VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

Sight & Sound
This forum is school related so please no cursing.This forum is here to let us talk to those we can't reach normally along with other event information.
R1 -- stored, 12:17:33 04/25/02 Thu

Religion I

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice. Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not. --Susan
Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a backup forum. :)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.
Stephen James
In Response To Coinky
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 14:02

"if we don't destroy the Earth in our selfish rush to have wealth at the expense of nature"
A Christian friend of mine is a very outdoorsy kind of guy, he literally lives off of the land, hunting, trapping, cutting and selling firewood for income. His belief, basically, is that God put this world and everything on it for man to use as we see fit to use it.

For people who live with the idea that Armageddon will begin in their lifetime, what is the point in trying to save anything? To them, there never is going to be a "next generation" to save anything for...we are all soon to die at the hands of God and the world remade, so lets drain this planet...

Murray
In Response To SJ
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 13:53

You ask me the question, "Christians have no use for my views, nor do many take the time to try to understand...please tell me why I should extend this courtesy to you?"

The answer to that question is simple. It is because you accused me of the following, "Yet you wholeheartedly support a religion which has been promoted through the persecution of others."

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Stephen James
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 13:44

The problem with any of the "book religions" is that once the reader of the book convinces himself that he's found the truth, he stops looking and actively rejects greater truths if they contradict what he thinks the book says.
Look at all those that think a global flood happened, for example.

Stephen James
In Response To Coinky
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 13:43

"Anyone knows I can't paint with a baby under foot...of course, I will be doing it when she is napping and not in the same room."
Whew!!! I had this awful image of a baby with it's head stuck in a paint can or sitting in the corner licking a paintbrush... ;-)

Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 13:38

"I think it might help you understand my views on religion."
I only truly try to understand someone else's views, especially religious, when they show that they are equally interested, and respectful, in trying to understand my views on religion.

99.9% of all Christians believe they hold the Absolute Truth concerning the Nature of God. They really have no wish to understand, much less even hear, my differing views because they are seen by Christians as "wrong", they don't even have to hear them, just the knowledge that my views are not Christian views is all the info Christians need to claim I am "wrong"...

Christians have no use for my views, nor do many take the time to try to understand...please tell me why I should extend this courtesy to you?

Ten Megaton Solution
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 13:34

While that is true in the case of many Christians, it is not hatred which causes them to point the finger at heathens and admonish them to turn from their sinful ways
Yeah, right! Tell it to your dear friend ACNR. He's as Christian as anyone else.

How do I know this, you ask? Because he says he is, just like you do.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Dori
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 13:30

"People who get upset by Christian admonishment are suffering from a persecution complex, IMO. *-) " You may be right about that, but I think we got it from being persecuted...;)
*Coinkydink
In Response To Stephen
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 13:27

You said, "Get rid of your own cancer and get your own damn food...God ain't gonna do it so save your breath." The way I see it is that God created every good thing to eat...it's all right here on the Earth that he gave us. And somewhere the cure for cancer has been provided and man will find it, if we don't destroy the Earth in our selfish rush to have wealth at the expense of nature. People just don't recognise real wealth when they see it anymore, I guess.
*Coinkydink
In Response To Dori
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 13:19

BTW what is LMGBBBO? I figured "Laugh My Great Big Blue Butt Off"...am I close? ;)
*Coinkydink
In Response To Dori
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 13:17

"I guess you have no idea how harmful it is for a baby to be exposed to paint fumes. Yet you tell me you don't want the likes of me being responsible for the babies of the world? LMGBBBO!" Don't be absurd ... I guess you can't discern a joke when you read one unless it has a "laugh" sign on it. Anyone knows I can't paint with a baby under foot...of course, I will be doing it when she is napping and not in the same room. As a matter of fact, I probably won't be doing it at all, since I fell in my laundry room this morning and now my back is giving me fits...guess that project is on hold a few days.
Stephen James
In Response To Coinky
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 12:55

"Yet, you concede that I, a lowly atheist, am more driven to the moral and ethical side of living. (BTW, that comes from rationality, not a delusion about the divinity of Jesus.)"
Now how can that be? According to the teachings of Christianity, you are being led by Satan if you come to any other conclusion besides "Jesus was God and the Bible is his book".

Now how is it that many non-Christians lead more morally pure of lives with a demon pulling our strings than many Christians who claim the Holy Spirit guides them? How is that possible...unless the truth is that the HS guides and indwells in all who truly Love God, no Bible thumping/Jesus believing required. And that would also mean Bible thumping is no protection from the influence of Evil.

Murray
In Response To SJ
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 12:52

"And just what is the "proper" use of prayer?"

To focus your mind on God. To acknowledge who He is. That's a good start anyway.

dori
In Response To One post for the road....
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 12:48

Re: "Love for your fellow man did not get the Christian religion where it is today, it got there by showing hatred and intolerance for any man/woman opposed to the Bible."
While that is true in the case of many Christians, it is not hatred which causes them to point the finger at heathens and admonish them to turn from their sinful ways. It is love that makes Sim say beware or you face the fires of Hell. I seriously doubt he will be smiling to see others suffer. People who get upset by Christian admonishment are suffering from a persecution complex, IMO. *-)

Murray
In Response To SJ 12:34
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 12:46

Did you read the thing I wrote entitled, "The Dog Lovers Club?" I think it might help you understand my views on religion. In can be read by clicking here:

THE DOG LOVERS CLUB

Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 12:46

And just what is the "proper" use of prayer?
Stephen James
In Response To GerryB
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 12:43

"Most every Christian that I know agrees with me."
Well of course they do, that is why you see them as and respect them as "Christians"...but anyone who places the Label "Christian" on their forehead who does not agree with you gets that label peeled off and you put a new one on them that says "Not a REAL Christian".

You all play the same game, I think it is called the "Your not a Christian if your not my kind if Christian" game. You people ought to thank God for non-Christians...at least when we are around you Christians are not cutting each others throats as often as when we are not around.

Murray
In Response To SJ
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 12:39

"Oh, so you agree then that prayer is worthless..."

No, I think I would say that the worth of a thing is realized in its proper use.

Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 12:34

"You even said so yourself. You said God is love and connected dots from there to arrive at the conclusion that love is what it's all about, with which I wholeheartedly agree."
Yet you wholeheartedly support a religion which has been promoted through the persecution of others...Love for your fellow man did not get the Christian religion where it is today, it got there by showing hatred and intolerance for any man/woman opposed to the Bible.

A religion truly from God would have used and been successful using, nothing but Love to drive the Muslims from the Holy Land...as it is, all the worlds religions embrace the sword when it is time to expand. Devil work...IMO.

Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 12:25

"People that do not make themselves accessible and available to Him are going to have problems."
Yep, all one has to do is open their hearts to the Love of God...no man needed, no book needed. Thats the Absolute Truth.

"But, to expect God to step in and provide some kind of mystical external rescue is not realistic."

Oh, so you agree then that prayer is worthless...the big ones anyway like "please Lord get rid of my cancer" or "Lord put food on our table"...it is just not realistic to think God is coming to provide some mystical external rescue. Get rid of your own cancer and get your own damn food...God ain't gonna do it so save your breath.

Yep, that's life..your on your own.

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 12:12

In honor of our friendship, I won't post anything of the sort. This offer is good for the next five minutes and is void where prohibited by law. Does not apply in states beginning with "M," which are Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana and Mississippi, because I feel like it.
`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 12:04

Most every Christian that I know agrees with me.
You need to get around more. Most every Christian I know has a different interpretation.

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 11:54

I can easily prove you wrong on that. My Pastor agrees with me on the historic doctrines of the Christian faith. Most every Christian that I know agrees with me.
I'm still waiting for your proof.

To paraphrase Maximillian again, "If fifty million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 11:51

I won't quibble with you about external or internal or whether it originates within our own consciousness. I'm coming to detest quibbling. Doesn't seem to jive with love very well lots of times.
Good. I hope that means we won't be hearing any more claims that you pretend to know what will happen after "the body drops." That forces me to quibble.

GerryB.
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 11:42

RE: I've never seen any two people agree on everything when it comes to Christianity. A real God would have written a less ambiguous book."
I can easily prove you wrong on that. My Pastor agrees with me on the historic doctrines of the Christian faith. Most every Christian that I know agrees with me. BTW I have no special education in Christian doctrine. I am a simple high school graduate from the class of 1956. Yet most everything which I know about Christianity I learned from the Bible. Not too ambiguous if a simpleton like me can read it and get it right.

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 11:35

I won't quibble with you about external or internal or whether it originates within our own consciousness. I'm coming to detest quibbling. Doesn't seem to jive with love very well lots of times.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powered by Webforums
Copyright © 1997 - 2001 Waveshift, Inc.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 12:13:57 04/25/02 Thu

Religion I

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice. Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not. --Susan
Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a backup forum. :)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.
`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 11:27

By "if there is a God," I meant an external entity, something other than a product of our individual consciousness; something beyond our own creation and control.
Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 11:23

"And if there's a God..."

Sure there's one. You even said so yourself. You said God is love and connected dots from there to arrive at the conclusion that love is what it's all about, with which I wholeheartedly agree. It's a perfectly acceptable conclusion, a healthy one even.

dori
In Response To LOL!
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 11:14

Coinky, you're a hoot. You posted this awhile ago: "Baby and I are painting the studio room today... that ought to be fun."
I guess you have no idea how harmful it is for a baby to be exposed to paint fumes. Yet you tell me you don't want the likes of me being responsible for the babies of the world? LMGBBBO!

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 11:12

Ctaj often speaks quite eloquently about certain aspects of the teachings of Jesus that guide his life. Who is to say that, by being committed to live his life in this way, he has not been given the spiritual grace to carry it out? In a very real sense, I see a solemn commitment in his life for which I have a high level of respect and I believe that the Lord also honors it.
Kind words, and I thank you for them. But understand that as much as I subscribe to many (but not all) of Jesus' teachings, I also reject much of the NT that's attruted to him by his followers. I do not believe in a virgin birth, a resurrection, nor a Second Coming, nor in the divinity of Jesus. And if there's a God, I'm sure He's OK with that.

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 11:10

Love IS what it is all about. May we all grow in our understanding of it and deepen in our commitment to walk in it. BBL
`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:56

He said, "He who has seem me has seen the Father." (John 14:9) He also said, "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30)
Somewhere in the OT, I think Genisis, it also says, "God is love." So, connecting the dots...

"He who has seen me has seen love."
"I and my Father are love."

Love is what it's all about. The rest is distortion.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ya'll
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:52

Baby Tiffany is here.. gotta run...TTFN
Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:49

He said, "He who has seem me has seen the Father." (John 14:9) He also said, "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30) I happen to have reverence for them both. I hope that is OK with you.
Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:44

"Which means that the message of Christ, properly understood, is universal." I believe this is true ... so when you said that God only hears those who are Christians, you must have misspoke yourself, huh? ;)"

When did I say that? I said that He blesses those who make themselves accessible and available to Him. I did not say what you said I said, I don't believe.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:35

"And, yes, of course, being converted by the Spirit is what it means to have a rebirth. It is not a conversion to a set of beliefs, but to a person." And Jesus called that person, Father, and told us to do the same.
*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:34

"Which means that the message of Christ, properly understood, is universal." I believe this is true ... so when you said that God only hears those who are Christians, you must have misspoke yourself, huh? ;)
Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:32

And, yes, of course, being converted by the Spirit is what it means to have a rebirth. It is not a conversion to a set of beliefs, but to a person.
*Coinkydink
In Response To Jun San
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:31

My friend, Jun San, is a Japanese Buddhist Nun, who lives in New York state. She and I have had long discussions when we were marching for better prison conditions. She shows a remarkable spiritual depth and love for God and all mankind. Her ability to convey that love is unexcelled by any Christian I've ever met. She does good works and works for justice because it is the right thing to do, not because she thinks it will help her get to Heaven or because she fears God. Fear has nothing to do with her relationship to God...and it is as real as anything I've ever seen. I have a Hindu doctor who also shows this kind of love and compassion. It has to come from God. IMHO
Murray
In Response To Coinkydink 10:20
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:28

Which means that the message of Christ, properly understood, is universal. And which also means that He makes Himself known to people who sincerely seek Him. He does not need us to call Him by his name. He calls us to himself and He knows our name. That is the important thing. He said his sheep will hear his voice, not that they would hear his name. Knowing his name, as you have said, is a bonus.
*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray, Ctaj, etal
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:20

People talk about a rebirth experience. Usually they mean some change in a belief system or acceptance of Jesus after they hear about him. But my Mennonite missionary friend said that many times when he'd go into a primative area there were people there who were already "converted" by the Spirit in their lives...they'd say to the missionary, where have you been? God has been here already.. we just didn't know he had a name.
Murray
In Response To Coikydink & Ctaj
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:19

I agree. I did not answer Ctaj's posts of yesterday to his satisfaction. I'll just say this one thing for now. Ctaj often speaks quite eloquently about certain aspects of the teachings of Jesus that guide his life. Who is to say that, by being committed to live his life in this way, he has not been given the spiritual grace to carry it out? In a very real sense, I see a solemn commitment in his life for which I have a high level of respect and I believe that the Lord also honors it.
`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:15

But, to expect God to step in and provide some kind of mystical external rescue is not realistic.
Now you're makin' some sense.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:12

When you read what Jesus taught,you can see that it was the state of a mans soul that concerned him, not so much the state of his body...even though he did do a couple of healings, that wasn't his main message. It was the relationship to God. Seems to me, that God isn't as concerned with what happens to us, as he is with how we handle it, our turning to him for strength, how our souls grow in strength through his spirit, where our love is shown, .
Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:07

"No, my beef is with those people who claim to have exclusive access to God...

I don't like that kind of attitude either. What I mean when I say that God blesses people who trust Him, serve Him and obey Him is that this is a life that is indicative of the fact that He has access to them. People that do not make themselves accessible and available to Him are going to have problems. It's just the way it works. Now, if you want to talk about a child reaching out to Him or anyone for that matter, that is fine and you are correct to say that is innate. But, to expect God to step in and provide some kind of mystical external rescue is not realistic.

