|
|
Post by Aria88 on May 31, 2004 10:48:00 GMT -5
Yes, AWAR, the Orthodox churches have the best solution. After all, the early Roman church did not eschew marriage. Graeme, I never said that all RC priests were gay, merely the vast majority. Certainly quite a few copulate with women. It is precisely that hypocrisy within the Roman church that repels me. As a religion itself I enjoy its covert pagan traditions. Protestant sects often emphasize the Old Testament, which I find repugnant. The Catholic church, however, passively encourages homosexuality for its clergy and quietly accepts the occasional heterosexual relations. To me there are only 2 ways in which the RC can salvage any dignity: either overtly state that homosexuality is not sinful, or permit its celerics to wed. The latter seems less likely to offend its hundreds of millions of sheep.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aria88 on May 31, 2004 10:50:27 GMT -5
Sorry, I meant "clerics." Must have been thinking of celeriac. Celeriac clerics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 31, 2004 11:35:17 GMT -5
I love celeriac, don't like clerics. The RC archbishop of Sydney, one George Pell who comes from my State from Ballarat actually so maybe he contributed children at that orphanage, is a notorious queer hater, so I think he will be giving any overt queer clerics the pink slip. Anyway I thought that RC priests or is that priestesses, are dying out. No sane man with gonads and a you know what, wants to be celibate. I am both RC and Presbyterian and I think protestantism wins hands down. Actually they concentrate on the New Testament, on Jesus oddly enough, not the Jewish bits of the bible. The RC are into drag, lots of show and Popish stuff not real Christianity.
|
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on May 31, 2004 12:26:45 GMT -5
What does RC stand for? Remote Control?   |
|
|
|
Post by galvez on May 31, 2004 12:37:06 GMT -5
Yes, AWAR, the Orthodox churches have the best solution. After all, the early Roman church did not eschew marriage. Graeme, I never said that all RC priests were gay, merely the vast majority. Certainly quite a few copulate with women. It is precisely that hypocrisy within the Roman church that repels me. As a religion itself I enjoy its covert pagan traditions. Protestant sects often emphasize the Old Testament, which I find repugnant. The Catholic church, however, passively encourages homosexuality for its clergy and quietly accepts the occasional heterosexual relations. To me there are only 2 ways in which the RC can salvage any dignity: either overtly state that homosexuality is not sinful, or permit its celerics to wed. The latter seems less likely to offend its hundreds of millions of sheep. As a practical matter celibacy tended to give priests a higher stature in previous centuries. So this played a role in becoming a part of the Roman Catholic institution. As for Protestants, they focus too much on a supposed personal relationship with God, as opposed to actions: thus a Protestant can kill hundreds of people and be (potentially) granted heavenly status by repenting after each killing. Roman Catholics have always put emphasis on living righteously. The Roman Catholic church became very powerful for many centuries, and power leads to corruption. Any church under similar circumstances would have experienced the same things. As far as which church is better, it's hard to believe that the vast majority living on the planet, who have not had much exposure to Christianity or to a particular sect, are destined to Hell or some kind of punishment because of it. Christianity is often motivated by fear of death or a selfish yearning for eternal gratification after death. Christians are often (maybe usually) among the most corrupt in society. |
|
|
|
Post by SwordandCompass on May 31, 2004 22:41:26 GMT -5
"As a practical matter celibacy tended to give priests a higher stature in previous centuries. So this played a role in becoming a part of the Roman Catholic institution. " No its a vow of chastity.Devotion to the lord.The evolution of priesthood www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp""As for Protestants, they focus too much on a supposed personal relationship with God, as opposed to actions" The purpose of a chiristian is to know the lord,so yes, you are supposed to have a relationship with the Lord!!!The emphasis of the catholic church is to Know the lord!Have you ever been to church??? "Protestant can kill hundreds of people and be (potentially) granted heavenly status by repenting after each killing. Roman Catholics have always put emphasis on living righteously." No! you are simply wrong!!!!!!Do not try to measure faults between catholics and protestants.They both have had erros because they are human! humans are not perfect,its a constant strugle between right and wrong... Humans will always fail at being perfect.Have you heard about the crusades???Any one who is a christian dispite of denomination is to try and live righteously!Now trying to measure faults is to demean the said denomination whether it is Catholic ,Prostestant or whatever other denominations who follow the trinity...... "Christianity is often motivated by fear of death or a selfish yearning for eternal gratification after death. Christians are often (maybe usually) among the most corrupt in society." Christianity is not motivatted by fear!its not a selfish yearning for gratification.Its what the Lord pomised us if we are faithfull till the end!!! i can see you dont know much about christianity...(im not saying i know everything, i am still learning. but you are just using generalizations on a subject you dont (seem) to know anything about). Countrys where the people are majoritly "christians" are some of the most "free" countrys in the world!As far as being the most corrupt in society that is your opinion and a very arrogant and loony one at that.again you can not make a few bad apples say that the whole basket is rotten.Im surprised this is coming from you Galvez. btw Galvez i dont want you to think im "setting you straight".It seems to be a great fad to attack christians and or catholics.  |
|
|
|
Post by SwordandCompass on May 31, 2004 22:46:42 GMT -5
