Hail Mary

[rapture]

America.... needs to test the youth for AIDS :nibble:

Last year, the bishops released an unprecedented statistical review that found 4,392 priests had been accused of molesting minors in 10,667 cases between 1950 and 2002.-....http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-02-18-bishops-abuse_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno

[voxpopulisuxx]

America.... needs to test the youth for AIDS :nibble:

Last year, the bishops released an unprecedented statistical review that found 4,392 priests had been accused of molesting minors in 10,667 cases between 1950 and 2002.-....http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-02-18-bishops-abuse_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno

Where true rightousness resides there also true evil lies in wait.The Greater the rightousness of the Church...the greater is the response of evil to undermine or destroy it.

[dutchie]

You can talk a banana straight like that...

Is there no fibre in you that is ashamed of this?!? Are you honestly saying you see this as evidence for the righteousness of the catholic church?!? You really experience this as being something positive?!?!? Do you have any feeling at all for the innocent victims that suffered - and will continue to suffer for the rest of their horrible lives?!?

Man, talk about having your head up your arse..... :Bott:

Vox, no kidding, I am really disappointed in you... :bs:

[Red Shift]

Dutchie, from how i understood it, he was making ageneral statement that where there are places of suposed "good" they are often the greatest evil.

He did not talk about his own feelings towards the matter, so we have no idea whether he is disgusted or even pleased with the situation.

[dutchie]

Maybe so. But from what I gathered, Vox is an active member of the catholic church and much in defense of all it's about. Saying it like he did, sure gave me the impression that he sees this "evil" as evidence of the righteousness of the church - thus twisting it into something positive for the church's image.

In other words: the better the church, the more prone it is to "evil attacks". To me, this is more evidence of something structurally rotten in the church than of the aforementioned "righteousness".

Vox's remarks did not mention his feelings for the innocent victims from these atrocities at all. That struck me. Evil makes victims - without victims the evil goes unnoticed. I don't see the priests involved as victims, BTW. It was their own free choice to become a priest. With all of the "perks" involved. AND the responsibility. Through Vox's remark it's not the church or the priests that are the wrongdoers, but "evil". A nice way of placing the blame on some obscure entity in stead of where it really is. Just my 2 eurocents...

[Red Shift]

wow, good explanation, i completely see what you mean and your previous post now makes sense :D

hmm, shame if people of the faith cannot see the wrong in it :/

[rapture]

Had the so called One True Church believed God to begin with.. the CLOSET would have never been in position to harm the innocent.

[dutchie]

Don't be naive. Faith in God has got nothing to do with it. In any society where there is a certain hierarchy at work, people in this hierarchy are bound to be tempted to abuse their power at some point - God given or not. Governments, footballclubs, schools - in all of these there are some that can not resist stepping over the line of abuse, ranging from harmless innocent to extremely malicious.

Abuse is not something that is exclusive to the RC church - ALL churches of ALL religions ALWAYS will be harbouring power crazed lunatics... :bondage:

[playmaker88]

When I child is taught that there is an all powerful being that watches their every move and that must be praised on a daily basis it is no surprise to see the child surrender all their trust to the official representation of that powerful being on Earth.

Since religion began an astounding number of men of the cloth have used it and abused it to their own ends. Only emphasising how much faith these individuals hold in the key religious concept that they will one day suffer a future judgement.

[FKoE]

You can talk a banana straight like that...

Is there no fibre in you that is ashamed of this?!? Are you honestly saying you see this as evidence for the righteousness of the catholic church?!?

Sod King Billy and the whore he rode in on ;-)

Regards the initial post.

Its great someone has taken a active interest in the RC church figures of abuse/accusations.

But remember that the average/ratio of paedophilia in the RC church is no different than for the general public at large,or doctors, police officers or Anglicans and other Protestants.


I smell sectarianism !!!!

[voxpopulisuxx]

You can talk a banana straight like that...

Is there no fibre in you that is ashamed of this?!? Are you honestly saying you see this as evidence for the righteousness of the catholic church?!? You really experience this as being something positive?!?!? Do you have any feeling at all for the innocent victims that suffered - and will continue to suffer for the rest of their horrible lives?!?

Man, talk about having your head up your arse..... :Bott:

Vox, no kidding, I am really disappointed in you... :bs:
I just picked up this post sorry Im posting in to many areas LOL(rookie mistake)
NO my point is that the filthy homosodomites and pedophiles have deliberatly infiltrated the Church...and I was mearly pointing out that the bigger the target the nastier the weapons...so If you took it the other way you have every right to be shocked...sorry...I posted this one on the fly

[voxpopulisuxx]

and to all involved in this thread know this....that every so called priest who has done these things to anyone let alone children, should be strung up by their nut sax till they rip off...and then be put in a nice unsupervised southern usa fed prison...that is how I feel about it...but rapture in his sicko kkk, jack chick anti catholic bigotry has it that the Church CAUSES this evil...that is what Im saying and what I oppose whole heartedly...and for the record the Church hiarchy today is so apostate, so liberal, so non catholic and evil themselves for the most part I am at a disadvantage to be sure defending the Mystical Body of Christ, when all the world see today agreat pretender to Catholicism that is modern rome.....if you want to see where Im coming from go to websites like Traditio.com...or novusordowatch.org...and you we see that I and many other Trads despise this popes policys and the legacy of these apostates who HAVE ALLOWED THIS evil of homosodomitic predators to enter the seminarys...I have spent many an hour savaging liberal and false catholics, to put it another way....Ilove the Kingdom of God,,,but this kingdom has been overrun by corrupt prelates who have usurped the true Church(as God predicted)...so I apologise if that terse comment was insensative...If I was Pope there would be thrashing of these apostates that would make Vlad Putin blush....pedophiles would recive the sentance christ imposed....something about a millstone and deep water. But Pope John Paul the2 is a weak and deliberatly liberal pontif....the church has had bad popes in the past...this is nothing new...so to reiterate....Where great good is so to will great evil congrigate....this evil is NOT proof of the Churches goodness...it is only unfourtunate reality of a war of Satan against Christ!

[hari_padfoot]

so let me get this straight you disapprove of all the popes actions???? this man is to be admired not drug through this craphole you are trying to blame on him. the current pope is one of the greatest men of our time and anyone who can critsize a man who simply wants the killings to end should be tortured unmercifully.

[voxpopulisuxx]

so let me get this straight you disapprove of all the popes actions???? this man is to be admired not drug through this craphole you are trying to blame on him. the current pope is one of the greatest men of our time and anyone who can critsize a man who simply wants the killings to end should be tortured unmercifully.
to be fair hari you seem to be all over the place on this......
First off NOWHERE did I say I disapprove of ALL the POpes actions so you must retract that falsehood....I do absolutely disapprove of the weak practically NON response of this Pontiff to the heinous acts of the American Bishops toward the child rape by prelates...Do you realise that Cardinal Law of Boston, a bishop in the center of some of the most evil of the rape and sexual assault cases, WENT TO ROME AND WAS ELEVATED TO A HIGHER POSITION BY THE POPE?
Make no mistake I am not Happy to criticize this man who I pray for...but I also do not worship humans, nor do I fall for cults of personality..JP2 is manifestly a very scandalous Pontiff. But I don't disapprove of everything he does...thats just untrue.
And being great among men is no goal of Christians

[hari_padfoot]

thanks for clarifying, it just semmed to me that you were being a little pope bashing. and i can not stand that. sorry. i truly respect the man, even though i am not catholic. thanks for clarifying. sorry if it semmed like i jumped down your throat.