*Coinkydink
In Response To 2 minute warning
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 10:00

It's almost 8 am...they will be bringing the baby anytime now...so I might just leave without saying TTFN. Baby and I are painting the studio room today... that ought to be fun. I'm painting it to match me...peach and a kind of rusty accent color, because I'm a redhead...(this year)...haha!
*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:55

Ctaj's other post: "You evaded the point in both responses. You claimed, "Part of being connected to Him here is to receive the spiritual qualities that drive the moral and ethical side of living." Who is more "connected" than a priest? Yet, you concede that I, a lowly atheist, am more driven to the moral and ethical side of living. (BTW, that comes from rationality, not a delusion about the divinity of Jesus.) So, your assertion that "spritual qualities" lead to moral and ethical living is a false one. Secondly, on the issue of proof of "continuing after the body drops," you changed the subject.
*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:53

In case, you forgot Ctaj's posts: "To wit, you said, "Another part of the connection is that, properly made, it continues after the body drops." you say "it continues," definitively. What is your basis in saying this?" (Continued)
`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:53

I've never seen any two people agree on everything when it comes to Christianity. A real God would have written a less ambiguous book.
`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:51

That 83% Christian number is based on a false dichotomy, of course. The way the bet is couched, "believing" is a one-way bet; there's no penalty for being wrong, as there supposedly is for disbelieving.
If it were couched another way, the numbers would change dramatically. For example: "Do you believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and His Second Coming?" If you answer yes and you're wrong, your soul will burn in hell for eternity. If you answer no and you're right, your soul will enjoy eternal tranquility. Phrased that way, I bet you wouldn't get 50%, much less 83%.

*Coinkydink
In Response To TB2
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:49

"Pretending that there is some character by the name of God with the same attributes as Man is a popular and equitable fantasy of Man …The real good or moral value of these fantasies is always balanced be the damage caused by the same. Religions are not measured by the goodness or truth they provide … they are measured by the survivability they provide their respective cultures." I have to AMEN that, my brother!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powered by Webforums
Copyright © 1997 - 2001 Waveshift, Inc.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 12:12:03 04/25/02 Thu

Religion I

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice. Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not. --Susan
Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a backup forum. :)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.
GerryB.
In Response To CTAJ
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:48

RE: "Most Americans Say They're Christian."
Most Americans have no Idea what it means to be "Christian." Most have no idea what the Bible says on the subject. They don't understand what Jesus Christ meant when he said. "Ye must be born again."

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ctaj
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:47

It's the Moslems, Jews and Christians who all think they have God locked up in a box.
*Coinkydink
In Response To Ctaj
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:45

I have friends who are Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais, Quakers, Jews and Christians...The Hindus, Bahais, Quakers and buddhists are very accepting and loving and not so stiff-necked.
`Ctaj
In Response To Coinkydink
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:40

I think trying to understand and accept those who are different is much healthier than trying to make everyone conform to one way of thinking and living. It is the ONLY way we will ever have any peace that lasts and prosperity for everyone. I think it is the love of God that makes this understanding happen too.
That would be true if the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Christians could all agree that they're all worshipping the same God. But they can't, and millions die over this quibbling.

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:38

Feel free to reply to my questions from 18:02 and 18:18 yesterday just any ol' time. I'll be around.
*Coinkydink
In Response To Stephen
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:35

"I actually see things in our society as showing us as being much healthier than those who came before." So do I, but the things I think are healthier ...Like a better awareness of the different cultures and religions. I think trying to understand and accept those who are different is much healthier than trying to make everyone conform to one way of thinking and living. It is the ONLY way we will ever have any peace that lasts and prosperity for everyone. I think it is the love of God that makes this understanding happen too.
Jesus gave the example when he divided the loaves and fishes, feeding the hungry and then told them to pray "Our Father"...IMO, this means that God hears and is Father to everyone.

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:26

Our society is going to hell in a handbasket because it is no longer Christian.
The facts belie your assertion. Most Americans Say They're Christian. You comprise 83% of our population, while 52% of the rest of the world is non-Christian. Yet, we're the country with supposedly declining moral values.

The problem is that (1) your religion gives an automatic free pass to offenders, and (2) bases its system of morals and ethics on myths that most folks don't really buy into, despite the lip service.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray, Dori, Gerry, Ron
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:24

Sometimes prayer isn't enough to protect children...like Murray says we need to protect them ourselves. Praying didn't protect me from being molested by my step father when I was 6, but perhaps it kept me sane...well, sort of anyway...;) All I know is that the presence of god saved my mind when I could very well have caved in and become a sick or bitter person. You think because I challenge you , that it constitutes challenging God. It doesn't. God has always been there and still is. I just don't need you telling me who he is.
And so long as you continue to support evil-doers, who starve or bomb children, you are not serving God. And I don't need the likes of you running my government, thankyouverymuch!

*Coinkydink
In Response To Gerry
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:07

"Ever notice the amount of venom spewed out by Stephen when he gets wound up?" You seem to see hate no matter where you look...perhaps the problem is with your lenses...;)
*Coinkydink
In Response To Doriola
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:00

"If their parents haven't "indoctrinated" them, it's not likely they will be praying, is it? LOL!" Laugh all you want, but when I was 5 I was praying and building small alters in the yard, with no one teaching me anything about God, I just knew that IT was there...no one has the right to tell me that because I'd never heard of Jesus, that God wouldn't hear my childish prayers. The love coming from God surrounded me and protected me.
*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 8:55

"It seems to me that God promises to bless those who trust Him, serve Him and obey Him. It almost seems like you have a beef with that." No, my beef is with those people who claim to have exclusive access to God, who is and always was available to all people at all times, regardless of who their parents are or what their belief system is. God is a lot bigger than you seem to think. There is NO one true church, EXCEPT the one that works in the souls of people, through the Spirit of the only God. Cultural teaching has nothing to do with children reaching out to God... it is an inborn desire.
Murray
In Response To GerryB
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 8:53

Good Morning, Gerry!


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 06:37:31 04/25/02 Thu

Religion I

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice. Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not. --Susan
Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a backup forum. :)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.
GerryB.
In Response To RonB.
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 8:22

RE: "But our society is sick."
Yes, it is sin sick. And yes, it is getting sicker all the time.

GerryB.
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 8:19

Good morning, my brother in Christ.
Ever notice the amount of venom spewed out by Stephen when he gets wound up? Seems to me that he is not really much different than the people in the snake pit. He's just on the other side of the pit is all.

Murray
In Response To SJ
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 7:04

"But hey, if you wanna pretend an Omnipotent God could not create himself a set of hands and feet for which to run around saving children from Pedophile Christians..fine!

The main original point is that you have hands and feet with which to save the children. If you would like to see them be rescued, I suggest you get busy.

Stephen James
In Response To RonB
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 3:13

"But our society is sick."
Sure it is, in some aspects anyway...but is it any "sicker" than societies of the past? Do you think this society is a hundred times "sicker" than the society which supposedly lived in Sodom? Or is it relatively the same level of "sickness"?

I actually see things in our society as showing us as being much healthier than those who came before.

Stephen James
In Response To RonB
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 3:05

Good morning..."What's your solution?"
Let me run things...lol

Actually, I don't have one. Unless the solution is just to realize this world changes/evolves continually and there ain't a damn thing we should do to try to stop it or point it in a direction one group or another believes is best for all...Hitler had that idea, failed miserably...just like so many before him, and those who have followed after.

It truly amazes me that there are always people who think "their way" could work best for the whole world, even if it is imposed on the world through the means most commonly used...violence. History proves over and over again what a failing thought it is...IMO

Stephen James
In Response To RonB
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 2:52

Do you think this country would be as wealthy and strong as it is had we all been living under the constraints of Christianity for the last 225 years?
I truly believe we would be in no different of a position than any of the countries which still base many of their political policies and laws on religious beliefs and practices...that position being, mostly poor and uneducated, just like it was for many people in the middle ages under strict Christian/Catholic rule.

RonB
In Response To Stephen James
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 2:52

Well...what do you suggest? How do we get things back to the way it was in America 300 years ago? How do we get guys like ACNR back to making and enforcing the laws of this country again?
No, but maybe 230 years ago. Do you think that "guys like" ACNR could write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? We live in an age of extremes -- more so as time goes by. The middle, the stabilizing balance, has been abandoned and all kind of wild-eyed weirdos have been loosed on us. Some are just barking nuts (not to mention any names) others are driven to extremes trying to bring balance to society. But our society is sick. What's your solution?

Timbuctoo
In Response To SJ
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 2:35

Ref: "Well...what do you suggest? How do we get things back to the way it was in America 300 years ago?" ~~~ Kiss the Pope's ring and all will be well … :)
Stephen James
In Response To RonB
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 2:23

"Our society is going to hell in a handbasket because it is no longer Christian."
Well...what do you suggest? How do we get things back to the way it was in America 300 years ago? How do we get guys like ACNR back to making and enforcing the laws of this country again?

Guys like him passed all sorts of laws persecuting non-Christians, as well as those who were not the "right kind" of Christian. And I doubt that this country could be made into a "Christian" country without the use of the fanatics...who is gonna be in charge of the termination of the unrepentant?

Timbuctoo
In Response To SJ
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 2:18

Ref: "These Absolutists really don't realize how often they come across as ignorant" ~~~ And there can be only one reason for that ... :)
Timbuctoo
In Response To SJ
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 2:14

Ref: "I do...I have yet to hear God promise me, or humanity anything." ~~~ You apparently have been denied access to the secret handshake … :)
Stephen James
In Response To Hey TB2!
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 2:12

Good morning to you...some people would not receive so much attention were they to add a simple "IMO" or an "I believe" before or after some of the things they say, as Ctaj suggested. These Absolutists really don't realize how often they come across as ignorant...even to their own teachings.
Funny though how Murray tries to avoid admitting his statement that God has no "physical hands or feet" totally contradicts the Jesus theory as well as the Omnipotency theory. A bit of dishonest mis-direction and the placing of a blindfold on his eyes to hide my many questions and he thinks the subject will shift to something else...not gonna let it happen. :-)

Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 2:01

"It seems to me that God promises to bless those who trust Him, serve Him and obey Him. It almost seems like you have a beef with that."
I do...I have yet to hear God promise me, or humanity anything. All I see are a bunch of control freaks running around with a book which raises 10 times more questions than answers and their contention is that "God" wrote the thing...can they produce God to verify all this?

Of course not, and that is why after 2000 years the Bible is just another unproven religious book sitting on the shelf.

Trust, serve and obey a baby killing, mass murdering, bumbling fool of a God whose Omnipotency seems to be determined by it's own Creations? No thanks...

Timbuctoo
In Response To The Philosophers
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 2:01

Hello Stephen ... Good to see you taking the God Murray to task ... :)
Timbuctoo
In Response To The Philosophers
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 1:55

Ref: "It seems to me that God promises to bless those who trust Him, serve Him and obey Him." ~~~ Pretending that there is some character by the name of God with the same attributes as Man is a popular and equitable fantasy of Man …The real good or moral value of these fantasies is always balanced be the damage caused by the same. Religions are not measured by the goodness or truth they provide … they are measured by the survivability they provide their respective cultures. All in my ignorant opinion of course … :)
Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Thursday April 25, 2002 at 1:53

I said :"your the one spouting off that God has no physical hands or feet."
You said:"Which happens to be true. You embarrass yourself by making such an issue of this point instead of simply accepting it as true."

Even more embarrassing would be for me to ask you to Prove your contentions..embarrassing because you would show me the Bible as your only source of info.

But hey, if you wanna pretend an Omnipotent God could not create himself a set of hands and feet for which to run around saving children from Pedophile Christians..fine!

So much for that fable of yours about God fashioning himself an entire human body to save the whole human race..what a bunch of hogwash! The Truth is that God cannot have hands or feet, so speaks Murray the GodMaker.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 23:58

It seems to me that God promises to bless those who trust Him, serve Him and obey Him. It almost seems like you have a beef with that.
Murray
In Response To dori
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 23:52

Good point.
dori
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 23:43

By your reasoning, little children who dare to think God will hear their prayers are S.O.L. if their parents haven't indoctrinated them properly.
If their parents haven't "indoctrinated" them, it's not likely they will be praying, is it? LOL!

RonB
In Response To Ctaj
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 23:41

So, what we have here is a system of morals and ethics that teaches no matter how great the evil you commit, there's always an escape clause that can get you to eternal life in heaven. Any you people wonder why society is going to hell in a handbasket...
Our society is going to hell in a handbasket because it is no longer Christian.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 23:09

Indoctrinated to serve God? You can't be indoctrinated to serve Him. It must emante from your heart.
*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 22:51

By your reasoning, little children who dare to think God will hear their prayers are S.O.L. if their parents haven't indoctrinated them properly. I should have known this when I was little...I'd have saved myself a lot of hoping for naught.
On another subject, you said, "But, if God really is a good God and Father and has the power to forgive, why wouldn't he?" Obviously, from your own words, he is NOT a "Good God and father", but a selectively benevolent one, even to children ... which trait, if he were human, would be "inhumane", Satanic, even.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Ctaj
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 18:34

Dig up "Fevre Dream". Martin's vampires make mincemeat of Anne Rice's. That's a novel, not a short story.
`Ctaj
In Response To Ten Megaton Solution
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 18:27

BTW, I finished The Sandkings today, my first venture into Microsoft Reader. Bought it from Amazon.com for $1.99. Great story!
Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Ctaj
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 18:23

Maybe Murray watches "Crossing Over with John Edwards" on the SciFi Channel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powered by Webforums
Copyright © 1997 - 2001 Waveshift, Inc.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 06:35:02 04/25/02 Thu

Religion I

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice. Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not. --Susan
Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a backup forum. :)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.
`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 18:18

To wit, you said, "Another part of the connection is that, properly made, it continues after the body drops." By making such a declarative statement, you assert this as a fact. You didn't preface this with "I believe" or, perhaps more appropriately, "I hope" -- no, you say "it continues," definitively. What is your basis in saying this? Got a report back from someone?
`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 18:02

You evaded the point in both responses.
You claimed, "Part of being connected to Him here is to receive the spiritual qualities that drive the moral and ethical side of living." Who is more "connected" that a priest? Yet, you concede that I, a lowly atheist, am more driven to the moral and ethical side of living. (BTW, that comes from rationality, not a delusion about the divinity of Jesus.) So, your assertion that "spritual qualities" lead to moral and ethical living is a false one.

Secondly, on the issue of proof of "continuing after the body drops," you changed the subject.

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 15:44

"Current events seem to belie this assertion."

Au contrare. Current events support it. The guys who are caught up in this thing have obviously not been transformed and made whole. As I said, before, you are more personally devoted to Jesus than they.


You keep asking for proof. You're going to have to seek it out. I can not give you my love for God any more than I can my love of anyone or anything else. From each of our perspectives, it comes down to being between Him and us.

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 15:12

Another part of the connection is that, properly made, it continues after the body drops.
Got any evidence to support that?

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 15:10

Part of being connected to Him here is to receive the spiritual qualities that drive the moral and ethical side of living.
Current events seem to belie this assertion.

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 15:01

"So, what we have here is a system of morals and ethics that teaches no matter how great the evil you commit, there's always an escape clause that can get you to eternal life in heaven.

No, we have a way of being personally transformed and made whole by being reconnected to God in our lives on this earth. Part of being connected to Him here is to receive the spiritual qualities that drive the moral and ethical side of living. Another part of the connection is that, properly made, it continues after the body drops.

