the priests are humans just like you and me, and they have their sins. I think the Catholic Church really screwed up by allowing these men to be placed in another church with children. They should have sent them to a monestary to never be arond children ever again. They will be judged for this. The Pope really screwed up no matter which one allowed this to go on. They have apologized, and hopefully will pay restitution and not go through the bankruptcy proceedings to keep their money in the Vatican.[/quote]

dmmadox, I respect and value your opinion. But you shouldn’t stick up for these people on this issue. They have done this for decades. When a priest gets in trouble, they move him to another church rather than sending him to jail. They should sent these people right to jail for a long long time. These people should never be defended.
[/quote]

Sorry, no one here is defending rapists, they are defending the Catholic Church. Most people would want them to go to jail. Me? A catholic? I want to hang 'em from the tallest tree around. All of them, all hundred or so of them.[/quote]

Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]

I was looking at America as that was the statistics I was looking at, yes the number is in the thousands for the RCC, and if the Pope offered me a years wages to hang 'em all, I’d decline and do it for free.

What some people have to understand is just because I Catholic and other people are Catholics does not mean we lack empathy for those that someone of the same religion hurts. To me, they have obviously showed they are not Catholic otherwise why would they do that.

Kill 'em all the fucking perverts, bring down justice.[/quote]

Sorry Brother but for the US Church we are talking thousands, possibly tens of thousands. Considering how close you are to the US Catholic Church I am surprised that you are not aware of this.

Again, these numbers are no higher than you would see from any other organisation (a fact that in itself is pretty disgusting.)

The issue is not the number (though there should be a certain expectation that a group putting themselves out as moral guardians of the world should have lower levels of child abuse than the norm,) the issue is the reaction of the Church to the situation. I know there are changes happening but there are still a large number of apologists in the Church trying to play down the significance. You stating hundreds when the number should be thousands is indicative of this. [/quote]

Well I apologize for not seeing my mistake earlier, for some reason I was thinking the number was around 800-900. But, that does not change my belief that something needs to be changed (if the number was 1 I would want something to change).

I am an apologist, but I am not down playing the seriousness of this issue. The issue needs to be fixed, and those that are culpable should be excommunicated, as well as receive corporal punishment either by the church or domestic authorities.

However, I can give a reason for this happening, during the 60’s and the Vatican II there was a move for liberalism to move into the church, and prudence for some reason when out the door. This allowed the hell-bound perverts to be let into the church, and now that we have caught our mistake, I hope justice be served sharp and swiftly.[/quote]

With you on that one. I have my knot tying badge from Scouts so will help you with the stringing up any time you need (incidentally, the leader of my scout troop was locked up for molesting small boys, wasn’t directly involved but know people who were.)

113

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ you can’t build an interpretational foundation on the English . . . .[/quote]

Yes I can, it is an approved version of the Bible. Therefore, I did, and therefore I will.[/quote]

lol - and there you have it . . . didn’t know the JW’s and RCC had so much in common . . .[/quote]

Actually we don’t. JW’s are heretics.

The only reason you have a Bible is because the church had councils determining what was in the Bible. The same Church says my bible is approved. I am sure if you never seen a Bible it would not be evident which books were in that book. I mean really why isn’t The Shepard in the Bible?

114

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ you can’t build an interpretational foundation on the English . . . .[/quote]

Yes I can, it is an approved version of the Bible. Therefore, I did, and therefore I will.[/quote]

lol - and there you have it . . . didn’t know the JW’s and RCC had so much in common . . .[/quote]
I fear I may have contributed to the creation of a monster right before my very eyes. Brother Chris here started out with a very empirical method of argumentation and then along the way made a couple comments about how he was beginning to favor my more presuppositional method (which isn’t mine). Now it appears all over these threads that he has attempted to adapt reformed epistemology to catholicism with the church standing in the place of God. =] Brother Chris, I doubt if you would phrase it that way, but take a look that how it’s playing out.[/quote]

It was only in jest that I made that comment (even though the Bible comes from the church and inspired by the Holy Ghost), I have one of those Bibles with the Latin-Approved English-Greek/Hebrew scriptures in them side by side. I just didn’t feel like pasting Greek in here and explaining what it means, when it still means what it means. I have studied that piece for a long time.