[Antony]

Where true rightousness resides there also true evil lies in wait.The Greater the rightousness of the Church...the greater is the response of evil to undermine or destroy it.

The catholic church isbuilt on religous beliefs,not biblical. The title papa was given to the bishop of Rome by a king. Not king Jesus. Perhaps millions were killed for reading the bible. Jesus warns about the abuse of children, and for not obeying the Word. Now i can show you in the Word where God wants a personal relationship with us.Sit down and think.

The pope took on the title of king through conquest not love. sin cannot be justified. True rightousness is taught by God's son Jesus,and only in the Word. I'm 71 and have studied the Word about forty nine years. Am i perfect? God forbid. Do i hate catholics? Absolutely not.

[dutchie]

Hey Antony! A warm welcome to these forums!! Great to see someone of your age (you're older than I am) posting on this forum!

[hari_padfoot]

The catholic church isbuilt on religous beliefs,not biblical. The title papa was given to the bishop of Rome by a king. Not king Jesus. Perhaps millions were killed for reading the bible. Jesus warns about the abuse of children, and for not obeying the Word. Now i can show you in the Word where God wants a personal relationship with us.Sit down and think.

The pope took on the title of king through conquest not love. sin cannot be justified. True rightousness is taught by God's son Jesus,and only in the Word. I'm 71 and have studied the Word about forty nine years. Am i perfect? God forbid. Do i hate catholics? Absolutely not.
Thank you for saying this... i totally agree.... it is exactly how i feel although i haven't studied the bible as extensively...

[voxpopulisuxx]

The catholic church isbuilt on religous beliefs,not biblical. The title papa was given to the bishop of Rome by a king. Not king Jesus. Perhaps millions were killed for reading the bible. Jesus warns about the abuse of children, and for not obeying the Word. Now i can show you in the Word where God wants a personal relationship with us.Sit down and think.

The pope took on the title of king through conquest not love. sin cannot be justified. True rightousness is taught by God's son Jesus,and only in the Word. I'm 71 and have studied the Word about forty nine years. Am i perfect? God forbid. Do i hate catholics? Absolutely not.

Theres no one here perfect (me the least of all) but I would require you be accurate.
The word Pope is no more than what americans call their Poppa, or Pop...its a latin/greek term of endearment for Father(Ecclesiastical Latin papa from Greek papas, a variant of pappas father, in classical Latin pappas -- Juvenal, "Satires" 6:633). ...thats just a simple fact. So your statement about some king giving the title pope to the bishop of rome is just patently false.....
However you may be referring to the term pontiff...now that was used by the King to address the Leader of the only Christian profession on the Planet at the time...the Catholic Church..because on top of Being Christs duly appointed representative on earth....HE WAS ALSO RESPONSABLE FOR THE MAINTANENCE AND UPKEEP OF THE BRIDGES OF THE CITY OF ROME, a Pontiff or pontifex means bridge keeper...look it up if you dont belive me. So the king would address the bishop in all his titles as well as that of BridgeKeeper -Pontiff-pontifex

There is no Church more biblical then the Catholic Church, since the Bible is one of the Catholic church's "projects" given to it By God under the influence of the Holy Spirit to further spread the Gospel it follows She would understand its precepts and be.... welll....biblical.
Millions killed for reading the Bible?...yes maybe but Not by any christians, especially not by Catholics.
I can show you too where God wants us to have a personal relationship with his Son...on that we Catholics agree...I can also show you where he wants us to Eat his Flesh and Drink His Blood, I can show you where he wants us To Listen To His Church and His Bishops, In fact I can show you every Doctrine of the Church is either in the Bible explicitly or implicity.
As to sitting and thinking....Catholics have as their saints and faithfull adhearents some of the greatets "thinkers" in History...even non-religious educators and leaders agree to that...AQUINAS,AUGUSTINE,NUEMAN,BACON,MILTON,PASCA L,NEWTON ETC...
so look forward to discussing this further
Your Brother in Christ...VOX

[voxpopulisuxx]

Thank you for saying this... i totally agree.... it is exactly how i feel although i haven't studied the bible as extensively...
feelings do not come into play,
history and facts are what count here...a man can feel any way about anything...its truth neutral

[voxpopulisuxx]

and just to recap:
and to all involved in this thread know this....that every so called priest who has done these things to anyone let alone children, should be strung up by their nut sax till they rip off...and then be put in a nice unsupervised southern usa fed prison...that is how I feel about it...but rapture in his sicko kkk, jack chick anti catholic bigotry has it that the Church CAUSES this evil...that is what Im saying and what I oppose whole heartedly...and for the record the Church hiarchy today is so apostate, so liberal, so non catholic and evil themselves for the most part I am at a disadvantage to be sure defending the Mystical Body of Christ, when all the world see today agreat pretender to Catholicism that is modern rome.....if you want to see where Im coming from go to websites like Traditio.com...or novusordowatch.org...and you we see that I and many other Trads despise this popes policys and the legacy of these apostates who HAVE ALLOWED THIS evil of homosodomitic predators to enter the seminarys...I have spent many an hour savaging liberal and false catholics, to put it another way....Ilove the Kingdom of God,,,but this kingdom has been overrun by corrupt prelates who have usurped the true Church(as God predicted)...so I apologise if that terse comment was insensative...If I was Pope there would be thrashing of these apostates that would make Vlad Putin blush....pedophiles would recive the sentance christ imposed....something about a millstone and deep water. But Pope John Paul the2 is a weak and deliberatly liberal pontiff....the church has had bad popes in the past...this is nothing new...so to reiterate....Where great good is so to will great evil congrigate....this evil is NOT proof of the Churches goodness...it is only unfourtunate reality of a war of Satan against Christ!
__________________

[dutchie]

I thought you said the Pope was infallible in his moral teachings?!? That IS what you said in another thread...

Confusing... :crazy: :confused:

[voxpopulisuxx]

I thought you said the Pope was infallible in his moral teachings?!? That IS what you said in another thread...

Confusing... :crazy: :confused:
The popes actions while instructive are not infallable teaching, they may be scandalous and sinfull in fact, as a few popes of the past were just that...there is alot of misunderstanding in regard to this concept of infallability...come ask me about it in "CATHOLIC ANSWERS' just in case lazerus doesnt deem it worthy of this thread lol

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

VERY interesting thread, Vox. I had no idea that Catholics could be so out of sync with the Pope. It just goes to show you that EVERYBODY has an opinion about EVERYTHING and these opinions vary considerably from person to person. While on one hand it might be nice to see some unity in this world, I don't think that will ever happen because of this.


know this....that every so called priest who has done these things to anyone let alone children, should be strung up by their nut sax till they rip off...
Ouch!