Murray
In Response To RonB faith 3
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 14:48

Therefore, biblical faith is a reliance or a trust in God and/or what He says. That is why it is critical to actually get to know Him and what He said. And yet, He does not leave this up to us alone, but makes overtures to us in various ways. The primary way is through the Jesus and his current day ministry through the church. Just as Jesus came and said, "The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; (Luke 4:18), He also anoints us and sends us out with the same message.
`Ctaj
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 14:33

"You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.
You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection. You have fought for it, you have dreamed of it, and you have wished it, and I -- I am the man who has granted you your wish."

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 14:33

Have you ever read John Galt's Speech from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand?
"You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that man's sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded. Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster. In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. [more]

Murray
In Response To RonB faith 2
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 14:32

For example, "By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised." (Hebrews 11:11) Here we also see that faith has an object. Faith always has to have an object. Even in the natural world, if you have faith a chair will support your weight, you will sit in it, if you don't, you won't. Likewise, the object of biblical faith is in God or in the promises of God. In fact, faith is only as good as the object thereof. The reason Sarah was strengthened was not because she had great faith, but a great promiser. She judged Him faithful who had promised.
Murray
In Response To RonB faith 1
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 14:25

Well, for the first thing, faith is obviously something we have to fight for, otherwise Scripture would not say that we should "fight the good fight of faith." Also, we are given a counterpoint to faith where it says, "For we walk by faith, not by sight." (2 Cor 5:7) To amplify further, we also learn, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) Here again, we see faith as contrasted to the realm of sight, yet we see it as having substance to it. It is a real and definable thing. We can also see its effects. It motivated and strengthened people to do things they couldn't otherwise do.
`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 14:20

Through Jesus, He forgives sin and restores you to fellowship with Himself if you want it. If you don't, find some other way to get forgiven if you can.
So, what we have here is a system of morals and ethics that teaches no matter how great the evil you commit, there's always an escape clause that can get you to eternal life in heaven. Any you people wonder why society is going to hell in a handbasket...

RonB
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 14:15

Is it not of faith?
I missed the of in that sentence. Sorry. I shouldn't try to do this when I'm cramped for time.

RonB
In Response To Error
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 14:12

Faith, which is an objective thing and does depend on us,...
Should have been:

Faith, which is an objective thing and does not depend on us,...

RonB
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 14:10

I've got to go. I'll leave a question and then try to get back this evening.
What does faith mean to you? It seems that we may using the same word, but defining it in different ways.

RonB
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 14:07

I believe the Bible speaks to all of that voluminously and quite eloquently. Do you? For example, what is the good fight? Is it not of faith?
No. We endure in the Faith, Faith is not endurance. We fight the "good fight of faith," Faith is not fighting. We remain in the Faith -- Faith is not merely "remaining." At any time we could quit "enduring," "fighting," or "remaining." The Christian Faith would still endure, remain and be fought for, but we would be giving up and the Faith, which is an objective thing and does depend on us, would no longer save us. Christ will never turn away from us, but we can turn away from Him.

Murray
In Response To RonB
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 13:56

Who is arguing for eternal security? Not me. It is an argument made without consideration of the whole counsel of the Bible and, so, it is not one I can in good conscience make. Do you superimpose it onto me? If so, why?
Murray
In Response To RonB 13:15
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 13:50

OK, looks like you're done for now. Your caveat is, "Not all remain in Christ. Not all fight the good fight, or "endure unto death."

I believe the Bible speaks to all of that voluminously and quite eloquently. Do you? For example, what is the good fight? Is it not of faith? After all, to be a Christian is to believe or have faith in whom? In ourselves to fight or in Him to empower us to fight? Is his power automatically released in our lives? I say no. Do you agree? If so, how is it released? What do we have to stay in the flow of it? Does the Bible help us to see when we are in faith and when we are not? I say yes. What do you say? It's not simplistic when you start to break it down and scrutinize, is it?

RonB
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 13:47

By "putting caveats" do you mean I'm quoting Scripture, that opposes the "eternal security" argument?

As you will note, I've been responding to messages from a day or two ago -- trying to catch up. Wasn't even aware that you had already begun responding to my new messages.

Another note. Personal opinion, but I think that, whoever separated the Bible into verses has (unintentionally) done more damage to Christianity then he would have ever guessed.

RonB
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 13:40

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (Col 2:10-13)
Again, no argument, except this is written to those who remain in the Faith. Also from St. Paul's letter to the Colossians (just a few verses earlier):

And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel,

Murray
In Response To SJ
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 13:32

"...your the one spouting off that God has no physical hands or feet..."

Which happens to be true. You embarrass yourself by making such an issue of this point instead of simply accepting it as true.

Murray
In Response To RonB
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 13:26

My last was a response to your 13:10. By your 13:15, you are putting caveats. I will wait to see if you are done before answering further.
Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 13:26

Why should I be embarrassed? Your the one who is so fancifully dodging my questions/queries with tales of how hard you are laughing...your the one spouting off that God has no physical hands or feet for which to answer the prayers of children with. Your the one making silly excuses for God and refusing to explain yourself...now that is an embarrassment. IMO
Murray
In Response To RonB
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 13:22

Absolutely, it does say these things. We need to take these things seriously and to not just, as the Scripture says, " But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was." (James 1:22-24)

To me, this is one of the most incisive pieces of Scripture there is. It cuts both the ones that hear only and do not do, but it also cuts the ones that do only, but do not hear. In any case, it lays down a track for Christian living that is very exacting and demanding.

RonB
In Response To GerryB
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 13:19

Keep on telling the truth. It won't, however, do any good. He can't understand the truths of the Bible. It has to be the traditions of the men of the "True Church."
Well, Gerry, in my arguments with Murray, on this subject, I am quoting from the Bible (even the Protestant KJV, you will notice) -- but I quote verses that are often ignored by those who believe in "eternal security."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powered by Webforums
Copyright © 1997 - 2001 Waveshift, Inc.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 06:32:05 04/25/02 Thu

Religion I

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice. Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not. --Susan
Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a backup forum. :)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.
RonB
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 13:15

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself..." 2 Cor 5:14-18
Yes. No argument. But note, the if in this verse. "If anyone is in Christ..." Not all remain in Christ. Not all fight the good fight, or "endure unto death."

RonB
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 13:10

Does the Bible teach, and do so repeatedly, in plain language that eternal life is given to those who are in Christ on the earth?
Yes. And the Bible also teaches, in plain language, that you must "endure" and "remain" and "fight the good fight," as you know by the verses that I quoted.

Murray
In Response To Ctaj, all
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 13:05

Have you ever received a gift? If it was truly a gift, it was unearned. It you performed some act or behaved in a certain fashion to qualify for it, it wasn't a gift, but a payment, a recompense. I don't know what the big objection is to forgiveness being a gift. God has the power to forgive, so He gives it as a gift through Jesus. Big deal, it's his call. Through Jesus, He forgives sin and restores you to fellowship with Himself if you want it. If you don't, find some other way to get forgiven if you can. Or perform a religious ritual if you don't think the blood sacrifice of the Son of God is enough to forgive. Or just believe it's not necessary. Or whatever. But, if God really is a good God and Father and has the power to forgive, why wouldn't he?
Murray
In Response To SJ 12:49
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 13:00

The only way you're not completely embarrassing yourself is if you're trying to be funny. And, even then...
Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 12:49

I am glad you are amused...it amuses me to see a person who believes in an Omnipotent God setting up boundaries which limit the Omnipotency of that God. The hypocrisy makes me laugh as well, Christians try so hard to make Man out to be just like God, depicting God in fantastic physical detail with that flowing white robe, beard, etc...etc..heck, you people even made God a man, but the moment it helps your argument, you suddenly shift to this version of a spirit with no hands, no feet...make up your mind already.
`Ctaj
In Response To Coinkydink
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 12:40

Most "Moral absolutes" are man made
And it doesn't require a belief in supernatural powers to believe that it is in mankind's self-interest to have moral and ethical prohibitions against murder, theft, intentionally spreading diseases, etc. It's rational to agree with your fellow man: if you don't do it to me or mine, I won't do it to you or yours.

Stephen James
In Response To Coinky
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 12:40

"Do you think keeping the price of oil cheap is worth the lives of those children in Iraq? Yes or no?"
"Children can also serve God, but also God gave their parents responsibilities toward them. If children neither serve God nor have parents that do, God is not obligated to them as we humanly think He should be."

God is not obligated to the children of heathens, those heathen Iraqi kids can best serve God by dying quietly in order that good Christian kids will know for sure that Mommy has enough gas in the SUV to get them to the beach on Saturday...

Murray
In Response To SJ 12:17
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 12:38

Thanks for your post. I haven't laughed this hard in several days. Me writing the laws Omnipotent Deities live by. That's a comment for the archives for anytime I need a good laugh. The funniest thing of all is that you'll think I'm being sarcastic in writing this, but I truly burst out in uproarious laughter when I read that one. I've been trying to figure out your game for a long time and now I realize that you are just having some fun with them thar Christians, almost hoping they break the code and laugh along with you. Well, I am. Ciao.
`Ctaj
In Response To Coinkydink
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 12:35

Do you think keeping the price of oil cheap is worth the lives of those children in Iraq? Yes or no?
Iraq is allowed to sell sufficient oil to provide adequate food and medicine to its people. Sanctions don't prevent that. What Sadaam Hussein chooses to do with those oil revenues is another matter.

Suppose we bit the bullet and allowed oil prices to rise by refusing to buy any Iraqi oil; Japan and Europe went along with it. We could easily fill the void by increasing our own production in ANWAR and along our coasts. Would you be happier then? How would the Iraqi children fare if no one bought Iraqi oil?

Stephen James
In Response To Forum
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 12:33

Was there no HS involvement at all? Were all those Priests (and every pastor previously convicted in years past) agents of Satan sent to infiltrate the church?
Can agents of Satan do good works in the Name of Jesus? Certainly those Priests partook in things which would have driven demons out had they been present...maybe it is like Murray hinted at, God sent those priests the children of Atheists for them to bugger as a reward for their service.

Stephen James
In Response To Forum
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 12:32

Before these Priests were exposed, no pun intended, they were all seen just the same as every Priest or Pastor still preaching today. They were seen as Men of God, held in high esteem by the whole congregation. How did all those men wind up on the pulpit in the first place? Did they answer a calling from God? Before their crimes emerged, they were seen as men being directed by the Holy Spirit, just as many of you claim to be...if the HS guided these men to the Priesthood, what happened to that guidance when these men of God began molesting children?..cont..
*Coinkydink
In Response To Ctaj
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 12:22

Most "Moral absolutes" are man made...there are some that almost every culture follows, like the one against killing each other...even that one gets short shrift in some cases.
*Coinkydink
In Response To Dori
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 12:17

"Oh yes, my mean-spirited uncaring attitude comes to the fore yet once again, eh?" You're the one characterising it so, not me...I just let your words speak for themselves.
Do you think keeping the price of oil cheap is worth the lives of those children in Iraq? Yes or no?

Stephen James
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 12:17

You could have saved some space and just told me "God works in Mysterious ways".
All this nonsense about "God" not having hands or feet...was Jesus God or was he not? And I suppose you are the guy who writes the "Laws that Omnipotent Deities Abide By" and if Murray says an Omnipotent God cannot have hands and feet...well then, it must be so!!!

Sorry, I am not of the mind to "think like a child" so I am afraid your answer fails miserably. Have you ever actually given the question any thought, or do you just automatically go for the typical Christian answer to save yourself from dwelling on it?

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 12:13

Re moral absolutes, I recently heard a story about a couple, happily married with 3 or 4 healthy, well-adjusted kids, who discovered that they were brother and sister, separated at birth. Over "moral absolutes," they were sent to prison and their kids farmed out to foster homes.
Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 12:08

Supposedly, there used to be something called a "Christian Consensus" in this country which is traced back to a letter written by John Adams to Jefferson on June 28, 1813, by which they refer to a time since lost when people generally understood and agreed upon moral absolutes, Christian absolutes.

I, for one, do not pine for those days, however, because I like it more when people are out in the open with what they really believe. In the old days, people used to prefer outward conformity, but at the cost of great hypocrisy. Things are not so much that way anymore, which is fine with me. Real life bubbles up from deep within, not from conforming to societal or religious norms. It's all about living the real.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 10:08:58 04/24/02 Wed

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 11:32

Yeah, you're more of a Christian than they are.

"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his
doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing
he never claimed any other."

Some folks can't see the forest thru all the damned trees...

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 11:10

"How do you explain that?"

Yeah, you're more of a Christian than they are.

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 11:06

Some things in life are earned, some are bestowed or given. Big deal, so somebody does
something nice for you or you for them. Haven't seen any laws against that as of yet. For the
most part, the receiver doesn't even pay tax on them. That's probably a bigger miracle.

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 10:52

Let's take, for example, those fallen lambs of the priesthood who've been in the news so much
lately. Seems to me they've been taught to believe that no matter what sin they commit, Christ
died for their sins so they will be forgiven, at least in the eyes of the Lord.

I, on the other hand, labor under no such delusions. I don't go to church, I wear no cross on a
chain about my neck, I don't pray, I don't wear a robe, I certainly haven't taken any vow of
celibacy, and I don't pretend to be a Man of God. Yet, not once in my life have I ever even
considered diddling a little boy or girl. How do you explain that?

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 10:33

While I consider the notion of unearned forgiveness by virtue of Christ's death patently absurd,
I still don't get the connection to Dori's wishing someone to hell, which appears to me to be a
mere figure of speech of no consequence whatsoever, unless she's a witch.

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 10:30

Those who do don't understand the will of God for their lives.

They may well understand it better than you do. You know, if you folks would focus more on
your commonalities with the Buddhists than on your differences, you might find you have a lot
in common. But no, that's not the Christian style.

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 10:23

All kidding aside, do you really believe that if Dori or anyone else "wishes hell on
someone," it makes one whit of difference as to whether or not that person goes to hell?

The answer to your question is long and probably would not interest you. My point to Doris
was that Christians, no matter how rotten they were, having received forgiveness from God
through the sacrifice of his son, Jesus, need to be likewise gracious and that this subject is not
one about which to jest. I also added Romans 5:8, "But God demonstrates His own love
toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us," to show where I was coming
from.

Connie
In Response To Ctaj
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 10:13

Yeah. Some folks call it Karma. LOL! Is that all you can come up with? Not up to your
standards of enlightening those of us with ossified brains.

GerryB.
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 10:07

RE: "Yeah. Some folks call it Karma."

Those who do don't understand the will of God for their lives.

GerryB.
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 10:05

I've spent enough time here this morning. BBL GLW.

`Ctaj
In Response To Connie
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 10:02

Yeah. Some folks call it Karma.

Connie
In Response To Ctaj
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 9:59

"... it makes one whit of difference as to whether or not that person goes to hell? I think
you're missing the point. No one should wish ill to other people..it has a way of
boomeranging...ever hear of the "Law of Reciprocity?"