115

No inferences to anyone about not studying. I am not here to offend. I stumbled upon this topic and found it interesting. If there are tools available to become more learned, then why not A. use them and B. share that with others. Puzzles me though,that if the majority of the commentaries don’t agree with a subject then shouldn’t that take some more looking into. Baptist believe things others do not, the church of Christ believes things others don’t, as do the Catholics, etc etc. Why not see why? If there are 20 commentators and only one agrees with the given point, does that make the other 19 invalid? It would if the mind was already made up and no other decision could be reached. God has changed His mind in the past, why can’t I?
or you? If one only studies Catholic, then they will only learn Catholic. Or Jehovah’s Witness…they know
what they are taught. Those are the blinders, that study with an open mind and heart, guided by the Holy Spirit, can be removed. I still insist that all matters, that are binding by whatever “authority” to any given church…must be able to be backed by scripture…book, chapter and verse. If not, then where is the authority for that creed, doctrine or message?

A spot called Jesus office? Sure…the Head of His church, His body. It’s an office than will never be vacated.

You and I will disagree on the point with Peter. I read it very different than you do. My studies took me to a completely different path and understanding. Let’s agree that Jesus is the Christ and He and He alone is the head of the church. Those that don’t get that will learn it someday, there are no atheists in hell.

116

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

the issue for me was more the reaction of the Church (trying to hide the issue instead of dealing with it.)[/quote]

This is hitting the nail on the head. This is the issue I also have.

Sin is just like yeast in dough. You keep it secret and give it enough time and it will spread throughout the entire system. Sometimes people need to sit down and compare themselves to God. You do this and you will see all the stains on your soul. I just trust in the cleansing power of Jesus to wash all those stains white as snow.[/quote]

Thanks for comparing us to an inanimate object that has no control over ourselves, plus the Holy Ghost would not let us become completely corrupt or the Jesus would have lied and it would all be in vain. And I trust in His word and His church to cleanse my stains.

Sorry about the perverts, I still got that rope in my shed if you want to go lynch some perverts? What more do you want from us?[/quote]

Come on Brother Chris. That is not what I meant and you know it. Jesus used this analogy about Sin himself in the Bible. You have to guard yourself from sin. If you do not then it will grow and take over. This is true for individuals and institutions.

Also the church does not cleans stains only the Blood of Jesus is able to do that. Only God can forgive sins.

You are doing a good job defending the RCC. I just think we would like the Pope to chime in on this. One of the dioceses filed for bankruptcy for pete sake to protect themselves.

117

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

I’d rather they be happy and busy than unhappy and possibly screwing children.
[/quote]
So unhappy people screw children??? How many married people you know are happy?

The majority of child fuckers are not clergy.

118

[quote]69GoatMan wrote:
No inferences to anyone about not studying. I am not here to offend. I stumbled upon this topic and found it interesting. If there are tools available to become more learned, then why not A. use them and B. share that with others. Puzzles me though,that if the majority of the commentaries don’t agree with a subject then shouldn’t that take some more looking into.
[/quote]

So we are going off that the majority have the truth? Truth is a democracy? G-d asks for a vote and decides what is the truth then? Plea to the people.

I do see why, but it usually turns into me laughing and giving the commentary back to whoever gave it to me. I do not need commentary to rationally see things for as they are in the Bible, however it is not my place to say what Scripture means. G-d has already done that for me.

If the given point is correct, yes the other 19 would be incorrect. Plea to the people. Truth is absolute, you cannot logically have A & ~A.