[voxpopulisuxx]

VERY interesting thread, Vox. I had no idea that Catholics could be so out of sync with the Pope. It just goes to show you that EVERYBODY has an opinion about EVERYTHING and these opinions vary considerably from person to person. While on one hand it might be nice to see some unity in this world, I don't think that will ever happen because of this.


Ouch!
what you think this too mild a punshment? dont worry its nothing compared to what Jesus said was gonna happen.

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

what you think this too mild a punshment? dont worry its nothing compared to what Jesus said was gonna happen.
OR, whatever happened to "an eye for an eye"? I think that an appropriate punishment for ANY sexual crime would be castration. Not only would they not physically be able to do stuff, but no nads means no testosterone which means no sex drive, thus eliminating the temptation.

[voxpopulisuxx]

OR, whatever happened to "an eye for an eye"? I think that an appropriate punishment for ANY sexual crime would be castration. Not only would they not physically be able to do stuff, but no nads means no testosterone which means no sex drive, thus eliminating the temptation.
This is particularly heinous becuse they pretend to represent ultimate Goodness,,,and then committ the deepest evil.....as oulr Lord said
Matthew 18:6 - But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:42 - And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Luke 17:2 - It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

[Bigsky770]

. . .Vox, You said:


Originally posted by Voxpopulisuxx
"In matters of FAITH and Morals the Pope is Infallible"

. . .Then you say:


Originally posted by Voxpopulisuxx
"The popes actions while instructive are not infallable teaching, they may be scandalous and sinfull in fact, as a few popes of the past were just that...

. . .Am I wrong here, but is not what is scandalous and sinful ALSO "immoral?" Would that not qualify as "Fallibility?"

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[voxpopulisuxx]

. . .Vox, You said:



. . .Then you say:



. . .Am I wrong here, but is not what is scandalous and sinful ALSO "immoral?" Would that not qualify as "Fallibility?"

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:
Joe your taking it out of context....I believe the post I was responding to was condemning the pope for his lack of action against the pedophile priests....and what Irefered to was the POPES ACTIONS are not infallablle. Only When HE SPEAKS OR WRITES ABOUT TOPICS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO FAITH AND MORALS, we find an example of this teaching in the Gospels
matt 23:1
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

the infallablity of the pope is a negative "power" if you will...it does not mean that a pope may teach anything he wants about faith and morals, it means he is infallable when, declareing clearly that he is speaking with the full authority of his office, and...(and this is important) following the teachings of his predecessors the Apostles, declaring about an issue of faith and morals(and only in these areas), he is prevented By the Power of the Holy Ghost of teaching in error.
heres a textbook definition:
Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Solemn Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, as supreme pastor of the entire Church, speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith and morals to be held by the entire Church, or when a Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church. This is a very rarely excercised assertion of authority (only a few times in the past few hundred years). When the Pope teaches using his extraordinary infallible Magisterium, or when a Council dogmatically defines something and the Pope endorses that defintion, Catholics must believe what is taught de fide, as an article of faith.
How to recognize what is and isn't infallible
If it has always been taught by the Church as a matter of faith or morals, it is infallible. If it is a solemn definition, it is infallible.

Ex., you are reading two Encyclicals. The first Encyclical reads:

Venerable Brethren, the red dogs runs at night. The cow jumped over the Moon. Jesus Christ is God. Little Jack Horner sat in a corner. Women may not be ordained to the priesthood.
In this document, the only parts which would be infallible would be the lines "Jesus Christ is God" and "women may not be ordained to the priesthood" because these have always been taught. This is teaching at the level of the Universal Magisterium, which is infallible.

The second Encyclical reads:

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that X, Y, Z. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. And, by the way, the red dog runs at night.
Notice the explicit "we define" here? Notice the penalty in place for non-acceptance of what is being said (if you don't believe this, you have fallen away from the Catholic Faith)? In this document, X, Y, and Z are infallible, but not "the red dog runs at night." This is teaching at the level of the Extraordinary (or Solemn) Magisterium, which is also infallible and is to be accepted "de fide." (Note: Protestants and uneducated Catholics who ask blankly, "Is Enclyclical X infallible?" need to recognize that a 100-page Encyclical may be written that is not infallible in any way, or has 10 paragraphs that are infallible, or 1 sentence that is infallible, etc.)
http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/papolatry.html

does this mean I am an unfaithfull or Hypocritical Catholic if I strongly criticise the Pope in some matter? Hardly...in fact its just the opposite,Many of the Saints vilified the popes of their time, who corrupted their office: St. Catherine (who called the pope a coward), St. Gertrude (who called the pope a spiritual murderer), St. Augustine (who condemned the pope on oath for heresy in the public square). Because the pope can do more damage than anyone else, he must be criticized more harshly than anyone else. That is the Catholic theology of the matter.

[Bigsky770]

Originally posted by Voxpopulisuxx
Joe your taking it out of context....I believe the post I was responding to was condemning the pope for his lack of action against the pedophile priests....and what Irefered to was the POPES ACTIONS are not infallablle. Only When HE SPEAKS OR WRITES ABOUT TOPICS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO FAITH AND MORALS, we find an example of this teaching in the Gospels

. . .What you are referring to is ACTION BY the Pope which can be scandalous, immoral (or) amoral, and not really mean a whole hill of beans in matters of "infallibility" or "morals" or "faith" because the exclusionary clause here is that IF the "Pope" should publish a writing (or) make an pronouncement pertaining to anyone of the aforementioned, he can 'get by with that', and is not necessarily held to practice that which is preached.

. . .Sorry, bro. Where I come from, ACTION (or the lack thereof) speaks VOLUMES. (ever hear the saying, "Action speaks louder than words?") Where I come from, the negative action can supplant the positive written word. Thereby the ACTION can and will dispatch the well-meaning goodness of the written word en total, to myself that translates into FALLIBILITY. And then it follows that IF I ACT in a way that supplants the 'goodness' that I had preached, I am than found to be not only failing in 'infallibility' but also have shown as somewhat lacking in the 'moral' sense for the negative act.

EXAMPLE: I can't go-out tomorrow after writing a lengthy piece on all the wrongs of "bankrobbery" and then proceed to knock-over "first nat'l whatever bank". In the REAL WORLD, I am held fully accountable then for robbing the bank, no matter WHAT I'd written (or) said previous to the act.

Are you getting this? or to a "Catholic" what is written means everything, and what is done means nothing?

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[Defiant Noquisi]

How to recognize what is and isn't infallible I cant recognize or for that matter read anything being that its in yellow. Its too light. If you want to educate the masses with your mortally written propaganda at least make it so it can be read. Oh, I guess I can recognize what fallible is and I dont even have to read it. Never mind. :eww:

[Holy-Paladin01]

.....................................

[voxpopulisuxx]

. . .What you are referring to is ACTION BY the Pope which can be scandalous, immoral (or) amoral, and not really mean a whole hill of beans in matters of "infallibility" or "morals" or "faith" because the exclusionary clause here is that IF the "Pope" should publish a writing (or) make an pronouncement pertaining to anyone of the aforementioned, he can 'get by with that', and is not necessarily held to practice that which is preached.