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 9:49

I hope you're kidding about wishing hell on someone, but this is not a thing to kid about.

All kidding aside, do you really believe that if Dori or anyone else "wishes hell on someone," it
makes one whit of difference as to whether or not that person goes to hell?

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 9:42

For the record, we weren't "self-annointed." Dori coined that particular phraseology.

GerryB.
In Response To dori
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 9:30

Thank you for understanding. You shouldn't agree with me in public though. The self-anointed
"worlds smartest men" will be on your case for doing that. Hehehe

dori
In Response To Gerry
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 9:14

Praise God that you pulled through that ordeal, Gerry.

When my mom was in a coma for two years I prayed daily for God to give her back to us.
When He didn't, I hated Him and felt He had deserted me. I was angry because I believed the
Bible verses that told me all I had to do was believe and my prayers would be answered. I
hadn't learned the salient point you made--God does answer our prayers, but sometimes we
just don't want to hear His answer. It was many years later that I realized He was there for me
to lean on and to give me comfort--but there was no hope for my Mom. I just thank God that I
was able to still hold her and kiss her forehead for the two years she remained in the coma
instead of her dying at the scene like my step-father.

GerryB.
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 9:12

RE: The children in Iraq.

It is not the USA which is responsible for their deaths. If Sadam really cared about them he
could get the sanctions lifted immediately by just living up to his promises which settled that
war which he started back in 1991. He obviously doesn't care about anyone except for
himself. Any money which comes in there goes into his already bloated treasury instead of in
the bellies of the common people. He and his friends have plenty of food. It is only the people
who work for him who don't.

GerryB.
In Response To Jeanie
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 9:00

That pious man knew that he had done all that he could for me. He could only leave it in the
very capable hands of God. His prayers were obviously answered because I'm here to tell
about it. I was just another lost, Hell bound sinner but God reached down and gave me back
my life. Three weeks later I left the hospital with several broken bones and a number of other
injuries to heal. To God there is no such thing as a "piddly" little prayer. We are all important to
Him.

GerryB.
In Response To Jeanie
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 8:54

RE: "I sometimes wonder if God answers individual prayer at all. It does seem like He's too
busy keeping the planets whirling in their places to bother with piddly things like a child's
prayers. What do you think?"

He has promised in his word to hear all of our prayers and He does. He always answers.
Sometimes the answer is, "Yes", sometimes it is, "No", and sometimes the answer is, "Wait."
Whatever the answer, He always gives the right one. He is never too busy to hear or respond
to our prayers. As Inquisitive said, "If it weren't for answered prayer I wouldn't be here today."
In my case it starts in 1965 on an operating table in Cortland NY. A doctor in the emergency
room in the hospital there prayed over my almost lifeless body all night. (Continued)

dori
In Response To Coinky
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 8:37

Oh yes, my mean-spirited uncaring attitude comes to the fore yet once again, eh? My heart
goes out to ANY innocent child being starved or killed because of the despotic acts of its
leader. I pray for those babies to be relieved of him as their leader so they may see an end to
their suffering. If you people had kept Bush in office for the next four years, we might have
seen some stabilization to that region. Instead, we had Clinton, who let Hussein creep back
into power and let Korea get away with breaking its arms buildup restrictions, and went so far
as to invite the leader of the PLO to the White House. Please place your condemnation where
it rightfully belongs.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 8:36

We are to be in a position of service to God. Those that are, hear from Him and those that
hear from Him are.

Children can also serve God, but also God gave their parents responsibilities toward them. If
children neither serve God nor have parents that do, God is not obligated to them as we
humanly think He should be. Hence, all the street children in Bolivia and other places. If you
think the prayers of children should be answered, you will have to be their answer. Just as I
told Stephen James, God does not have physical hands with which to care for children or
physical feet to run to their aid. We do and He expects us to protect them and take care of
them.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Dori
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 8:30

I only addressed this because you have shown me nothing but contempt since we first had this
discussion. I thought perhaps your concern for children would extend to the thousands of Iraqi
kids being harmed and you might see my point, but evidently I was wrong.

Gotta go. TTFN

*Coinkydink
In Response To I need to leave now
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 8:27

...will check back later. Although I find little inspiring about discussions of which Christians
group has more truth than the other. How about discussing God himself more and church less?

Yes, the scandals about Priest have added ammo to anti-Catholics, but that is all side-issues.
We begin to discuss why God doesn't seem to answer prayer...that is a good start to a good
discussion.

I'll be back later. TTFN

dori
In Response To Coinky
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 8:25

The sanctions were imposed because we defeated him in the Gulf war and he was given
certain conditions as a result. He has not lived up to those conditions and continues to defy
them. Therefore our only recourse was to place sanctions against him. It is solely on his
shoulders what happens to the people in his country. And yes, it may end up that we will be
back there finishing up the job in the near future. I pray that we take it all the way to the
conclusion this time and bomb Hussein right out of Bagdhad, whether Bernie and Andy vacate
the city or not.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 8:18

If I were God, there would be no religions, only individual people in actual touch with me. I'd
consider the prayers of children a priority.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 10:06:34 04/24/02 Wed

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 8:18

If I were God, there would be no religions, only individual people in actual touch with me. I'd
consider the prayers of children a priority.

~Inquisitive~
In Response To Coinky
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 8:17

God answers our prayers. If he hadn't heard mine I wouldn't be here today telling you.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Dori
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 8:16

"You would think he'd have more of a conscience, wouldn't you?" No, that's the point...we
KNOW that he has no conscience and he is someone who should be taken out of power...but
you'd think in light of the sanction's failure to lead to that, our gov. would find a better way than
sanctions. Would a direct war on Iraq do it? I don't know and am not in a position to call for
war, but it couldn't kill more people than we are already doing. Killing children is one of the
things Jesus would be very angry about, based on his own words.

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 8:05

If you were in a position of delegating responsibility and had a person working for you, would
you answer that person's questions and help them as much as you could to get the job done?

Would you have that same level of obligation to a person who was not doing any work for
you?

dori
In Response To Coinky
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 8:04

Yes, I pray that Saddam Hussein stops his evil practices which result in the death of many
innocents. You would think he'd have more of a conscience, wouldn't you?

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 7:49

I sometimes wonder if God answers individual prayer at all. It does seem like He's too busy
keeping the planets whirling in their places to bother with piddly things like a child's prayers.
What do you think?

*Coinkydink
In Response To Dori
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 7:46

" I just get livid when I think of people hurting children. It is an expression I use when I wish
the worst on someone evil--may they rot in Hell." Then perhaps you can begin to understand
why I oppose trade sanctions against Iraq, since it hasn't hurt saddam one bit, but continues to
kill children by the thousands every month. There has to be a better way to handle that
situation.

Murray
In Response To SJ
Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 6:03

Human beings are the only ones on the earth with physical hands to properly care for children
and physical feet to run to their side when they need help. Behind tragedies like this is one or
more individuals who did not fulfill their responsibilities. Find out who they are and blame it on
them. That's the way this world works.

Stephen James
In Response To Blame
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 21:45

I see no-one wishes to address my 15:34...no surprise. It seems all stretches of the imagination
are needed in order to ensure that "God" does not get the blame...

IMO the one who was in the best position to help those abused kids turned a blind eye, "God"
is just as guilty and deserving of Hell as any Priest, Bishop or Pope...

Ten Megaton Solution
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 19:19

I hear the Cardinals are getting together to figure out what to do about diddling priests.

1) Turn them over to the police.

2) Fire them.

Now that that's done, the cardinals can figure out how to spin it so it looks like they did
something useful when they come up with a plan that changes nothing and does not do steps 1
and 2.

~Inquisitive~
In Response To Dori
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 18:50

I'm on msn. :)

dori
In Response To Inq
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 18:44

No, I don't damn anyone to Hell. I never thought about it that way. I also don't say "damn
you" to anyone, because I know it's damning them to Hell. I just didn't realize I was saying the
same thing. 8-(

Murray
In Response To dori
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 18:31

I've got just the thing to express your disgust and revulsion. "Jesus forgave every rotten thing I
ever did, so I also forgive them."

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died
for us. (Romans 5:8)

~Inquisitive~
In Response To Dori
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 18:30

Sorry.:) I didn't see your post.

~Inquisitive~
In Response To Dori
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 18:26

Dori, will you continue to pray for my Dad knowing this?

It isn't our place to condemn someone to hell, hon.

dori
In Response To Murray and Inq
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 18:21

Okay okay! I take it back... smile. It really isn't up to me anyway, is it? I just get livid when I
think of people hurting children. It is an expression I use when I wish the worst on someone
evil--may they rot in Hell. If that is a bad thing for me to say, I'll think of some other way of
expressing my disgust and revulsion at them. Deal?

Murray
In Response To dori
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 18:14

I hope you're kidding about wishing hell on someone, but this is not a thing to kid about.

~Inquisitive~
In Response To Dori
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 18:08

Dori, I thought that way, too, until I forgave my Dad and uncle.
Took a long time, but I couldn't move on until I did.

dori
In Response To Inq and Murray
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 18:02

I not only think child molesters should rot in Hell, but I also include murderers and all who
brutalize. You do know that I am only voicing an opinion, right? This is not the Catholic
position on who should or should not rot in Hell. *-)

~Inquisitive~
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 16:12

Amen, Murray.

Murray
In Response To dori
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 16:00

"May they rot in Hell.

No, Doris. These are exactly the ones Jesus came for. The very worst cases. The most
abominable among us. The ones everyone else shuns. He came to heal them, to forgive them
and to set them free of their sin. May they all find that touch of his grace in their lives. May you.
For, truly we have all fallen short of the glory of God. It is only through Jesus that any of us
gets restored to right standing before God. Remember that Jesus said, "They that are whole
need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to
repentance."

Stephen James
In Response To Proof that Prayer is not heard....
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 15:34

How many THOUSANDS of young boys (some girls) do ya all think were saying the
following as a nightly prayer : "Dear Lord, please keep Father ___'s hands away from my
privates, I don't want a "special relationship" with him."... only to have the Priest abuse them
somemore.

Why did the BibleGod ignore these thousands of children??? What great lesson was he trying
to teach them...that Priests need lovin' too???

No, it is rather obvious the BibleGod heard nothing...Why? Why? Why?

Of course the alternative is to say he heard them just fine but choose to do nothing. And that
would be worse...IMO

Ten Megaton Solution
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 15:24

All religions seek to control the minds of their adherents. They usually do this by means of
regulating their basic urges, of which sex is the most powerful. The Catholic Church decided
that the added step of regulating the sex lives of the regulators to tighter standards would
permit it to impose greater control on the subject populations.

For the most part is has worked. How many molested children went unheard because of the
myth of Priestly Celibacy lent the violator unwarranted protection?

dori
In Response To Inquisitive
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 15:17

I don't think you can say he advocated it above celibacy except in the case of marriage being
necessary to keep people from being adulterous. The scriptures I quoted are ambiguous and
do not demand celibacy, but make the point that it is a high calling to do so and not for
everyone. I myself do not think it is called for. It's unnatural.

As to your point about it being not being made church law by God, I can't argue with you. It is
the interpretation of the leaders of my church that it was considered the highest form of service
to God.
See ya later. Time to teach my class!

~Inquisitive~
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 15:04

Before Christ mentioned about the eunuch's, He had this to say to the Pharisees

Matthew 19: 4-6
he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning
made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and
they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let
not man put asunder.

Christ advocated marriage before celibacy. It was also left to the individual to remain celibate,
not a law of the church.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 10:04:21 04/24/02 Wed

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

Ten Megaton Solution
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 14:57

Reconcile "celibacy" with the command allegedly given Adam to be a fruit with a calculator.

dori
In Response To Stephen
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 14:53

Those priests betrayed their vows, betrayed the church, betrayed God and most of all
betrayed the sacred trust of their victims. May they rot in Hell.

Stephen James
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 14:35

"He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the
Lord"

Well, the Priests and Bishops of the Catholic Church sure showed this statement to completely
false. It seems more that the Unmarried shall careth for more for the bare skin of children
touching theirs...they probably consider kids to be things that "belong to the Lord" and in their
perverted minds they probably think what they do to children is "Love" and would therefore
please God.

The Church, The Bible and the Bible God have been hiding these pukes for decades...and ya
all claim to follow a "good and loving God"...nope, just more proof that the Bible is a work of
Evil disguised to fool the self-righteous into worship of it. IMO

dori
In Response To Gerry
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 14:26

The first was quoted from KJV, but here is the NIV version of that verse and the one that
made me say Jesus appears to support remaining celibate:

Matthew 19
12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by
men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who
can accept this should accept it."

dori
In Response To Jesus's words...
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 14:21

Matthew 19:12
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are
some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him
receive it.

`Ctaj
In Response To dori
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 14:18

1 Cor 7:39 - "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be
dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."

Let's see. The United States is supposedly 90%+ Christian, and some 40% of us are in second
marriages (or third or more). This doesn't compute.

`Ctaj
In Response To dori
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 14:12

Paul also wrote in 1 Cor 7:12-14, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a
wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And
the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let
her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving
wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy."

Do you believe that?

dori
In Response To And another...
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 14:07

This one supports celibacy as a true service to the Lord...

1 Corinthians 7:32-33
But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong
to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of
the world, how he may please his wife.

`Ctaj
In Response To dori
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 14:06

It was Paul who wrote that in Corinthians, of course. So, he was expressing his own opinion,
not necessarily that of Jesus. How would he know what Jesus thought on the matter?

dori
In Response To Here ya go, Gerry
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 13:51

1 Corinthians 7:1,6-8
1: Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a
woman.
6: But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7: For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God,
one after this manner, and another after that.
8: I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

Murray
In Response To Gerry
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 13:49

The Scriptures Doris is talking about are in the same book you will find that believers are to be
called 'forgiven sinners.'

First Book Of Man's Traditions, Chapter 1

GerryB.
In Response To dori
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 13:21

RE: "There are scriptural references showing that Jesus favored celibacy in his followers,"

Oh really? I await those revelations by you, joyfully. It should be noted by all that there is
evidence that Peter was married and that even Paul may have had a wife at one point in his life.

Ten Megaton Solution
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 12:16

Yup. That's probably true. We should stop wasting the 3 billion on general principles, anyway.
I would say that one Jonathan Pollard is worth 3 Billion dollars times the number of years he's
been alive, and the Israelis haven't paid us back yet.

`Ctaj
In Response To Forum Regular
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 12:16

Oh, please, enlighten us all with your substantive contributions.

`Ctaj
In Response To Ten Megaton Solution
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 12:14

I surmise that if the Israelis were to withdraw from that region, accompanied by the $3 billion+
annual infusion of financial aid from the US, the average GDP per capita in the remaining
Palestine will rival that of Bangladesh and Somalia.

Forum Irregular
In Response To Forum Regular
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 12:13

It's easy to see why you're so regular, having to read stuff like this on a daily basis. ;)

Ten Megaton Solution
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 12:02

What you are proposing is exile.