It’s Not About Celibacy DEAL HUDSON ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The recent pedophile problems in various U.S. Catholic dioceses, especially Boston, have led — predictably — to a new wave of questions about priestly celibacy. Let us be clear: There is no relation between the vow of priestly celibacy and the incidence of pedophilia among Catholic priests. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The recent pedophile problems in various U.S. Catholic dioceses, especially Boston, have led — predictably — to a new wave of questions about priestly celibacy. Let us be clear: There is no relation between the vow of priestly celibacy and the incidence of pedophilia among Catholic priests. How do I know this? There is less likelihood that a Catholic priest will be a pedophile (0.3%) than a married man. This statistic comes from the best and most current study of this issue, Pedophiles and Priests by Philip Jenkins (Oxford University Press, 1996). Jenkins shows that true pedophilia, that is, sexual contact between an adult and pre-pubescent child, is very rare in the Catholic priesthood. Jenkins also explains how the media artificially exaggerates these numbers in their reporting. One U.S. Cardinal told me recently that many of the reported incidents of "child abuse" are actually complaints going back many years about the forms of corporal punishments administered by clergy in days-gone-by. Data about actual sexual contact and routine spanking or paddling are being thrown together. The whole argument against a celibate, male clergy based on the pedophilia problem is, at best, impressionistic and, at worse, totally disingenuous. Catholic dissidents who advocate married clergy and women priests are trying to take full advantage of this present situation. Never once do they mention that if a priest is faithful to his vows sexual relations of any kind will simply never occur. Just how allowing clergy to marry, presumably members of the opposite sex, will reduce pedophilia, is never explained. The media is scrutinizing the Catholic Church on this issue in a way they have never looked at other institutional leaders, such as public elementary schools teachers, for example. The mere fact that the statistical incidence of pedophilia among priests is less than among married men with children should give the media pause, but it does not and will not. I can't think of a single mainstream media outlet, with the possible exception of Fox News, that does not demonstrate a consistent bias against the Catholic Church. This is not to point a finger at every reporter and editor, but to underline the constant tone and drift of their reporting. Why, for example, would MSNBC spend an evening inviting people to call in and vote on whether Catholic priests should be allowed to marry? Would MSNBC do a poll on whether Jews should be allowed to eat pork on their holy days? As Bill Donohue of the Catholic League has shown for years, the media has no fear of offending Catholics because Catholics evidently don't care if their faith is put up for a vote. A statistical defense of the Catholic clergy, however, is not enough to address the present crisis. There must be serious rethinking of how to identify potential pedophiles before they enter the priesthood, and how to deal with them once an incident occurs. It is clear such a priest can never again to be assigned to duties that put children at risk. The Church will get its house in order without the help of those who want to knock it down and start again.AMENwww.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0009.html |
|
|
|
Post by galvez on May 31, 2004 23:10:18 GMT -5
btw Galvez i dont want you to think im "setting you straight".It seems to be a great fad to attack christians and or catholics. You are right, perhaps I went too far with those comments. I was actually reflecting on my experiences at church and with Christians the other day -- and the bulk of it was negative. Still, not all Christians should be painted with the same brush and I am sure there are many sincere ones. Perhaps I am biased with all of the sectarian Protestant loonies here in the U.S. |
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on May 31, 2004 23:36:38 GMT -5
I'm very anti-Christian given my experiences with my own people, the orthodox Christian Serbs.
Also the fact that the church is an institution which can so easily go haywire and cause a lot of damage ( no institution should be as powerful as the church has been at times ).
|
|
|
|
Post by SwordandCompass on Jun 1, 2004 0:14:35 GMT -5
"Also the fact that the church is an institution which can so easily go haywire and cause a lot of damage ( no institution should be as powerful as the church has been at times )." Switch word "church" and place in goverment or democracy and you sound like an anarchist. "I'm very anti-Christian given my experiences with my own people, the orthodox Christian Serbs." Please elaborate awar or direct me to some links  |
|
|
|
Post by TSUNTZU the CulturalAntiSemite on Jun 1, 2004 1:08:53 GMT -5
Mullahs are bigger butt pirates than priests.
Crazy Monotheists!
|
|
|
|
Post by SwordandCompass on Jun 1, 2004 2:33:50 GMT -5
is not the above post called "trolling"  |
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Jun 1, 2004 7:00:00 GMT -5
Switch word "church" and place in goverment or democracy and you sound like an anarchist. whatever I may be, I'd just like to see a system of government which isn't succeptible to corruption, and which doesn't grow like a cancer. Just one of a thousand of totally retarded things is the fact that a lot of our gangsters, most vicious criminals are 'religious' ( afraid not to finish in hell ), so, after they shoot innocent people and sell drugs to children,they go on and finance the building of churches, they give money to the priests etc. The heads of the church never found it necessary to say out loud: we don't want your blood money. |
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jun 1, 2004 10:28:04 GMT -5
I do not like Christianity, Islam or Judaism, but most people need something to believe in outside of themselves. Why not a messiah, killed then revitalised then disappeared to the celestial vault? Don't Hindus believe that each person once beyond reincarnation ends up in the heavens as a star? I accept many scientific proofs which are not proofs at all. In that sense science is my religion. Are scientists above reproach? No. So, if Christians and their clerics fall down a lot in piety and are hypocrites, is that not part of the human condition? I was educated in Roman Catholic schools in Germany, UK, USA and Canada - my father's job meant frequent moves - and I had no problems with bum banditting priests or monks. But then again, I was never a believer and treated religious folk as sub humans to be avoided. And I did avoid them. As I said, I like the Protestant belief that priests are superfluous, redundant. Each man/woman contains the godhead and does not need an intermediary between them and God. Priests should be seen as Rabbis/Teachers, not the anointed appointees of God.
Bum bandit = Butt pirate
|
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 1, 2004 17:35:35 GMT -5
I do not like Christianity, Islam or Judaism, but most people need something to believe in outside of themselves. This perfectly explains why you're a dumbass. ;D |
|