. . .Sorry, bro. Where I come from, ACTION (or the lack thereof) speaks VOLUMES. (ever hear the saying, "Action speaks louder than words?") Where I come from, the negative action can supplant the positive written word. Thereby the ACTION can and will dispatch the well-meaning goodness of the written word en total, to myself that translates into FALLIBILITY. And then it follows that IF I ACT in a way that supplants the 'goodness' that I had preached, I am than found to be not only failing in 'infallibility' but also have shown as somewhat lacking in the 'moral' sense for the negative act.

EXAMPLE: I can't go-out tomorrow after writing a lengthy piece on all the wrongs of "bankrobbery" and then proceed to knock-over "first nat'l whatever bank". In the REAL WORLD, I am held fully accountable then for robbing the bank, no matter WHAT I'd written (or) said previous to the act.

Are you getting this? or to a "Catholic" what is written means everything, and what is done means nothing?

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:
Listen I dont know why your not following me I already addressed how the actions of the pope are a seperate issue WITH JESUS CHRISTS OWN WORDS(scroll back look again)......its almost as if you want me to say the Pope is perfect and he doesnt make any mistakes.....but that is not what infallability is or means.....get it? All popes all the way back to peter himself COMMITT errors, THAT IS WHy ST. PAUL HAD TO GO TO JERUSALEM TO STRAIGHTen HIM OUT! BUT NO POPE HAS EVER TAUGHT FROM CHRISTS TIME TO NOW ERRORS CONCERNING FAITH AND MORALS in the very specific way denoted in my previous post....did you even bother reading it?. Its seeems youll have me damned if I say the pope makes mistakes, or damned if I say he cant make mistakes.
Each Pope according to catholic Teaching has been given the deposit of faith from his predecessors...now remember that term, deposit of faith, and what this is is-THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES.... a Pope cannot change these teachings ever, nor can he teach against them....for if he does formally teach against the deposit of faith, his office becomes sedevacante[/COLOR[COLOR=MediumTurquoise]](sedes -is f. [a seat; a chair , throne; an abode, home-place, seat, base, foundation].Vacante empty=vacant) until such a time as he recants his heresy.In short he is no longer Pope
THE POINT IS,
ONCE AND FOR ALL,
GODS TEACHINGS ARE PROTECTED BY GOD FROM BEING CORRUPTED BY FALLABLE MEN...how? By the Power of Christs authority, with the Power of the Holy Spirit, according to the Will of God the Father.
Lk. 10: 16 -- "Whoever listens to you listens to me..." Jesus himself says it clearly and without equivocation: The Church speaks for Christ. 1 Tim. 3: 15 -- Paul says the foundation of truth is not scripture, but the Church: "...Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."
Heb. 13: 17 -- "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you..." The Church hierarchy is ordained by God. Mt. 28: 18-20 -- "'All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them...teaching them to observe all I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the world.'"
Jesus' authority is passed on to his Church.
Eph. 3: 10 -- Even the angels are instructed by the church: "...so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens." John 11: 47-52 -- John states clearly that even Caiaphas was inspired by the Holy Spirit when, speaking from the chair of Moses(DEPOSIT OF FAITH), he declared that Jesus must die so the whole nation might not perish: "He did not say this on his own, but since he was high priest for that year, he Prophesied..." If the Holy Spirit spoke through the unchristian conniver Caiaphas, how is it he cannot speak through a faithful Christian pope?
source: http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_86.htm
Joe
this is what the Catholic Church holds this doctrine to mean...now of course as I have said repetedly to you and others...Im not trying to force you to accept this teaching(that is your business), but please stop trying to infer that the Church teaches something she Most certainly does not. The teaching in this matter is only clouded by others who insist we catholics think the pope is God himself, and that everything that he says or does is to be Taken as holy writ.....and we do not...we belive one should listen to God not man.
I worked very long on this post tonight Joe to try show the reasoning, please take some time to read this one and the one previous carefully.....you are right, actions do speak louder then words, but God does not tie strings to his Children so as to control them like puppets, He allows them the free will to ACT poorly, he does not allow them to put these actions into the Deposit of Faith. Pax my brother!
(ps when Clinton ACTIONS disraced himself with the intern, did you reject the authority of the office of the president, or just Clinton/)

[Bigsky770]

"Teach by Example"

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

it means he is infallable when, declareing clearly that he is speaking with the full authority of his office, and...(and this is important) following the teachings of his predecessors the Apostles, declaring about an issue of faith and morals(and only in these areas), he is prevented By the Power of the Holy Ghost of teaching in error.
I've got an interesting situation that I just read about last night (please bear in mind that I may be using certain words incorrectly as I'm no expert on Christianity). Apparently, Mary Magdalene was originally depicted in a good light and as someone of great significance in the life of Jesus by the Gospels according to the Apostles AND some of the Gnostic Gospels (of which MM herself had written one). If this was so clearly established CENTURIES ago and again confirmed to be so by the Pope in the late 1960's, then WHY did Pope Gregory change things SO much so that MM was portrayed as a prostitute and relegated to someone of little relevance in the life of Jesus? Why would the Holy Ghost allow Pope Gregory to incorrectly teach about MM if, as you say, "he is prevented By the Power of the Holy Ghost of teaching in error."? Was this not clearly a MISTAKE by Pope Gregory? And is not the issue of MM and her place in Biblical history considered to be an issue of FAITH? Thus making Pope Gregory's decision a fallible one? Thus making Pope Gregory FALLIBLE in this particular area of FAITH? What do you think?

[voxpopulisuxx]

you realise your signature nye is very offensive to me....I really Love Jesus and his sacrifice of the Cross...and for you to make light of this you have to understand offends me the same way it would if you made Jokes about a very dear friend of mine who died a horrible death saving my life....do you remember the scene in Forrest Gump when Capt Dans slutty girlfriends called Forrest Stupid? How mad he Got ( I know its just a movie, Im just trying to sincerely ask you not to be so deliberately offensive against my faith...human to human.

Now to respond to your post your gonna be amazed but I don't have a flipping clue what your talking about really....The people and events your discussing I cant get a grip on to answer....um Mary Magdalen was most definitely according to the deposit of faith a woman of ill repute which is what Jesus was so happy to bless in the sense to show that no one is beyond the Love of God....(still he commanded her to SIN no more) And Mary Magdalen showed her true Love of Christ by not being ashamed or afraid to stay with Him all the way to the cross) You see and this applys to me, the worse the sinner the more appreciative the forgiveness...I am so pig headed and zealous for Christ because of the level of sin I was rescued from....now as far as Pope gregory etc....I really have no point of reference to discuss what your talking about....this is the first I ever heard of this....maybe you could post a link I could read?

[voxpopulisuxx]

"Teach by Example"

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:
agreed big sky....but in the very specific matter of Passing on the Truths of Christ, generation to generation, the Actions of the flesh cannot be trusted, even Good actions....I think I made my case with the bible to try and point this out....Jesus was very hard on Hypocrisy, and this is what your pointing out, Jesus made it very clear that to scandalize another with your actions would be punished severly...But still he did not put our faith in the hands of flesh and blood.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, O.P. (1225-1274)
THE "ANGELIC" DOCTOR AND PRINCIPAL THEOLOGIAN OF THE CHURCH

"Hold firmly that you faith is identical with that of the ancients.
Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."