No. Exile implies forced expulsion and denial of return. Any damn fool that wants to visit that
place of relics and primitive mysticism is more than welcome to.

It's not like the Israelis have any rights to that land, anyway.

Ten Megaton Solution
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 11:59

Now I know Gerry doesn't read my posts. He said Sim's presence raises the intellectual level
in here.

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 11:29

If for no other reason, they wouldn't take it -- reasoning that there's no guarantee that
they wouldn't have to fight off people wanting to take that from them or move them out of
there in the future.

In Nevada? Heck, there's nobody there but Timbuctoo and COTN and a few Indians.
Nobody important.

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 10:51

Did schmoly make it through the spell checker? grin

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 10:50

If for no other reason, they wouldn't take it -- reasoning that there's no guarantee that they
wouldn't have to fight off people wanting to take that from them or move them out of there in
the future. They would have other reasons to turn it down, of course, but this would be the
clincher in my book.

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 10:41

Holy land, schmoly land. It's dirt, Murray, that they're dying over. And after 2000 years of
wind, rain, and erosion, it ain't even the same dirt.

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 10:38

No, exile presupposes force and coercion. I'm saying, "if you want to live in peace, come here
-- we have a place for you. If you want to continue to fight to the death with your neighbors
over absurd notions of holy land, you're on your own."

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 10:36

In the Eucharist, Jesus' Body, the Body he commanded that we eat if we wished for eternal
life, is present. Physical presence. His physical Body nourishes our spiritual lives.

Where does it say you have to offer bland soda crackers? If you folks offered nachos with
chicken or beef, some jalepenos and frijoles and a touch of sour cream, you'd double
attendance.

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 10:14

What you are proposing is exile.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 10:01:18 04/24/02 Wed

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

`Ctaj
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 10:07

I just had another "billiant idea", (don't I always) since Catj and Ten Meg seem to have all
the answers, why don't we send them "over there" to make "peace" in the Middle East.

From today's Investors Business Daily: "On this day in 1936, the Tel Aviv-Jaffa district of
Palestine was wracked by violence again as clashes between Arabs and Jews resulted in 11
killed and 50 wounded."

Given a free hand, the Palestinians would kill all of the Jews. Given a free hand, the Jews
would kill all the Palestinians.

The US Govt owns about 87% of the State of Nevada. Give it to the Jews who want to come
live in peace and prosperity. Those who don't leave can live with the consequences.

Murray
In Response To GerryB
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 10:06

If tradition were so obviously noticed, it would never creep in. No, tradition is much more
subtle than to merely exist in an outward manifestation such as robes and vestments. The best
example of tradition is in the forming of a traditional interpretation of Bible verses. We
legitimately get a little insight into a verse and think ourselves to totally know what that verse
says. So, every time we read it or quote it to others, we hold to that same interpretation. Or
we can be come too doctrinal in our approach to Christianity and then we make the Bible say
what the doctrine says rather than let it speak for itself. A good example is 'forgiven sinner.' It's
not anywhere in the Bible. Somebody made it up and other people bought it. That is a
tradition.

dori
In Response To Gerry
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 9:50

Yes, I'm aware that there have been many changes over the years in church customs. Some
for the better and some for the worse. There are scriptural references showing that Jesus
favored celibacy in his followers, BTW, but I'm leaving for work and don't have time to find
them for you. I will look them up tonight, okay? Have a nice day, Gerry. God bless.

GerryB.
In Response To Murray
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 9:39

I respect Ron's right to his opinion and to express it. I also have a right to my opinion and to
express that. There are two traditional things in the church which I attend. One is "believers
baptism." The other is the celebration of the Lord's supper. Both are Biblical.

GerryB.
In Response To dori
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 9:34

I am not grumpy this morning.

RE: "The Bible is not the only source of God's word."
Nope. You are right t5he Bible is not the only source. The teaching of the Holy Spirit in the life
of the believer is also source of understanding. No where does Christ teach that the traditions
of men are important. That vow of celibacy that you think should be done away with is not
taught in the Holy Scriptures. It is a tradition of men. Are you aware that in the early centuries
of the RC Church that Priests were married?

Murray
In Response To RonB
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 9:32

One more in the series already began:

And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye
are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of
the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen
with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And
you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together
with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (Col 2:10-13)

Again, we see ourselves literally immersed in the person of Christ. In Him, we are dead. Here
Paul uses the imagery of baptism as having been our burial.

Murray
In Response To GerryB
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 9:28

I perceive that Ron and I have a different relationship than the one that you and he have.
Although we are sometimes sharp with each other because, well, we're both like that, there is
mutual respect between us. If I didn't believe Ron and I have something to say to each other, I
wouldn't bother. I believe the Catholic church does a lot of things right and that serious minded
Catholics and serious minded believers in Jesus Christ who are not Catholic do have things in
common and things to learn from each other. I also believe that we have traditions of men in
many of our churches and sometimes the ones that yell the loudest about the Catholics do not
see how they also live bound up by tradition. In any case, thanks for posting. Always a
pleasure.

dori
In Response To Gerry
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 8:59

Did we get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Hee hee... what a grouch!

dori
In Response To Gerry
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 8:57

Ron well understands the truths of the Bible, Gerry, as well as following the tradition Jesus
passed on to his followers. Why is that so hard for you to understand? The Bible is not the
only source of God's word. Why do you feel the need to impugn his words here? He is
bringing the message of God to this room every bit as convincingly as Murray. There is much
to be learned from both. PTL.

GerryB.
In Response To Murray
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 8:52

Keep on telling the truth. It won't, however, do any good. He can't understand the truths of the
Bible. It has to be the traditions of the men of the "True Church." The true Church was the one
which was founded by Jesus Christ. I don't see any one being appointed to be "pope" or
"Arch-Bishop." I don't see anything about men wearing gold trimmed robes. I guess that all of
those things are inventions of men rather than God.

GerryB.
In Response To Murray and Sim
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 8:45

Good morning, gentlemen.

Supposedly we got some snow last night. I can look out my window and see none on the
ground. If it don't hit the ground it don't do us any good.

GerryB.
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 8:38

"Geezy peezy, loweezy!" and "nanny nanny boo boo." This place is sounding more and more
like a kindergarden all the time. Other than Murray and Sim there were not many here last
night expressing intelligent thoughts. Good thing that I decided not to post. I would sure hate to
have raised the intellectual level of the place.

Murray
In Response To RonB
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 5:55

Another verse that continues with similar themes is:

I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life
which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself
for me. (Gal 2:20)

Again we see, not only the death of Jesus as having already occurred and being in our place
and on our behalf, but that we were crucified with Him. And, that being the case, we no longer
live our own life because we no longer have it to live because we were crucified with Him. (if
one died, all died) Yet we still live, but not our old life, but He lives in us even as we died in
Him.

Murray
In Response To RonB
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 5:35

In this passage, several truths are established. A partial list:

1.) Jesus' death has already occurred.

2.) This already occurred death was in our place and on our behalf. (if one died all died, and
He died for all)

3.) Because of the death of Jesus to the flesh on behalf of all, in recognition of that, we should
regard no one, including ourselves, according to the flesh.

4.) Being in Christ transforms us into someone totally new 5.) We are not who we once were;
that person is passed away. 6.) Everything about us is now of God because He has reconciled
us to Himself by his death.

Murray
In Response To RonB
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 5:16

Does the Bible teach, and do so repeatedly, in plain language that eternal life is given to those
who are in Christ on the earth?

Let's let Scripture answer for itself.

For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;
and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who
died for them and rose again. Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the
flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus
no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away;
behold, all things have become new. Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to
Himself..." 2 Cor 5:14-18

Murray
In Response To RonB 2:32
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 4:44

I agree, by the verse you quoted, Paul forsaw a future reward, a crown of righteousness, for
keeping the faith. The verse conveys this plain meaning and needs no further explanation or to
have a layer of nuance put over it.

However, did he or did he not convey a sense in which zoe life or eternal life or the life of God
(all synonyms) and righteousness existed in Christ and, therefore, literally belongs to those who
are in Christ on the earth? Don't jump ahead and answer a different question just yet. You
probably have caveats which I am very happy to look at. But let's first look at the subject at
hand, which is:

Does the Bible teach, and do so repeatedly, in plain language that eternal life is given to those
who are in Christ on the earth?

dori
In Response To Ron
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 2:45

And also with you. 8-))

RonB
In Response To dori
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 2:43

Goodnight, dori, may God be with you and all of good will.

RonB
In Response To Murray
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 2:41

Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of
life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. (James 1)

Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into
prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto
death, and I will give thee a crown of life. (Rev 2)

Both these verses make it clear that we must "endure" and "remain" "faithful unto death" to
attain the crown of life. Not until our death is the issue settled for once and for all. The
sacraments of the living strengthen us in our struggle to attain the crown.

dori
In Response To Hi Ron
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 2:37

I just peeked in and am on the way to bed, but I just wanted to say good night and keep up
the good fight. God bless!

RonB
In Response To Murray
Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 2:32

So, what does it mean to wish for this? Is not this already ours if we belong to Him? Does
not Paul teach this repeatedly?

St. Paul teaches us that the Crown of life is something we have to fight for.

For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a
good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for
me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that
day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

He obtained his crown by fighting the good fight and keeping the faith. It wasn't automatic.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Geezy Wheezy
Monday April 22, 2002 at 20:48

Geezy peezy, loweezy! I thought it was pretty obvious that jail would be part of drumming him
out of the church, and I already addressed that to Ron, if you'd bothered to look back all the
way before putting in your two-cents-worth. I would then change parishes because I would
figure if that was going on, others would have been covering for the creep. Understood? "
Sorry, the way you phrased it, it looked like you wanted HIM to change Parishes. Murray
thought you said that too.

Murray
In Response To RonB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 20:46

You write, "...Christianity has taught for over 2,000 years. In the Eucharist, Jesus' Body, the
Body he commanded that we eat if we wished for eternal life, is present.

What does it mean to wish for eternal life? In my understanding, eternal life is the English
translation of the greek word "zoe," which translates to "the type of life God has." So, what
does it mean to wish for this? Is not this already ours if we belong to Him? Does not Paul teach
this repeatedly?

RonB
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 19:44

It is wrong to think that the sacraments (tail) have an inherent power or reality within
themselves to invoke his presence (dog) or bring him closer in any way. You can think it to
be true, but you can't make it true by thinking so. The biblical references about hearing
the church and keeping his commandments have nothing to do with sacraments or
sacramentalism.

As I've mentioned, below, this is not true. Christ told his Apostles, when he blessed the bread
and broke it, that "this is My Body... do this in remembrance of Me." Catholics obey this
command, and by Faith, see Christ in the Eucharist.

RonB
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 19:41

Jesus Christ is what is real and is present in your life if you are his. Like Brother
Lawrence, you can live in his presence and commune with Him any time and any place.

Of course.

The sacraments do not invoke his presence because He is already present. The sacraments
do not and could not possibly make Him more present.

Not according to what Christianity has taught for over 2,000 years. In the Eucharist, Jesus'
Body, the Body he commanded that we eat if we wished for eternal life, is present. Physical
presence. His physical Body nourishes our spiritual lives. Maybe not "more present," but
present in a different way.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 09:57:56 04/24/02 Wed

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

RonB
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 19:41

Jesus Christ is what is real and is present in your life if you are his. Like Brother
Lawrence, you can live in his presence and commune with Him any time and any place.

Of course.

The sacraments do not invoke his presence because He is already present. The sacraments
do not and could not possibly make Him more present.

Not according to what Christianity has taught for over 2,000 years. In the Eucharist, Jesus'
Body, the Body he commanded that we eat if we wished for eternal life, is present. Physical
presence. His physical Body nourishes our spiritual lives. Maybe not "more present," but
present in a different way.

Murray
In Response To RonB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 19:27

Jesus Christ is what is real and is present in your life if you are his. Like Brother Lawrence,
you can live in his presence and commune with Him any time and any place. The sacraments
do not invoke his presence because He is already present. The sacraments do not and could
not possibly make Him more present. That is part of what I mean about the tail wagging the
dog. It is wrong to think that the sacraments (tail) have an inherent power or reality within
themselves to invoke his presence (dog) or bring him closer in any way. You can think it to be
true, but you can't make it true by thinking so. The biblical references about hearing the church
and keeping his commandments have nothing to do with sacraments or sacramentalism.

dori
In Response To Ron
Monday April 22, 2002 at 19:17

Gee, it's a shame I have to leave for my music practice when you're around. I will read back
later. Have a nice evening. God bless.

RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Monday April 22, 2002 at 19:07

1) Priests are trained in human foibles, so they should be able to identify them better in
themselves.

Recognizing human foibles and overcoming them are two different things. You don't put the
sinner in this position in charge of regulating himself. If those in seminaries were doing their
jobs, these pervert priests would have never made it to the priesthood. (And, if the bishops
and cardinals were doing their jobs, once these pervert priests were discovered, they would be
removed.)

Ten Megaton Solution
Monday April 22, 2002 at 19:01

Changing parishes would solve what? What checks would you perform to verify that the new
parish is neither the recipient of a Fondling Father or the source of a Transient Tinkerer?

What checks could you perform?

The only real solution is to recognize that a church that covers up clerical misbehavior is to
leave that Church. And it's all one BIG church.

dori
In Response To CoinkyDink
Monday April 22, 2002 at 18:58

Geezy peezy, loweezy! I thought it was pretty obvious that jail would be part of drumming him
out of the church, and I already addressed that to Ron, if you'd bothered to look back all the
way before putting in your two-cents-worth. I would then change parishes because I would
figure if that was going on, others would have been covering for the creep. Understood?

RonB
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 18:48

I notice you not refuting my previous.

I'm not even sure what your "previous" was. If speaking of your "dog show" analogy -- it's
your same old screed that I've been responding to over and over... and over. You don't
understand my points about how the sacraments are real -- and, whether we fully understand
them or not, Christ commanded that we "hear the Church" and "keep His commandments."
So, as I've mentioned before, even if the sacraments offered no consolation or feeling of
closeness to God, I would still -- accepting the authority of God's Church -- obey the Church
and take part in them. The fact is that, for me, they do bring me closer to God, and console my
spirit, whether you think so or not.

*Coinkydink
Monday April 22, 2002 at 18:38

"The best solution is to nuke the place and drill through the glass to get the oil." If I weren't a
Quaker and in general a non-violent person, I'd agree with this... it'd probbably be the only
thing that'd work...baby is crying...gotta go. TTFN

*Coinkydink
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 18:30

"Unfortunately, it takes self dimension to be able to see my point." oooh, don't let the Mods
see this kind of remark...pretty soon you'll have to get your own forum in order to say anything
you want to. You're in trouble now! ;)

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Coinkydink
Monday April 22, 2002 at 18:29

I'm not going to enter that argument. I don't have a horse in that race, and I'd be riding a goat
if I started now. I was just offering some advice.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Dori
Monday April 22, 2002 at 18:26

" then I'd work to have him drummed out of the church and go to a different parish." Why
wouldn't you want him arrested and put in jail where he can't hurt anyone else?