You are kind of are selfish with this whole ‘what I believe thing’ aren’t you? No, G-d does not change. Yes, you may change because you are not all knowing, G-d does not change. G-d is truth, if truth is absolute, then G-d is absolute. My mind changes all the time, when I read something and I do not understand why the teaching is at is, I ask the Holy Spirit to give me the answer to why this thing is. I do not change what something means because I disagree with it, I change myself so I agree with it. Not pick the commentary that fits how I want it to fit.

Yes, I study with an open mind and heart, guided by the Holy Ghost. I do not have blinders, and the Bible tells me (before I even thought of going to the Catholic Church) the Catholic Church is His church. If you do not follow Him, then you sin. Jesus said evil will not prevail against His church. The Church is infallible in her teachings, meaning she speaks the truth. If truth is absolute then C & ~C cannot be, so why would I need to read these other commentaries, when they are clearly heretics.

Besides that, I do use these commentaries, and most of the time I just have a hot and mad at how bad these commentaries take simple text and twist them into something they are not.

So your tradition of “all matters, that are binding by whatever “authority” to any given church…must be able to be backed by scripture…book, chapter and verse.” Are not in the Bible. So, what do you say about your little tradition there? It is not in the Bible. Why should I believe it?

Every creed, doctrine, or message is backed up the Bible either inductively or deductively.

Jesus is the invisible head of His Church, Peter’s office is the visible head. Peter’s Office will not be vacant either.

Sorry, does not matter if you agree.

That is what is wrong with this, “whatever I agree with”. It is not about you, it is about what G-d is. G-d only gave the Catholic Church authority, scripture does not give permission for private revelations anymore. Therefore, unless you listen to an authority, sorry it is a toss up if you have the truth. And figuring out what commentaries work for you is a bad way to do it, because then you are just twisting scripture into a direction it does not go for your own advantage.

119

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

the issue for me was more the reaction of the Church (trying to hide the issue instead of dealing with it.)[/quote]

This is hitting the nail on the head. This is the issue I also have.

Sin is just like yeast in dough. You keep it secret and give it enough time and it will spread throughout the entire system. Sometimes people need to sit down and compare themselves to God. You do this and you will see all the stains on your soul. I just trust in the cleansing power of Jesus to wash all those stains white as snow.[/quote]

Thanks for comparing us to an inanimate object that has no control over ourselves, plus the Holy Ghost would not let us become completely corrupt or the Jesus would have lied and it would all be in vain. And I trust in His word and His church to cleanse my stains.

Sorry about the perverts, I still got that rope in my shed if you want to go lynch some perverts? What more do you want from us?[/quote]

Come on Brother Chris. That is not what I meant and you know it. Jesus used this analogy about Sin himself in the Bible. You have to guard yourself from sin. If you do not then it will grow and take over. This is true for individuals and institutions.
[/quote]

Yeah, and you pretend like the Catholic Church does not do that with itself. Heck, our current Pope was called the bulldog of morals and faith. I am pretty sure a bulldog is good at guarding something precious.

So, G-d cannot give power to a priest to absolve sins?

[quote]
You are doing a good job defending the RCC. I just think we would like the Pope to chime in on this. One of the dioceses filed for bankruptcy for pete sake to protect themselves.[/quote]

I have not heard about the dioceses you speak of, link?

120

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Yeah, and you pretend like the Catholic Church does not do that with itself. Heck, our current Pope was called the bulldog of morals and faith. I am pretty sure a bulldog is good at guarding something precious.

So, G-d cannot give power to a priest to absolve sins?

I have not heard about the dioceses you speak of, link?[/quote]

I was just saying, and it is all people and institutions. A church I attended before going to college has had two pastors in a row commit adultery with their secretary. It is not just the Catholic Church. We all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.

There is no where in the Bible that God gives the power to absolve sins to anyone. Can he do it yes, but that is a Power Reserved for God only.

I hope this link works. Just put in Google Catholic Diocese files for bankruptcy. There are a lot of articles about it.