"There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be
questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a
subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent
danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St.
Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example
to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way,
they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from
their subjects....'

"The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for it was
not light: there was a danger for the preservation of Gospel truth....
The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest.
For this reason, St. Paul writes: 'I spoke to Cephas,' that is, Peter,
'before everyone,' since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was
fraught with danger to everyone. (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A.
4)

"Some say that fraternal corrrection does not extend to the
prelates either because man should not raise his voice against heaven,
or because the prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their
subjects. However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the
prelates do not represent heaven, and, therefore, must be corrected.
And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against
them, but in their favor, since the admonishment is for their own
sake.... For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of
fraternal correction extends also to the prelates, so that they may be
corrected by their subjects." (IV Sententiarum, D. 19, Q. 2, A. 2)

JUAN CARDINAL DE TURRECREMATA], O.P. (1388-1468)

OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED THEOLOGIAN OF THE COUNCIL OF BASEL/FLORENCE
GIVEN BY POPE EUGENIUS IV THE TITLE OF "DEFENDER OF THE FAITH"

"Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope
can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are
not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that
he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in
what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,... it is said in the Acts
of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore,
were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the
articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of
the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such
commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)...." (Summa de Ecclesia
[1489], founded upon the doctrine formulated and defined by the Council
of Florence and defined by Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Pius IV)

FR. ADRIAN FORTESCUE (1874-1923)
BRITAIN'S GREAT LITURGICAL HISTORIAN
(1874-1923)

"The Pope has no authority from Christ in temporal matters, in questions of politics.... His authority is ecclesiastical authority; it goes
no further than that of the Church herself. But even in religious matters,
the Pope is bound, very considerably, by the divine constitution of the
Church. There are any number of things that the pope cannot do in religion.
He cannot modify, nor touch in any way, one single point of the revelation
Christ gave to the Church; his business is only to guard this against attack
and false interpretation. We believe that God will guide him that his
decisions of this nature will be nothing more than a defense or unfolding of
what Christ revealed.
"The pope can neither make nor unmake a sacrament; he cannot affect
the essence of any sacrament in any way. He cannot touch the Bible; he can
neither take away a text from the inspired Scriptures nor add one to them.
He has no fresh inspiration nor revelation.
"His business is to believe the revelation of Christ, as all Catholics believe it, and to defend it against heresy.... The Pope is not, in the absolute sense, head of the Church; the head of the Church is Jesus Christ our Lord.... The Pope is the vicar of that head, and therefore visible head of the Church on earth, having authority delegate from Christ over the Church on earth only.... If the Pope is a monarch, he is a very constitutional monarch indeed, bound on all sides by the constitution of the Church, as this has been given to her by Christ.” (The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, pp. 27-28)
Sky are you following?..These are all great Members of the Catholic Church saying these things about the popes office.....please do not gloss over these quotes...

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

you realise your signature nye is very offensive to me...
Come on, Vox! I dropped my XTC signature out of respect for you, believe it or not. If you had actually seen this particular scene on "Family Guy", you would realize that it is incredibly light-hearted and done in good fun. You have to learn to stop taking things so seriously, Vox. If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at? I'm sorry that you feel that way, but if you knew me at all, you would realize that the intent to be offensive was the FARTHEST thing from my mind. I simply love "Family Guy", "The Simpsons" and other funny cartoons like these that poke fun at today's society. I used to work at a LASIK laser vision surgery clinic and I laughed my ass off during an episode of the Simpsons where Ned Flanders ended up going blind after having this surgery. I know, it's not the same, but the sig is all in good fun as I'm sure others on the forum will probably agree.


Now to respond to your post your gonna be amazed but I don't have a flipping clue what your talking about really....The people and events your discussing I cant get a grip on to answer....um Mary Magdalen was most definitely according to the deposit of faith a woman of ill repute which is what Jesus was so happy to bless in the sense to show that no one is beyond the Love of God....(still he commanded her to SIN no more) And Mary Magdalen showed her true Love of Christ by not being ashamed or afraid to stay with Him all the way to the cross) You see and this applys to me, the worse the sinner the more appreciative the forgiveness...I am so pig headed and zealous for Christ because of the level of sin I was rescued from....now as far as Pope gregory etc....I really have no point of reference to discuss what your talking about....this is the first I ever heard of this....maybe you could post a link I could read?
I don't know of any links that might exist, but if I find one, I'll post it. My information comes from the 1997 translation of the Gnostic Gospel of Mary Magdalene by Jean-Yves Leloup. It says the following (directly quoted) in its preface:
Only in 1969 did the Catholic Church officially repeal Gregory's labeling of Mary as a whore, thereby admitting their error - though the image of Mary Magdalene as the penitent whore has remained in the public teachings of all Christian denominations. Like a small erratum buried in the back pages of a newspaper, the Church's correction goes unnoticed, while the initial and incorrect article continues to influence readers.
Unnoticed indeed...

[voxpopulisuxx]

Come on, Vox! I dropped my XTC signature out of respect for you, believe it or not. If you had actually seen this particular scene on "Family Guy", you would realize that it is incredibly light-hearted and done in good fun. You have to learn to stop taking things so seriously, Vox. If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at? I'm sorry that you feel that way, but if you knew me at all, you would realize that the intent to be offensive was the FARTHEST thing from my mind. I simply love "Family Guy", "The Simpsons" and other funny cartoons like these that poke fun at today's society. I used to work at a LASIK laser vision surgery clinic and I laughed my ass off during an episode of the Simpsons where Ned Flanders ended up going blind after having this surgery. I know, it's not the same, but the sig is all in good fun as I'm sure others on the forum will probably agree.


I don't know of any links that might exist, but if I find one, I'll post it. My information comes from the 1997 translation of the Gnostic Gospel of Mary Magdalene by Jean-Yves Leloup. It says the following (directly quoted) in its preface:
Only in 1969 did the Catholic Church officially repeal Gregory's labeling of Mary as a whore, thereby admitting their error - though the image of Mary Magdalene as the penitent whore has remained in the public teachings of all Christian denominations. Like a small erratum buried in the back pages of a newspaper, the Church's correction goes unnoticed, while the initial and incorrect article continues to influence readers.
Unnoticed indeed...
ive made fun of myself on numerous occasions.....but this family guy "dialog" is as offensive to Catholic ears as you can get....I prefer the xtc quote in fact....I am requesting one more time, human being to human being that you remove it.
Pretend My dad was decapitated in a terrible crime, and you post a "dialog" something to the effect of WHy did vox's dads head cross the road....blah blah etc...are you picking up what Im putting down? Your "dialog" makes fun of the Horrible murder of My Father....so why should I lighten up?..Dutchi has threatend to pull my threads for "rudness"...what about you?
I learned to ignore the xtc quote...this I cannot.

[voxpopulisuxx]

And to offer an answer to your question about Mary Magdellane...heres a link
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0665.html

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

ive made fun of myself on numerous occasions.....but this family guy "dialog" is as offensive to Catholic ears as you can get....I prefer the xtc quote in fact....I am requesting one more time, human being to human being that you remove it.
Very well, Vox. I will respect your wishes and remove it (already done). Please accept my apologies. I honestly didn't anticipate this reaction from you. No offense was intended. I enjoy our "back and forth" on these forums and I don't wish to undermine that. Again, I'm sorry to have offended you...