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ten Megs
Monday April 22, 2002 at 18:21

My "Oxford Companion to the Bible" says it was published about 95 years after the death of
Jesus. Assuming that John was under 30 then, it still puts him at more than 100 years old. The
style of writing does not fit the style used in the Gospel of John and seems to have almost a
complete disregard for the grammatical structures of his writing in the Greek style. Some think
it was altered to be more Hebrew-like and more Bible-like at a later time... According to the
scholars I've read. Who knows?

Murray
In Response To Sim
Monday April 22, 2002 at 18:20

Sounds good, Sim. Job would be an awesome story to do on stage.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ya'll
Monday April 22, 2002 at 18:12

"nanny nanny boo boo"? You'd have to shoot me before I'd say something as dumb as that!

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Coinkydink
Monday April 22, 2002 at 18:07

One should not make a comment like "John was Senile" without being able to state his age. It's
embarrassing.

But that's only my opinion, of course. (G)

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Coinkydink
Monday April 22, 2002 at 18:05

1) Priests are trained in human foibles, so they should be able to identify them better in
themselves.

2) Blaming society for their crimes is a cop out, and they themselves do not accept that excuse
when hearing confession.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ten Megs
Monday April 22, 2002 at 18:04

Opinions are like noses, everyone has one. They don't necessarily have to be proven as true.
But if one is relying on faith, it would be honest to admit it. Having faith doesn't prove anything
to the one without faith, but it is enough for the believer.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Ten Megs
Monday April 22, 2002 at 18:01

"He cited influence of the culture of the day and the "sex-saturated" society, and said
Americans are bombarded by images of "liberated sex all day long, all evening long." One
point I'd like to make, is that we all have choices about the way we allow society and culture
to effect us. We don't have to read the literature, watch the TV or movies or subscribe to
publications that undermine a simple honest righteous lifestyle. We choose also how to respond
to these influences. I do know from experience that the clergy is under more pressure and
scrutiny than other people. There is tremendous stress when one is responsible for the spiritual
well being of others...Not an excuse for sin, but perhaps a reason for them to be careful and
get help earlier.

Sim, On Gdaug: puter
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 17:57

Oh, a play??

We had the play "JOB" here at Pineville, Ky for years, then it went to Europe. I've heard it
may be coming back.

It drew people from all over the world to see it at Pineville.

dori
In Response To Ctaj
Monday April 22, 2002 at 17:49

Luckily, the church doesn't ask that of EVERYONE, only those who choose to serve. During
their ordination the candidates are given the chance to "opt out", once they have waived that
right, they are sworn to uphold that vow. If they choose to opt out in the future, they also opt
out of the priesthood.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Coinkydink
Monday April 22, 2002 at 17:45

It is best to be able to support opinions with relevant fact, since contravening fact can prove an
opinion wrong.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Gerry
Monday April 22, 2002 at 17:42

"I asked you to present some evidence for your claim of the senility of John. Do you have it in
front of you yet? I'm waiting to see it." I apologised for saying my opinion about it, since it
upset you. I don't think anyone has to "prove" an opinion and when you Christians become
humble enough to admit that what you're saying is just your opinions, then you won't be asked
to prove it either. ;)

Murray
In Response To Sim
Monday April 22, 2002 at 17:32

Nope, not a movie. Live on stage. You would have like it.

Sim 2
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 17:27

A production of Daniel

Is that a "Movie"???

I don't "go to the show" any more, so I don't keep up to date on what's being shown.

Sim 2
In Response To Ya'll
Monday April 22, 2002 at 17:24

Ac 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you,
not sparing the flock.

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false
teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that
bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be
made manifest among you.

that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 09:54:50 04/24/02 Wed

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

Ten Megaton Solution
Monday April 22, 2002 at 17:22

I just had another "billiant idea", (don't I always) since Catj and Ten Meg seem to have all
the answers, why don't we send them "over there" to make "peace" in the Middle East.

I wouldn't want to go there. The best solution is to nuke the place and drill through the glass to
get the oil.

Murray
In Response To Sim
Monday April 22, 2002 at 17:19

Hay Sim. Went to see a production of Daniel at Sight & Sound Theatre in Lancaster, PA. It
was good. The fiery furnace scene was outstanding. You would have liked it.

Sim 2
In Response To Ya'll
Monday April 22, 2002 at 17:09

I just had another "billiant idea", (don't I always) since Catj and Ten Meg seem to have all the
answers, why don't we send them "over there" to make "peace" in the Middle East.

Why I'd bet they have "Jews and Arabs" hugging and kissing each other within 24 hours.

Hay, they might even prove to be the Antichrist and his prophet, but nobody will notice the
"war" they'll fight between themselves, to be "top dog".

`Ctaj
In Response To dori
Monday April 22, 2002 at 17:04

Have you considered the consequences of EVERYONE subscribing to that preposterous
notion (celibacy)? The human race would have ended in a single generation.

`Ctaj
In Response To dori
Monday April 22, 2002 at 17:03

"By stepping forward despite this warning, when invited to do so, and by co-operating in
the rest of the ordination service, the candidate is understood to bind himself equivalently
by a vow of chastity. He is henceforth unable to contract a valid marriage, and any
serious transgression in the matter of this vow is not only a grievous sin in itself but incurs
the additional guilt of sacrilege."

So, he can opt out any time.

dori
In Response To ~more~
Monday April 22, 2002 at 16:48

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the
things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous
for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried
woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and
spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her
husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is
decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment. (I Cor.,
vii, 7-8 and 32-35.)

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Monday April 22, 2002 at 16:42

Hadn't thought of it exactly in that way before, but, yes, that is a deadly observation.

dori
In Response To Ctaj
Monday April 22, 2002 at 16:41

The vow of celibacy is unnatural to me and I hope one day the church will withdraw that
condition. Otherwise we will have fewer and fewer priests to carry on the faith.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
(During the ceremony, the candidate is given one last chance to change his mind.)
"By stepping forward despite this warning, when invited to do so, and by co-operating in the
rest of the ordination service, the candidate is understood to bind himself equivalently by a vow
of chastity. He is henceforth unable to contract a valid marriage, and any serious transgression
in the matter of this vow is not only a grievous sin in itself but incurs the additional guilt of
sacrilege."

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 16:37

Is this about dyslexics?

Murray
In Response To A Modern Day Parable
Monday April 22, 2002 at 16:31

THE DOG LOVERS CLUB

If TV can do reruns, so can I. :)

`Ctaj
In Response To dori
Monday April 22, 2002 at 16:07

Ron took off without answering my questions about where the idea of celibacy in the church
came from. Do you know? About all I know about the Catholic Church I learned from
watching The Soprano and The Godfather reruns.

`Ctaj
In Response To dori
Monday April 22, 2002 at 16:05

Or, maybe the priest confessed. I'd be a bit concerned about the situation of unproven
allegations were all that's required to ruin a man's career.

dori
In Response To Ctaj
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:59

Well, Ctaj, it was an allegation of a supposed incident that took place twenty years ago and
came out while the man was in psychoanalysis. No other charges of that sort were brought out
before or after against the priest. Maybe the DA gave the priest the benefit of the doubt. The
parish council didn't. Ta ta... the pups are clamoring.

`Ctaj
In Response To dori
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:55

it would take a PHD to fathom your point

A PHD is a testament to determination and endurance, not necessarily perceptiveness or
intelligence.

Murray
In Response To dori
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:52

I notice you not refuting me and using my post as a chance to hurl a sarcastic comment back in
my direction.

`Ctaj
In Response To dori
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:49

On a serious note, we had a neighboring parish lose their priest after service there for a
number of years because a man charged him with molestation while he was a child at
camp. As soon as that story hit the papers, he was retired from the priesthood.

What? No trial? Guilty by accusation? What kind of a deal is that?

Murray
In Response To RonB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:47

I notice you not refuting my previous. As far as understanding your relationship with God is
concerned, would it or would it not be discerned from your own words? In that case, there is
plenty of grist for the mill as you are nothing if not wordy. Yes, I am the same way, I know. In
any case, it seems to me that you are almost desperately attempting to communicate what you
believe. Your whole emphasis is on the church. The church this, the church that. The church is
not permanently invested with authority to teach any more than the tail of the dog is
permanently invested with the ability to wag. You can stare at that tail all day long and get
yourself convinced that it wags the dog after a while. It still wouldn't be true, though.

dori
In Response To Ron
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:44

Admirable job of answering some of the tough questions put to you. See you later. I too have
had my fill of this place for now. Puppies are infinitely more appealing, and I think I hear one of
them breaking down the screen door now! Yikes! C'ya!

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Doris
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:42

And of course, the problem with the Church in the future will be the enormous numbers of
false allegations. Which will require more openness to deal with, not less.

This result is the natural by-product of the cover-up, though, and will only be ameliorated by
complete honesty and a reliance by the church on secular law enforcement for resolution. (And
we all know how honest the DA's aren't.)

dori
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:40

Re: "Unfortunately, it takes self dimension to be able to see my point."

With all due respect, it would take a PHD to fathom your point, and we all know what an idiot
I am! I see you're still speaking for others. It looks like you're having a hard enough time
speaking for yourself, sweetie. Try some of that "self dimension" on yer ownself.

Ten Megaton Solution
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:39

Sigh...I have no responsibility towards my grandparents (and I'll pretend they're not all dead,
which they are, for this discussion). I have no responsibility towards my own parents, who are
not dead. I do have a responsiblity towards my children. I will not permit them to be in the
care of anyone I do not trust.

The fallacy of the example, of course, is that the local priest is some Joe from college come to
listen to your life's deepest secrets and to guide you spiritually. He's as deserving of your
loyalty as the next schmuck they'd put in his place if they shuffled him off to another diocese if
your kid made an allegation of abuse against him.

Are you capable of understanding the distinction between family member and priest?

RonB
In Response To All
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:38

I've got to go run errands. I've been here longer than I should have been. Sorry for ducking
out.

dori
In Response To Ctaj and Ron
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:35

Now THERE'S an idea! I'll bet a few enterprising Knights of Columbus members would take
you up on that.

Ron: First things first... grin. Get the bum outta the church and throw him in jail. On a serious
note, we had a neighboring parish lose their priest after service there for a number of years
because a man charged him with molestation while he was a child at camp. As soon as that
story hit the papers, he was retired from the priesthood. I don't know if he was charged with
anything. It may still be in the courts.

Ten Megaton Solution
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:34

Search Results - papal+ex+cathedra+pronouncements

RonB
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:34

No matter how many times you say that the tail wags the dog, it doesn't.

And no matter how many times you claim to understand Catholic spirituality and my own
specific spiritual life --you don't. Just because you find "religion" (as you define it) detracts from
your personal view of what Christianity is supposed to be, doesn't mean you know how my
religion strengthens my faith and brings me closer to God.

Quite honestly, I'm beginning to find your patronizing platitudes a bit tiresome. I'm glad you've
found what you think to be the truth. Don't assume you understand, however, my relationship
to God. You are not my Judge.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 13:54:57 04/22/02 Mon

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Connie
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:18

It's not just Boston, and it's not just the Catholic Church. What makes the RC Church more
susceptible than others is it's size, and it's bureacracy.

What I've researched seems to indicate that Protestant churches also have sex abuse
problems, but that the hierarchy is less able (or less likely) to cover them up (and a higher
incidence of heterosexual abuses, and people listen to little girls more).

Anyway, the Protestant churches apparently have less success in cover-ups, so the pressure in
the boiler never gets too high.

There will always be, where ever adults are placed in positions of authority over children, men
who will take advantage of it. Even up to the Presidency of the United States, apparently. The
whole United States did nothing about

RonB
In Response To Ctaj
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:17

Then you should be one of the Rockies faithful. St. Louis is one of the few teams to lose the
season series to the Rockies last year, and again so far this year.

The Cardinals always manage to lose to teams below .500. You'll notice they've given the
Brewer's new manager a heck of a start also. I've got nothing against the Rockies, but I've
been a St. Louis fan since I was a kid.

Forum Regular
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:14

Or whiney little brats used to having their own way. ;)

GerryB.
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:14

RE: "Jesus didn't know him, so Jesus couldn't have 'chosen him' to spread the gospel."

You just don't get it do you. Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. He is God in human flesh. 100%
man and 100% God in the same person. Of course God knew who Saul of Tasrsus was. Yes,
He chose him.

RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:13

That's my point. You're not "fed up". When I'm "fed up" with something, I stop eating.

Because certain priests, and certain Cardinals are guilty of child molestation or protecting child
molestors, does not mean that 1) all in the Catholic Church are guilty, or 2) the Catholic
Church is not the True Church.

If the Church depended on fallible men it would have, long ago, died and been a distant
memory.

RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:10

If the Pope is "weak", he's still doing exactly what God says. and it takes no effort at all to
say "Cardinal Law, you're excommunicated".

Where do you find, in Catholic Doctrine, that the Pope does "exactly what God says?" If that
were the case, all popes would be saints. A pope can be as sinful, or more sinful, as any man
-- and that is definitely not listening to God. What a pope can not do, according to the Catholic
Doctrine, is teach errors in Doctrine ex cathedra. That is all papal infallibility asserts.

The Pope should excommunicate Cardinal Law, or at least remove from his position and
demand he spend the rest of his life in penance -- but this Pope may be too weak for that
necessary action.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Forum Irregular
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:09

My hormones would have to out of whack to the point of unconsciousness before I'd say
"nanny nanny boo boo". Women seem to have no problem with it, though.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Ron B
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:08

too many good Catholics are fed up with this whole sick affair.

That's my point. You're not "fed up". When I'm "fed up" with something, I stop eating. They'll
know you're fed up when you stop going. Someone should establish Mother's Day as
"Catholic Boycott" day, and all you fed up people should abstain from church that day as a
signal. God would understand, I'm sure. It might even be noticed by the Pope.

But until a positive grass roots (or whatever the religious equivalent would be called) action is
taken, the helm of your Church will continue on its path, not yours.

Forum Regular
In Response To T M S
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:07

Re: Forum Irregular: If what you said was true, you wouldn't have to hide. You're a liar,
and a coward, and I couldn't care less what you "feel".

The only thing you left out of that diatribe was a Nanny Nanny Boo Boo, a flounce off the
forum and a slammed door. You know hormonal imbalances occur in men, too, don't you?

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:06

I can't, I'm a St. Louis fan.

Then you should be one of the Rockies faithful. St. Louis is one of the few teams to lose the
season series to the Rockies last year, and again so far this year.