And to offer an answer to your question about Mary Magdellane...heres a link
http://www.catholiceducation.org/ar...ion/re0665.html
Yeah, this is exactly what I was referring to, but it doesn't really go further to explain why Pope Gregory would change what was already established by the church for several hundred years. This issue of FAITH was changed by Gregory in the 6th century and then changed BACK in 1969 by the Pope, thus admitting that Pope Gregory had made an error. Thus making him fallible in an area of faith. Is this not a reasonable conclusion?

I just finished watching 60minutes and there was a good story about a young, formerly Muslim, woman who escaped her Muslim marriage and ended up in Amsterdam where she became a member of parliament. She then wrote a movie which was directed by a popular Holland director. This movie basically denounced the traditional teachings of the Koran with regards to women and how badly they are treated in Muslim society, showing powerful images of Koran passages written on the naked, beaten body of a Muslim woman. For this form of protest, she now has a standing deathwish on her head and subsequently must live in hiding. It's Salman Rushdie all over again. For having the balls to make such a film, the Dutch director was brutally shot, stabbled and mutilated by a Muslim male while walking along the street in Amsterdan. Traditionally the most liberal and tolerant society in the world, the Dutch people responded with massive protest rallies, destruction of mosques and vandalism. Ironically, if Muslims had just ignored this small 10-minute film, I'm sure that very few people would have seen it and its impact would be negligible at best. But in typical Muslim near-sightedness, they just couldn't leave well enough alone. Disgusting. Religion once again rears its ugly head...

[voxpopulisuxx]

Very well, Vox. I will respect your wishes and remove it (already done). Please accept my apologies. I honestly didn't anticipate this reaction from you. No offense was intended. I enjoy our "back and forth" on these forums and I don't wish to undermine that. Again, I'm sorry to have offended you...


Yeah, this is exactly what I was referring to, but it doesn't really go further to explain why Pope Gregory would change what was already established by the church for several hundred years. This issue of FAITH was changed by Gregory in the 6th century and then changed BACK in 1969 by the Pope, thus admitting that Pope Gregory had made an error. Thus making him fallible in an area of faith. Is this not a reasonable conclusion?

I just finished watching 60minutes and there was a good story about a young, formerly Muslim, woman who escaped her Muslim marriage and ended up in Amsterdam where she became a member of parliament. She then wrote a movie which was directed by a popular Holland director. This movie basically denounced the traditional teachings of the Koran with regards to women and how badly they are treated in Muslim society, showing powerful images of Koran passages written on the naked, beaten body of a Muslim woman. For this form of protest, she now has a standing deathwish on her head and subsequently must live in hiding. It's Salman Rushdie all over again. For having the balls to make such a film, the Dutch director was brutally shot, stabbled and mutilated by a Muslim male while walking along the street in Amsterdan. Traditionally the most liberal and tolerant society in the world, the Dutch people responded with massive protest rallies, destruction of mosques and vandalism. Ironically, if Muslims had just ignored this small 10-minute film, I'm sure that very few people would have seen it and its impact would be negligible at best. But in typical Muslim near-sightedness, they just couldn't leave well enough alone. Disgusting. Religion once again rears its ugly head...
you see Im not following the whole pope gregory thing...I cant seem to find when the Church "lifted" this definition.....this is important....you see like any group the Catholic leadership has its liberals and its conservatives and they regularily excoriate each others positions....but to outsiders that is to people who dont know one from the other they think or report that"THE CHURCH' has said this or that...when more accurately it was this prelate or that, or this bible theologian or group said this....so I need to find the action in 1969 that your refering to....in other words its not enough to say the following...."The Church over turned Pope Gregory on xyz...." I need to know WHO in the Church....or WHAT document did this over turning....

as to the quote retraction....you have lifted My opinion of you to astronomical hights...your tolerence Is worthy of your Rhetoric...and I will always be glad to tug of war with you(did that sound gay?DONT ANSWER THAT!!!...rofl)...thank you!
Back to you friend....

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

....so I need to find the action in 1969 that your refering to....in other words its not enough to say the following...."The Church over turned Pope Gregory on xyz...." I need to know WHO in the Church....or WHAT document did this over turning....
During my reading of this, I was under the impression that this retraction by the Pope in 1969 was quite a big deal and a monumental action by the Church. From what I understand (I'm sorry that I don't have the references or the exact details), Pope Gregory was the one who branded Mary Magdalene as a prostitute, thus tarnishing her image in history. Like your link says, scholars believe that he was combining a few different "Marys" that were mentioned by the Apostles into one to eliminate confusion sowed by the different Gospels regarding these "Marys". After combining these "Marys", he went a step further and branded her as a prostitute, as one of the "Marys" mentioned in the Gospels was described this way. Then, in 1969, apparently it was the Pope himself who decreed that Mary Magdalene was mistakenly branded a prostitute by Gregory and officially restored her wholesome image and important place in the life of Jesus. This restoration of MM's reputation and image is something that is apparently not commonly known. Many people apparently still consider MM to have been a prostitute, her image still tarnished. My ultimate point is that Gregory mistakenly labelled MM as a prostitute and this mistake was acknowledged by the Pope in 1969.


as to the quote retraction....you have lifted My opinion of you to astronomical hights...your tolerence Is worthy of your Rhetoric...
Thanks! I'm glad to have earned your respect...


...and I will always be glad to tug of war with you(did that sound gay?DONT ANSWER THAT!!!...rofl)...thank you!
Hey, buddy, I'm not THAT glad! LOL !!!


Back to you friend....
Hey, I ain't going anywhere NEAR you after that last statement !!!

[voxpopulisuxx]

I found this excerpt here...hope this clears up the confusion:
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=141
the article explains much more but was to large to post(but not to long to read)
thanx for the heads up on this one! Ill be using this info again with someone else Im sure!

In 1969, the Church revised her calendar and changed the readings used on July 22, St. Mary Magdalene's feast day. Traditionally, the Gospel read for this celebration was Luke 7:36-50. The prayers in the Liturgy of the Hours also described Mary Magdalene as a penitent, whose sins were washed away by Christ and who loved Him greatly. Today, the Gospel for her Mass is John 20:1-2, 11-18, which tells of her witness to the Resurrection. The antiphons and responses for her feast day in the Divine Office now also only refer to her presence at the tomb on Easter. Still, these changes in the liturgy in no way refute the interpretation set forth by long-standing tradition. Furthermore, there is no feast day commemorating "St. Mary of Bethany," whom Christ promised would always be remembered. This would be strange considering that the feast of her sister, St. Martha, is celebrated on July 29, one week after St. Mary Magdalene. While the readings may have changed, it seems the understanding of Mary's identity has not. Either way, although ancient, this tradition is not to be confused with an essential aspect of the Catholic faith. There are many reasons to accept this tradition, but it is not a doctrine of the Church.

As Catholics, it is important to remember that the Bible isn't like any other ancient manuscript. The Scriptures are entrusted to the Catholic Church, which infallibly interprets them through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is a great temptation to apply modern methods of research to texts written many centuries ago, but the Word of God cannot be analyzed solely according to contemporary principles of scholarship. Modern readers may not understand why St. Luke did not explicitly link Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and the sinful woman, but the Gospels were not written in the same style as novels or history books are today. The identification of Mary Magdalene as the repentant sinner who anointed Jesus is based on Sacred Scripture and traditions handed on from the early Church.

Mary Magdalene:Faithful Disciple

Mary Magdalene has long been the subject of prayers, devotions, and popular literature. She is the patron saint of apothecaries, contemplatives, converts, glove makers, hairdressers, penitent sinners, perfumers, reformed prostitutes, and people ridiculed for their piety (as Simon the leper was indignant toward her when she anointed Christ's feet). There are also many prayers, poems, and plays written in her honor as a devout penitent. To this day, St. Mary Magdalene remains a popular name for parish churches and a popular saint of devotion.

Like all saints, Mary Magdalene's experience of Christ is a great example for all to imitate. Her role as a disciple and witness to Jesus makes her a powerful intercessor on our behalf. A model of repentance, conversion, obedience, and faithfulness, she is a fitting patroness for those who have strayed and come back to the Church-sinful and sorrowful, longing for the love of Christ.


Along Comes Mary

o Marvelous Mercy

Luke 7:36-50 Now there was a sinful woman in the city who . . . stood behind [Jesus] at his feet weeping and began to bathe his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the ointment . . . He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

o Where My Servant Is

Luke 8:1-3 Accompanying [Jesus] were the Twelve and some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out.

o Tales from Bethany

Luke 10:38-42 He entered a village where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him. She had a sister named Mary who sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak.

John 11:1-45 Now a man was ill, Lazarus from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. Mary was the one who had anointed the Lord with perfumed oil and dried his feet with her hair.

o Preparing for Burial

John 12:1-8 (cf. Mt. 26:6-13, Mk. 14:3-9) Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair.

o At the Cross Their Station Keeping

John 19:25 (cf. Mt. 27:55-56, Mk. 15:40-41) Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.

o To the Grave

Mark 15:46-47 (cf. Mt. 27:61) Mary Magdalene . . . watched where he was laid.

o The Resurrection

John 20:1-18 (cf. Mt. 28:1-10, Mk. 6:1-11, Lk. 23:54-24:10) On the first day of the week, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning. . . . She turned around and saw Jesus there, but did not know it was Jesus . . . Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to him in Hebrew, "Rabboni," which means Teacher.

Recommended Reading:



Holy Bible (Catholic edition)

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Vatican II Documents

Catholicism and Fundamentalism; Karl Keating

De-Coding Da Vinci: The Facts Behind the Fictions of The Da Vinci Code; Amy Welborn

The Da Vinci Hoax; Sandra Miesel and Carl Olson

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

Wow, Vox! You don't have to go through as much trouble as you did here! Thank you anyway, I appreciate the effort. Very interesting.

I noticed in your recommended reading that you have a couple of "debunking the DaVinci Code" books listed. I suspect that you've already guessed that I am currently reading one of those myself. It is called "Secrets of the Code" by Dan Burnstein. The reason why I chose this one over the others is that this particular book appeared to be neutral and objective with its information. It is essentially a compilation of articles and excerpts from many different experts which offer arguments both for and against the various aspects of "The DaVinci Code". I'm not interested in getting only one side of the story. I'm more interested in hearing all of the different angles from a variety of experts and then deciding for myself what to believe. I'm only 25 pages into it and I'm already hooked. SO, I'm going to have ALOT of questions over the next several weeks as I make my way through it. So I'm apologizing ahead of time for this...

[voxpopulisuxx]

your the only poster left here with a sense of proportion...you should read the crap im getting in the other posts...lol

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

your the only poster left here with a sense of proportion...you should read the crap im getting in the other posts...lol
Yeah, the crap goes both ways. We've both slung it at eachother and that's the way it goes and probably the way that it will always be when it comes to peoples' fundamental beliefs. I've often found from past experience that for a person to change from an atheist into someone who believes in God usually requires a "life-changing" event, whether it be physical or emotional trauma. I get the impression that this is what has happened to you. I would be interested to hear your story if you wouldn't mind telling it to us. Of course, I completely understand if you don't wish to. It's your personal business and sometimes things should be kept personal. Anyway, don't think badly of the atheists here, or anywhere for that matter. Feelings get hurt and egos get bruised and people lash out. You have to keep in mind that, just like you don't like people attacking YOUR beliefs, atheists don't like Christians (or people of other religions) attacking OUR beliefs. Put yourself in the other person's shoes...

[voxpopulisuxx]

Yeah, the crap goes both ways. We've both slung it at eachother and that's the way it goes and probably the way that it will always be when it comes to peoples' fundamental beliefs. I've often found from past experience that for a person to change from an atheist into someone who believes in God usually requires a "life-changing" event, whether it be physical or emotional trauma. I get the impression that this is what has happened to you. I would be interested to hear your story if you wouldn't mind telling it to us. Of course, I completely understand if you don't wish to. It's your personal business and sometimes things should be kept personal. Anyway, don't think badly of the atheists here, or anywhere for that matter. Feelings get hurt and egos get bruised and people lash out. You have to keep in mind that, just like you don't like people attacking YOUR beliefs, atheists don't like Christians (or people of other religions) attacking OUR beliefs. Put yourself in the other person's shoes...

actually its just the opposite...many here are way too thin skinned(dutchi-big sky)...I dont care if someone gets nasty,,,as long as I can get nasty back,...Its been my experience that smack talk provides a necessary function in it thins out the rhetoricists (bs artists) from the sincere, I like sincerity....I dont give a rats arse about whether you agree with my position or not...if your sincere, Im in....cause in the end the Truth is revealed...and as has been pointed out to me...I have a fetish for the TRUTH.....smack talk can a times be more sincere than the bs respectability imposed by dutchi et al...Ive got a sense of humor, I can take a good joke at my expense...repeat MY expense...so any way...
my story is too long and to those whove been through what Ive been through dont need me to explain, and those who havnt couldnt understand it in a million years....

[dutchie]

actually its just the opposite...many here are way too thin skinned(dutchi-big sky)...

...smack talk can a times be more sincere than the bs respectability imposed by dutchi et al...Ive got a sense of humor, I can take a good joke at my expense...repeat MY expense...so any way...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFLMAO!!!! Great!!! You're doing a GREAT JOB proving my point!!!! OOoooohhh.. oxygen, please!!!

Vox... Seriously now... I admire the zeal with which you defend your POV, I really do. I respect people for having a faith, yes - you might not think I really do, but I do. And there's the difference between us.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with my sense of humor. As I will demonstrate with this joke:
A protestant dies and goes to heaven. The archangel Gabriel shows him to this little open train, which takes new visitors on a tour around heaven. Gabriel warns the protestant: "Half way the tour there's this long wall. When the train passes that, please retain total silence..." The train passes the wall, and afterwards the protestant asks Gabriel "Why did you want me to be silent?" Gabriel replies: "On the other side of the wall are the catholics. We want to keep them happy, so we won't let them notice they're not the only ones here...."