Connie
In Response To Forum
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:05

I have to agree with what TMS posted also. I find it ironic that the worst offenders seem to be
in that most liberal state (Massachusetts) and city (Boston) but I can't say I'm surprised. I've
never understood why the RC church, who's views on abortion and homosexuality have
always been clear, haven't excommunicated Teddy Kennedy and other Roman Catholics of his
ilk who have pandered to those groups, i.e. feminists/homos, for votes which resulted in laws
legitimizing such acts. BTW it's not only the RC church which failed the people in this
regard...all church leaders who did not speak out failed in their duty. Of course, those who did
have the courage were demonized unmercifully and still are.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:04

They are basically politically inept, however...the Stupid Party

Yes. The Califonia Libertarian Candidate's page features a wide number of freaks who
would never be elected, ranging from the Governor candidate that advertises his
adherence to Wicca (not that I care, but he's turned off countless voters by doing that), to
the candidate for the legislature who feels ferrets are the most important issue, to the
dozens of people that can't get a haircut or buy decent clothes for the photo.

The Libertarians have the best philosophy, and I think because of the independence that
implies, they'll never be a player.

RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:04

It has made every effort possible to defuse the issue without cleaning up the mess.

I'm not arguing with you there. Very rarely do the guilty "come clean" of their own volition. But
I think they will be forced to "come clean" whether they want to or not -- too many good
Catholics are fed up with this whole sick affair.

RonB
In Response To Ctaj
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:01

Pray the Colorado Rockies into a World Series sweep. That would convince me.

I can't, I'm a St. Louis fan.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Ron B
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:00

It has made every effort possible to defuse the issue without cleaning up the mess. The Los
Angeles diocese has repeatedly paid accusers off rather than face court. This is routinely called
"hush money" when racketeers in the Mob do it. It is still "hush money" if God's Panderers are
doing it. If the Pope is "weak", he's still doing exactly what God says. and it takes no effort at
all to say "Cardinal Law, you're excommunicated".

The key issue the Church is worried about is money, not morals, not God, and not what you
want. Keep that straight.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Ron B
Monday April 22, 2002 at 15:00

So, since we have rapists and child molestors in our country, and our tax dollars pay for
the lawyers who sometimes get these vermin released on the street, are Americans all guilty
of rape and child molestation? Great "logic."

What I said was "Great logic,". What you said is "bad analogy". Last time I checked, taxes are
extorted from the taxpayer under threat of prison or bodily injury. You're voluntarly paying for
your molesters.

As for the Pope being guilty, we will see. If he is "guilty" it is because he is weak -- but
even if that is the case, it has nothing to do with his infallibility or the Doctrines of the
Church (which never has, nor ever will, condone child molestation).

It has made every effort possible to defuse the issue

RonB
In Response To Ctaj
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:59

Our tax dollars aren't voluntary contributions.

Nor do I contribute to Cardinal Law or the current American Catholic Church establishment.
But I do remain a Catholic and support and pray for the Church.

Murray
In Response To TMS
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:58

Yeah, I'm a Repub and I hate it. I hate the rest of them just a little bit more, though. I am a true
libertarian and the Libertarian party probably comes closest to my views. They are basically
politically inept, however. If the Republicans are the stupid party, the Libertarians are the
really stupid party. So, I stay because I love to vote in the primaries and Independents can not
do that in my state. If they could, I'd switch to Independent and be done with the parties for
the time being.

RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:57

No. But clearly the Lord's devine representative in the flesh, the Pope himself, doesn't seem
to think there's anything wrong with it. It does appear that the main concern is how to
keep the marks in line with their wallets open.

We will see. But, even if what you say is true, it does not touch on the Doctrines of the Church
or on papal infallibility. The pope can be the chief of sinners, what he is preserved from doing
is teaching errors in doctrine, ex cathedra, (from the chair). This whole, sordid affair has
nothing to do with Catholic Doctrine or the teaching authority of the Church.

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:56

That said, even accused priests deserve a fair trial.

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:55

So, since we have rapists and child molestors in our country, and our tax dollars pay for
the lawyers who sometimes get these vermin released on the street, are Americans all guilty
of rape and child molestation? Great "logic."

Our tax dollars aren't voluntary contributions.

RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:52

3) People that continue to support the "True Church" in the light of this are supporters of
child molestors and rapists.

So, since we have rapists and child molestors in our country, and our tax dollars pay for the
lawyers who sometimes get these vermin released on the street, are Americans all guilty of
rape and child molestation? Great "logic."

As for the Pope being guilty, we will see. If he is "guilty" it is because he is weak -- but even if
that is the case, it has nothing to do with his infallibility or the Doctrines of the Church (which
never has, nor ever will, condone child molestation).

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:50

Yes. I finally got fed up with the Republicans and left, and many who haven't are still defending
the indefensible. Some people need to be prodded. And I am more than annoying enough to
serve that function.

`Ctaj
In Response To Forum Regular
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:50

Really. I used Henry when Ctaj was blocked out, and I let everyone know who Henry was.

Forum Regular
In Response To Henry
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:49

Oh, really?


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 12:52:54 04/22/02 Mon

MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:50

Yes. I finally got fed up with the Republicans and left, and many who haven't are still defending the indefensible.
Some people need to be prodded. And I am more than annoying enough to serve that function.

`Ctaj
In Response To Forum Regular
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:50

Really. I used Henry when Ctaj was blocked out, and I let everyone know who Henry was.

Forum Regular
In Response To Henry
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:49

Oh, really?

Ten Megaton Solution
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:48

Forum Irregular: If what you said was true, you wouldn't have to hide. You're a liar, and a coward, and I couldn't
care less what you "feel".

Ten Megaton Solution
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:48

Of course you will find nothing in Catholic Doctrine condoning child rape and homosexuality.

No. But clearly the Lord's devine representative in the flesh, the Pope himself, doesn't seem to think there's
anything wrong with it. It does appear that the main concern is how to keep the marks in line with their wallets
open.

Now, the Pope is The Church, and the Pope condones what's happened. That means The Church condones
what's happened (this has been going on in all dioceses for more than half a century). Therefore the problem is
with the Church, and the people remamining in it are now helping to perpetuate the problem.

Murray
In Response To TMS
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:47

I see your point. I can see, from your perspective, what you are talking about. Everything you say is correct and it
is a reasonable conclusion to reach that the best way the rank and file Catholic can bring about change is to vote
with their feet. Also, you are probably the type of person that makes your mind up about things very quickly and
doesn't look back. People that don't do that probably drive you nuts. Like it or not, the world is full of that type of
person. Many will, much to your chagrin, take a wait and see attitude because that's how they decide most things.
But, yes, you make excellent points and I have to agree with them. My style would be to withhold my offerings
and maybe pull back a little and see what develops. I actually did that once.

RonB
In Response To Ctaj
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:45

That's what you get when you base your society's system of morals and ethics on myths that most folks don't
really believe.

Actually, no. When religion was taken seriously in this country, our moral fiber was much stronger. Do you really
believe that our country is Christian in this day and age?

`Ctaj
In Response To Forum Regular
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:42

Coward.

RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:42

1) The so-called "True Church" (no truer, nor less, than any other, I agree) condones child rape and
homosexuality in act, while condemning it with words.

Of course you will find nothing in Catholic Doctrine condoning child rape and homosexuality. What you will find
are fallible men, unfortunately in the Church, more intent on protecting themselves and their pervert friends, then
on protecting the flock they are supposed to guard from the wolves. Keep watching. I think Cardinal Law's days
are numbered.

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:41

the fact is that our society has gone to the dogs.

That's what you get when you base your society's system of morals and ethics on myths that most folks don't
really believe. Better they should be taught morals and ethics based on mutual self-interest in the here and now.
That applies to everyone, not just believers.

Forum Regular
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:41

Ten Megaton Solution
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:26

Here's some BS:

Boy, you can say that again! That's ALL we get from you!

RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:37

Crap. They've got cases and allegations of cases going back fifty and sixty years, well before the so-called
"sexual revolution".

While I agree that blame-shifting is simply a dodge to keep from accepting responsibility for their absolutely
inexcusable actions in this matter -- the fact is that our society has gone to the dogs. Would you deny that there
are more pedophiles in the society at large, and even in our schools and Protestant churches? This is not a
problem isolated in the Catholic Church. It is inexcusable that it is there, but Catholic Church is not the only place
where pedophiles prey on children.

Ten Megaton Solution
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:26

Here's some BS:

At St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, Monsignor Eugene Clark talked about factors that have contributed
to the troubles with priests, including "homosexuality in seminaries."

He cited influence of the culture of the day and the "sex-saturated" society, and said Americans are
bombarded by images of "liberated sex all day long, all evening long."

Crap. They've got cases and allegations of cases going back fifty and sixty years, well before the so-called "sexual
revolution". Blaming their sickness on the rest of us is typical of alcoholic denial.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:18

[Monsignor Francis Maniscalco] said they would examine whether there was any situation where a
pedophile priest could continue in his ministry, such as in a chaplaincy for an old-age home.

I hear there's always openings for ministries in state prisons. Or is he discussing their post-release careers?
Somehow I don't think so.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 12:48:37 04/22/02 Mon

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an environment relatively
free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be challenged and/or heavily debated.
Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any other PC forum totally distorts the original message
made, gives a biased slant and is inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the
intelligent choice. Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

Murray
In Response To TMS
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:47

I see your point. I can see, from your perspective, what you are talking about. Everything you say is correct and it
is a reasonable conclusion to reach that the best way the rank and file Catholic can bring about change is to vote
with their feet. Also, you are probably the type of person that makes your mind up about things very quickly and
doesn't look back. People that don't do that probably drive you nuts. Like it or not, the world is full of that type of
person. Many will, much to your chagrin, take a wait and see attitude because that's how they decide most things.
But, yes, you make excellent points and I have to agree with them. My style would be to withhold my offerings
and maybe pull back a little and see what develops. I actually did that once.

RonB
In Response To Ctaj
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:45

That's what you get when you base your society's system of morals and ethics on myths that most folks don't
really believe.

Actually, no. When religion was taken seriously in this country, our moral fiber was much stronger. Do you really
believe that our country is Christian in this day and age?

`Ctaj
In Response To Forum Regular
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:42

Coward.

RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:42

1) The so-called "True Church" (no truer, nor less, than any other, I agree) condones child rape and
homosexuality in act, while condemning it with words.

Of course you will find nothing in Catholic Doctrine condoning child rape and homosexuality. What you will find
are fallible men, unfortunately in the Church, more intent on protecting themselves and their pervert friends, then
on protecting the flock they are supposed to guard from the wolves. Keep watching. I think Cardinal Law's days
are numbered.

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:41

the fact is that our society has gone to the dogs.

That's what you get when you base your society's system of morals and ethics on myths that most folks don't
really believe. Better they should be taught morals and ethics based on mutual self-interest in the here and now.
That applies to everyone, not just believers.

Forum Regular
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:41

Ten Megaton Solution
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:26

Here's some BS:

Boy, you can say that again! That's ALL we get from you!

RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:37

Crap. They've got cases and allegations of cases going back fifty and sixty years, well before the so-called
"sexual revolution".

While I agree that blame-shifting is simply a dodge to keep from accepting responsibility for their absolutely
inexcusable actions in this matter -- the fact is that our society has gone to the dogs. Would you deny that there
are more pedophiles in the society at large, and even in our schools and Protestant churches? This is not a
problem isolated in the Catholic Church. It is inexcusable that it is there, but Catholic Church is not the only place
where pedophiles prey on children.

Ten Megaton Solution
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:26

Here's some BS:

At St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, Monsignor Eugene Clark talked about factors that have contributed
to the troubles with priests, including "homosexuality in seminaries."

He cited influence of the culture of the day and the "sex-saturated" society, and said Americans are
bombarded by images of "liberated sex all day long, all evening long."

Crap. They've got cases and allegations of cases going back fifty and sixty years, well before the so-called "sexual
revolution". Blaming their sickness on the rest of us is typical of alcoholic denial.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:18

[Monsignor Francis Maniscalco] said they would examine whether there was any situation where a
pedophile priest could continue in his ministry, such as in a chaplaincy for an old-age home.

I hear there's always openings for ministries in state prisons. Or is he discussing their post-release careers?
Somehow I don't think so.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:16

I say "all" because those that have not yet been implicated have failed to call for the resignation of the others, so
they're motivations are clear and are definitely not remorseful.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:15

What if Ron has decided to stay and fight with everything he's got against all of this from within?

He cannot. They won't see him. They'll just see his anonymous collection plate donation. Catholics who truly
regret what they have been forced to support will be best noticed when they leave.

Catholics who do not leave cannot be said to truly regret what their church continues to do. Right now the
cardinals are meeting to figure out the best way, not to punish the offenders, but to minimize the impact on the
church without demanding they resign.

The Catholics should boycott the Church and demand that all Cardinals currently in power resign. I say "all"
because those that have not yet been implicated have failed to call for the resignat

Murray
In Response To TMS
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:07

Everyone seems to agree the corruption is horrible, Ron included. You say that that, by not leaving, Ron is
supporting the corruption and the perpetrators thereof. What if Ron has decided to stay and fight with everything
he's got against all of this from within? Would you still persist in saying that, by staying, he is giving some kind of
tacit support? Even though he hates it and is fighting against it?

Ten Megaton Solution
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:07

They Need Guidance?
Monsignor Francis Maniscalco, spokesman for the U.S. Bishops' Conference, said the cardinals would seek
Vatican guidance on whether pedophile priests can stay in the ministry or whether a "one strike and you're
out" rule should be applied.

The Bible is pretty clear on what to do with homosexuals. The law is very clear on what to do with pedophiles.
What's wrong with those people? The moral course is to defrock the offending priest, and turn him over to the
cops.

As I said, the True Church is happy so long as the money rolls in, and they'll do whatever they need in order to
make the collection flow.

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 14:03

Pray the Colorado Rockies into a World Series sweep. That would convince me.

I need to qualify that. The law of averages will get the Rockies to a World Series win eventually. I meant this year.
You have to call your shot to convince me.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Monday April 22, 2002 at 13:55

Ron has already answered your question. By his previous answer, he is apparently saddened and sickened
by the whole rotten mess and yet believes the church will eventually deal with it properly and move on. I
think his position and his answer should be respected.

I respect it just fine. I'm just calling it what it is. If he respects his position, he won't mind when the objective
viewer identifies supporters of the True Church as supporters of pedophilia and rape, for that is what the True
Church is supporting and covering up.

If he doesn't support pedophilia and rape, his feet should be headed out the Church door.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Ron B
Monday April 22, 2002 at 13:52

There are nothing wrong with Catholics, they are members of the True Church. There are some Catholics
who have currently betrayed the Church and have turned from Her Doctrines, but that does not make the
Church evil.

1) The so-called "True Church" (no truer, nor less, than any other, I agree) condones child rape and
homosexuality in act, while condemning it with words.