[voxpopulisuxx]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFLMAO!!!! Great!!! You're doing a GREAT JOB proving my point!!!! OOoooohhh.. oxygen, please!!!

Vox... Seriously now... I admire the zeal with which you defend your POV, I really do. I respect people for having a faith, yes - you might not think I really do, but I do. And there's the difference between us.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with my sense of humor. As I will demonstrate with this joke:
A protestant dies and goes to heaven. The archangel Gabriel shows him to this little open train, which takes new visitors on a tour around heaven. Gabriel warns the protestant: "Half way the tour there's this long wall. When the train passes that, please retain total silence..." The train passes the wall, and afterwards the protestant asks Gabriel "Why did you want me to be silent?" Gabriel replies: "On the other side of the wall are the catholics. We want to keep them happy, so we won't let them notice they're not the only ones here...."
lol that joke is soooooooooooo old......youve got to have a better one then that....I never question your sense of humor(untill you told this really old joke)...just your sense of proportion.....

[dutchie]

LOL!! Goes to show that these things always have a habit of traveling around the world more slowly than you would expect - to me this was a new one.

But... I have another one for you that you might not have heard. I posted it here, and it paints a picture of how I see the concepts of heaven and hell (in a TIC sort of way...) I posted it earlier here, but I can't seem to find it anymore...

A man decides he really really wants to go to heaven, and goes into the desert to live as a hermit, just eating spiders and scorpions...

As can be expected, the hermit dies at an early age. He finds the red carpet rolled out for him onto the gates of heaven, where Peter already awaits him: "I'll show you your room. Dinner is at eight in the main dining hall."

At a quarter to eight the hermit enters the dining hall. There is a balustrade in the middle. Looking over it, the hermit can see hell straight below. In hell, the tables are bending with large platters of meat and bottles of wine. Everyone is having a ball, and the devil is dancing on the table on the music of Black Sabbath.
"OMG", the hermit thinks, "if that's hell, what will heaven be like?!?"
Eagerly he awaits the bell for dinner. At eight Peter comes in, carrying a large silver serving platter with a round lid on top. The hermit sits down, rubbing his hands and mouth watering.. He lifts the lid, only to find a tiny bread roll and a glass of water...
"WTF?!?" he asks Peter, who shrugs his shoulders and says: "You can't expect me to cook for just 5 persons, now can you?!?"

BTW, this one is funny too, if you can appreciate it..
http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=55762&postcount=78

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

Heh heh! I haven't heard any of those jokes before. Not bad! Btw, what's up with "The Passion" Re-cut version completely tanking at the box-office over the weekend?

[voxpopulisuxx]

Heh heh! I haven't heard any of those jokes before. Not bad! Btw, what's up with "The Passion" Re-cut version completely tanking at the box-office over the weekend?
what would you consider Tanking? Even if the movie never saw the light of day its allready in the history books?
Just curious, Did you see it? Either version?

[voxpopulisuxx]

an engaged couple dies on the way to their wedding, They ask Peter if he could find a suitable Minister in heaven to finalize their marriage so they could enjoy heaven as man and wife...Peter says sure, Ill be right back.......well 3 days later Peter arrives with a minister....Peter apolgised quite shocked at how long it actually took.....the couple got hitched....well a few thousand years go by and the couple are sick of each other and want a divorce...so they go to Peter and ask him to find a lawyer ..they want a divorce....PETER IS FURIOUS!...the couple asks...why are you so mad...is it because divorce is a sin?
Peter says no....and then IT TOOK ME 3 *!&%! DAYS TO FIND A MINISTER UP HERE HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT'LL TAKE TO FIND A LAWYER!!!!

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

what would you consider Tanking?
It made only $225,000 in roughly 1000 theaters across the country. Barely a whimper...


Just curious, Did you see it? Either version?
I have seen the theatrical version of "The Passion". I really enjoyed it. I loved the imagery and the cinematography quite a bit. The content was a little thin, but that's because Gibson was only intent on that one particular aspect of Jesus' life, thus I felt that the story was stretched very thin. Overall though, a very good film, very dramatic. The only time that I felt myself becoming detached from the movie was right at the end when Jesus is walking out of his tomb and you see the hole in his hand. I thought that was a little too "Hollywood-ized" and over the top, completely unnecessary. But I'm not one to let a few nit-picks ruin a movie for me...

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

....and then IT TOOK ME 3 *!&%! DAYS TO FIND A MINISTER UP HERE HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT'LL TAKE TO FIND A LAWYER!!!!
Heh, that's a pretty good one! I feel sorry for lawyers because they get such a bad rap...

[voxpopulisuxx]

THats exactly the only quibble I had with the film, also I thought he shouldve kept the subtitle when the Jews say let his blood be on us...etc...only cause I thought he was unfairly pressured to remove it by NON christain groups.
the film may be slow now Ill bet when it gets closer to easter the numbers will increase.

[Keeblergiant]

I have seen the theatrical version of "The Passion". I really enjoyed it. I loved the imagery and the cinematography quite a bit. The content was a little thin, but that's because Gibson was only intent on that one particular aspect of Jesus' life, thus I felt that the story was stretched very thin. Overall though, a very good film, very dramatic. The only time that I felt myself becoming detached from the movie was right at the end when Jesus is walking out of his tomb and you see the hole in his hand. I thought that was a little too "Hollywood-ized" and over the top, completely unnecessary. But I'm not one to let a few nit-picks ruin a movie for me...

You actually liked it? Oh man, I hated that movie...I went to see it with my youth group and I couldn't stay awake yet I couldn't fall asleep either because Mr. Mike kept elbowing me and waking me up, saying stuff like "you're being disrespectful...," etc. I wasn't being disrespectful, it's just not my fault if Mel Gibson sucks at directing movies...anyways, what little story their was was horrible.

[voxpopulisuxx]

You actually liked it? Oh man, I hated that movie...I went to see it with my youth group and I couldn't stay awake yet I couldn't fall asleep either because Mr. Mike kept elbowing me and waking me up, saying stuff like "you're being disrespectful...," etc. I wasn't being disrespectful, it's just not my fault if Mel Gibson sucks at directing movies...anyways, what little story their was was horrible.
Did you sleep through shindlers list too...if you did Ill bet you wouldnt admit it...

[Keeblergiant]

Did you sleep through shindlers list too...if you did Ill bet you wouldnt admit it...

No, I didn't sleep throught it...atleast it was interesting. The Passion was just hours upon hours and some guy walking and being beaten. I know for a fact that the holocaust happened, I know what happened to the Jews, and I know that the Jews did not deserve what happened to them. However, Jesus was out there introducing radical, controversial ideas, know one knows exactly what happened to him, and no one truly knows whether he deserved it or not. Hell, the Gospel of Thomas even talks about Jesus striking a man down dead because Jesus was trying to release his birds (isn't it convenient how the Catholics left this book out of the bible?). And, there were millions of Jews killed...Jesus was only one man. The Holocaust was definitely worse than Jesus' death. Hell, now that I think about it the death of Jesus wasn't that bad at all.

[hari_padfoot]

because it saved us all....
yes that would kind of make it a good thing, in a really morbid way.
it's kind of like saying that 3000 people died sept. 11, and that was a good thing because it woke us up to our arrogance and bigotry.