2) The "betrayer" is the Pope. Who is selected "by God", or in reality, by men who were selected by other men in
millenia old political games. If there was God in the True Church, She's never acted to end the fraud or the abuse.
Not once.

3) People that continue to support the "True Church" in the light of this are supporters of child molestors and
rapists.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Veracity's Link
Monday April 22, 2002 at 13:47

Now you might have noticed that I keep using the word concept and not theory. The theory of evolution is
dead.

This person is not qualified to discuss matters of science. He does not understand the definition of the word
"theory", and he attempts to warp words from their proper definitions in order to establish a point reachable only
by standing on false ground.

I'm not wasting any more time on him.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Veracity's Link
Monday April 22, 2002 at 13:43

Incidentally, few of us recognize that the Bible actually teaches that the world began with one land mass and
that modern geologists have merely caught up with that idea. On the third day also, the Bible teaches that
plant life was created and separated, "each after its kind."

But it didn't. It oringally started with one land mass and no oceans. The oceans came after the heat of accretion
was sufficiently dispelled to permit condenstation. Furthermore, the original continental arrangement is lost in the
mists of time and frankly, the chances that all of the lightweight rock rising to the surface and creating a monolithic
continent is far smaller than having contininental nucleation happen in several distinct locales.

Murray
In Response To RonB 13:08
Monday April 22, 2002 at 13:42

The One with whom nothing is wrong is Jesus Christ. Our responsibility and devotion to Him must be pure. We
should all be more like Paul who said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and
him crucified." (I Cor 2:2) Many have, as Paul intimated, become led astray from sincere and pure devotion to
Christ. (2 Cor 11:3)

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Veracity's Link
Monday April 22, 2002 at 13:39

Consider the brain - the world's most sophisticated computer is slower by a factor of a hundred to a
thousand than any one human brain - one of the most sophisticated, incredibly complex organs of the body.
It performs feats of engineering impossibilities that are absolutely beyond our comprehension.

So? This isn't evidence for "design", no more than the orangutan's "engineering feat" of swinging through trees.

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 13:35

Pray the Colorado Rockies into a World Series sweep. That would convince me.

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 13:33

And, as I've mentioned in the past, your "reality" automatically denies anything outside the "limits" of nature.
It's your faith that, despite the testimony of many, many men and women, you "know" that they were all
wrong, because you "know" that miracles can not exist. This is not a reality, but a species of faith.

I can be convinced. Prove me a miracle.

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 13:21

And the lance? Are you aware that the scourging that our Lord received, quite often was enough to kill the
victim on its own?

No, and you aren't aware of it, either. If Barnabus, the Centurion Executioner (later Christian preacher) was in on
the ruse, he could easily have inflicted a non-fatal flesh wound, and neither you nor the distant crowd would know
the difference.

dori
In Response To Ron
Monday April 22, 2002 at 13:16

Howdy! I had time to read the sites today, but only had time to post a couple. I did notice a lot of activity over in
the pit. Got 'em all hissin up a storm, have ya? Hee hee... It was my bright spot of the morning.

RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Monday April 22, 2002 at 13:08

Just in case you missed it the first time. Question: What is wrong with Catholics that they cannot quit such an
evil church? Are they blind? Or suckers?

There are nothing wrong with Catholics, they are members of the True Church. There are some Catholics who
have currently betrayed the Church and have turned from Her Doctrines, but that does not make the Church evil.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 12:39:05 04/22/02 Mon

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an environment relatively
free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be challenged and/or heavily debated.
Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any other PC forum totally distorts the original message
made, gives a biased slant and is inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the
intelligent choice. Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

Sim 2
In Response To ctaj
Monday April 22, 2002 at 12:09

Mt 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned

Matthew isn't speaking his words either, they're GOD'S, as the "witness" will testify.

`Ctaj
In Response To Sim
Monday April 22, 2002 at 12:07

It's not my job to "defend" the word of God, it's his words, not mine

The bible isn't God's words any more than your words or my words are God's words. Saying they are doesn't
make them so.

`Ctaj
In Response To Sim
Monday April 22, 2002 at 12:05

GOD

Mt 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned

Matthew isn't God.

`Ctaj
In Response To Veracity
Monday April 22, 2002 at 12:04

Dr. Gange wrote, "I am not critical of anthropology, but I am critical of anthropologists that make sweeping
conclusions beyond the proper warrant of the data."

Then he turns around and makes the sweeping conclusion that because man is who he is, God did it.

Sim 2
In Response To ctaj
Monday April 22, 2002 at 12:02

Who gets to decide which of you is correct?

GOD

Mt 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

You can only "know the truth", when you "KNOW GOD", and your words "bear witness" to that "knowledge".

Sim 2
In Response To ctaj
Monday April 22, 2002 at 11:59

I've listed a number of plausible alternatives to your bible story. Feel free to refute them.

It's not my job to "defend" the word of God, it's his words, not mine, so it's up to him to "keep his word" and do
what he says he'll do.

All I'm responsible for is "preaching the word", then you, and others, won't have an "excuse" on Judgment day.

Ya see, it isn't Me God ask you to believe but "HIM", the "HOLY GHOST" will bear witness to "ALL" the
"words of God" that are spoken, "THAT WITNESS" is the one you reject.

`Ctaj
In Response To Sim
Monday April 22, 2002 at 11:57

Knowing what these symbols represents make the Bible easy to read/understand.

Revelation is full of symbolism. Cayce has interpretation of what the symbols mean, and you have yours. Who
gets to decide which of you is correct?

~Veracity~
In Response To TMS, Ctaj., et al
Monday April 22, 2002 at 11:57

Interesting

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Reprise
Monday April 22, 2002 at 11:56

Heck, all Catholics still claiming to be Catholic today are "cafeteria Catholics". Leastwasy I haven't heard that the
Pope has ordered Cardinal Law to resign, which means the Pope himself condones the shuttling of pedaphile
priests around America. Which means the Pope himself is condoning rape, child sexual abuse, and obstruction of
justice.

And if that's the case, no self-respecting person would continue their association with that Church.

.

Just in case you missed it the first time. Question: What is wrong with Catholics that they cannot quit such an evil
church? Are they blind? Or suckers?

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Ctaj
Monday April 22, 2002 at 11:54

Jesus as he was making his getaway to Asia, where he lived another 90 years, according to some accounts.

Hmmm...seems those accounts are no less reliable than the Bible myths, then. Jesus lived to be 120, eh? Shades
of Methuselah!

`Ctaj
In Response To Sim
Monday April 22, 2002 at 11:53

Cayce knew as much about the Bible as you, which all adds up to "Nothing".

I've listed a number of plausible alternatives to your bible story. Feel free to refute them.

Sim 2
In Response To ctaj
Monday April 22, 2002 at 11:51

Cayce knew as much about the Bible as you, which all adds up to "Nothing".

The symbols of the Bible and the "physical events", all describe a "Spiritual event/judgment".

Re 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell
upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;

Stars=angels,( fallen), fountain of water= doctrine.

Re 1:20 The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches:

Re 21:6 I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Knowing what these symbols represents make the Bible easy to read/understand.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Ron B
Monday April 22, 2002 at 11:50

Heck, all Catholics still claiming to be Catholic today are "cafeteria Catholics".

Here's one who's not.

Yes, you are. You are electing to stay with a church whose alleged spokesman for God is siding with rapists and
child molesters. YOU are therefore granting him, and thus them, your support.

I know you people like to weasel and dodge and do whatever it takes to avoid facing the truth, but I have a bad
habit of saying unpleasant things baldly.

Murray
In Response To A Modern Parable
Monday April 22, 2002 at 11:46

THE DOG LOVERS CLUB

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 11:32

He met Christ in the encounter on the Damascus road.

Believing the rumors of Christ's death on the cross, Paul described his sighting of Jesus as a "vision." Equally
plausible, me met the resuscitated Jesus as he was making his getaway to Asia, where he lived another 90 years,
according to some accounts.

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 11:25

Paul was present at the crucifixion.

Where is that written? I doubt it, but even if he was, Jesus didn't know him, so Jesus couldn't have "chosen him"
to spread the gospel.

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 11:23

The Book of Revelation according to Cayce, for what it's worth.

GerryB.
Monday April 22, 2002 at 11:20

Paul was present at the crucifixion. He was in Jerusalem at that time as were Jews from most of the Roman
empire. He met Christ in the encounter on the Damascus road. He also spent time in Arabia after his conversion
where the Holy Spirit of God taught him as he reported in Galatians 1:17.

`Ctaj
In Response To GerryB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 10:42

He was personally selected (as they all were) by Jesus Christ to be an Apostle.

Paul wrote more of the New Testament than any other apostle, yet Paul never knew Jesus. How did Jesus
"select" him?

dori
In Response To Gerry
Monday April 22, 2002 at 10:28

Sorry I didn't get back to you right away. I was down in the lab and the puter there was locked up while I was
trying to send you a post. I am sorry to hear about the cat. I know he was a nuisance, but I know you wouldn't
deliberately liberate him.

As for the Hawaii trip. Charlie convinced me it was too costly for me to go and reminded me we had seen all
there was to see when we spent 10 days there 20 years ago, but I also convinced him I get a trip next year!
Smile...

GerryB.
Monday April 22, 2002 at 10:25

Time for breakfast. I'm out of here. BBL GLW.

GerryB.
In Response To Jeanie
Monday April 22, 2002 at 10:14

I asked you to present some evidence for your claim of the senility of John. Do you have it in front of you yet? I'm
waiting to see it.

GerryB.
In Response To Jeanie
Monday April 22, 2002 at 10:12

To begin with John is not one of my idols. He was personally selected (as they all were) by Jesus Christ to be an
Apostle. I know that different preacher differ on the details of the end times prophecies. That is why I don't
depend on preachers for my information but, as Paul told us, "check all things by the scriptures." That plus the
guidance of the Holy Spirit assures that I get it right.

`Ctaj
In Response To Coinkydink
Monday April 22, 2002 at 10:02

I wouldn't worry about insulting John. The man was a lunatic. He stole his apocalypse story from the Assyrians,
and his multi-headed monster from The Hydra of Greek mythology. Apocalypse Then.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Gerry
Monday April 22, 2002 at 9:54

I'm sorry I insulted one of your idols, the disciple John. I have never believed any of the preachers who preached
about the end times...They all disagreed with each other and in my old church there was constant arguing over
who would go first and who would reign with Jesus, then that group of fanatics came up with their cabal to bring
about Armageddan...I just balk whenever I see or hear about any of it. It's a personla problem with me and not
meant to insult you or Sim. I'm sorry...I over-reacted and was rude.


[ Edit | View ]

R1 -- stored, 12:28:53 04/22/02 Mon

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an environment relatively
free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be challenged and/or heavily debated.
Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any other PC forum totally distorts the original message
made, gives a biased slant and is inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the
intelligent choice. Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

GerryB.
In Response To Jeanie
Monday April 22, 2002 at 10:14

I asked you to present some evidence for your claim of the senility of John. Do you have it in front of you yet? I'm
waiting to see it.

GerryB.
In Response To Jeanie
Monday April 22, 2002 at 10:12

To begin with John is not one of my idols. He was personally selected (as they all were) by Jesus Christ to be an
Apostle. I know that different preacher differ on the details of the end times prophecies. That is why I don't
depend on preachers for my information but, as Paul told us, "check all things by the scriptures." That plus the
guidance of the Holy Spirit assures that I get it right.

`Ctaj
In Response To Coinkydink
Monday April 22, 2002 at 10:02

I wouldn't worry about insulting John. The man was a lunatic. He stole his apocalypse story from the Assyrians,
and his multi-headed monster from The Hydra of Greek mythology. Apocalypse Then.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Gerry
Monday April 22, 2002 at 9:54

I'm sorry I insulted one of your idols, the disciple John. I have never believed any of the preachers who preached
about the end times...They all disagreed with each other and in my old church there was constant arguing over
who would go first and who would reign with Jesus, then that group of fanatics came up with their cabal to bring
about Armageddan...I just balk whenever I see or hear about any of it. It's a personla problem with me and not
meant to insult you or Sim. I'm sorry...I over-reacted and was rude.

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Monday April 22, 2002 at 9:51

That's only the "more plausible" story because you come in with the preconcieved notion that Christ couldn't
have died. This "plausible" story forgets to take into account that the Romans were very efficient
executioners and that they confirmed Christ was dead by piercing Him with a lance (which was the Roman
custom).

Read up on it. Crucifixions normally took up to three days to kill the victim. Legs were usually broken to hasten
the process, but in this case they weren't. This particular executioner turned out to be a follower of Jesus, so was
likely in on the ruse.

It's more plausible because I come in with the notion that reality exists.

GerryB.
In Response To dori
Monday April 22, 2002 at 9:47

Why did Charlie go without you? I thought that you guys went everywhere together.

GerryB.
In Response To dori
Monday April 22, 2002 at 9:45

I had a very pleasant weekend until I discovered last night that Pat's cat had pushed out one corner of the screen
in the parlor window and either jumped or fell out and apparently escaped. I can't see any sign of the stupid thing
on the ground outside. When she finds out about it she'll accuse me of throwing it out. SIGH!!!

GerryB.
In Response To Jeanie
Monday April 22, 2002 at 9:40

Yes, Jeanie, John was senile when he was in exile on patmos. Sure, he was. Would you please present some
evidence to back that statement up. I have read a number of books written by historians concerning his life and no
one except you ever suggested that. Really, your hatred for the great apostles has no bounds. Yet you try to call
yourself a Christian. If you were your life would show some fruit. It doesn't.

dori
In Response To Gerry
Monday April 22, 2002 at 9:36

Good morning! I hope you had a pleasant weekend. I took Charlie to the airport yesterday morning and sent him
off to Hawaii. So, needless to say, I wasn't the happiest of campers to be left behind. 8-( I told him I get to take a
trip NEXT year! Smile...

dori
In Response To Ron
Monday April 22, 2002 at 9:32

I enjoyed reading the marathon and I think you and Trisha answered Pac's questions very well. I know I've tried
to address these questions in the past and sometimes haven't found the right words to get the point across. Good
job. I also got a kick out of your playful jabs at Anti-Venom. They don't come around much on the weekends to
provide their unique form of entertainment, but they make up for it Monday. You should have plenty to counter
tonight. *-)

GerryB.
In Response To Sim and dori
Monday April 22, 2002 at 9:31

Good morning.

Pay no attention to the clown show. Just keep on studying the Word and preaching it.

GerryB.
In Response To Sunny
Monday April 22, 2002 at 9:29

RE: "since you are the robot that's been programmed like YOUR pastor, huh?"

Programmed by which pastor. I have had four in the past 10 years. I also know several others personally. I have
the Holy Spirit of God residing in me and aiding me in my understanding of the Holy Word.


[ Edit | View ]

[ Main index ] [ Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.