|
dances_with_weeb les
Diadema, Brazil
|
Crance wrote: <quoted text>
Dances,
I have studied many of the protestant religions. The personal choices you have alluded to have served to create 23,000 different denominations as a direct result.
Because they assume the Holy Spirit has spoken to them, they have
started new churches. This cannot be true because the Holy Spirit
would not tell one faction one thing and another something else.
I am talking about doctrinal issues such as the 'Real Presence' of
Christ in the Eucharist, which they now all claim to be merely symbolic in opposition to John Chapter 6.
They have discarded the sacraments of the church that have been
practiced from the time of Christ until the Protestant Reformation.
Dances, study the history of Luther, Calvin, etc. in the 16th century
and you will see why the protestant churches cannot unite. They
have all broken away from the true church.
Granted the RCC has made many mistakes. But Luther (a Catholic Priest)
"threw the baby out with the bath water". Instead of trying to fix the problems, he (and others) decided to create entirely new churches, discarding whatever failed to suit their personal preferences at the time.
The result is 000's of denominations, all with varying belief
systems.
Peace ... John i realise that almost all of the protestant churches, as witnessed by the fact that there are any number of baptist expresions on the list, differ in minor (or even major) ways but are you honestly saying that the 'one true church' is the rcc? i find it difficult to believe that the catholics have it any more correct than anybody else. question: have you studied any others? there are other than 'christian' religions in the world. do you know them or do you understand them? one would think that to have a complete education it would behoove them to get all of the information, would it not?
|
|
Observer
Waterbury, CT
|
I think you people should see this: http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/ It goes to show you how rediculous the Bible is! (I know this may come as a shock to a lot of you, but let's deal with reality, not fantasies)
|
|
Sheila M
Denver, CO
|
Observer
Our aim is the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law.
|
|
Observer
Waterbury, CT
|
The spirit of who's law? I have no interest in voluntarily following 'Biblical Law', yet it oppresses my life with unfounded, illogical influence on 'real American' laws. Keep your 'Christian' laws to yourself and the whole world will be a better place. Ever heard of separation of church and state? There is a real reason for it!(Look around at all the other religions who think their law it the 'real' law...you're included in the whole mess too... you are no different then them)
|
|
Sheila M
Denver, CO
|
Observer,
Sadly for you, our constitution is built on Judeo-Christian concepts. The church has a stated obligation to provide moral authority. If you don't buy it, your loss not ours
|
|
Tim
Berkeley, CA
|
No, our constitution is built on concepts of freedom and equality, which are not only Judeo-Christian concepts, as much as you migh believe that you own them, they are more universal than your church. Your church has only an obligation to you, not to me as I don't belong to it. Sheila M wrote: Observer,
Sadly for you, our constitution is built on Judeo-Christian concepts. The church has a stated obligation to provide moral authority. If you don't buy it, your loss not ours
|
|
Tim
Berkeley, CA
|
Which laws are you talking about? The laws of the bible? Or the laws of the US? Or the laws of Massachusetts which are what this topix forum is about? If it is the spirit of the law of Massachusetts, the RCC decided to follow their teachings, which go against the spirit of the anti-discrimination laws that have been in effect in Massachusetts for some time now, so by their choice, the RCC shall not receive the funding the had been receiving for each adoption placement they make. The state is required to follow the letter AND the spirit of the law, not just the spirit. Sheila M wrote: Observer
Our aim is the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law.
|
|
Sheila M
Denver, CO
|
Tim I did not say that the laws of our country our built on Catholic doctrine. I said our constitution was built on Judeo-Christian concept.
Spirit of the law would refer to adherence to biblical precepts. In other words do not be perfunctory in living your faith, but understand the full intent, ie the spirit.
|
|
|
|
dances_with_weeb les
Diadema, Brazil
|
Sheila M wrote: Observer,
Sadly for you, our constitution is built on Judeo-Christian concepts. The church has a stated obligation to provide moral authority. If you don't buy it, your loss not ours actually, the constitution was NOT based upon judeo-christian concepts. it was formed and written by a group of mostly deists who fought hard to keep god out of it and the laws of the nation. your right, however, the church has a moral authority, but only over its followers and then only if they are willing to allow it to... not the nation or even the states. on top of that... and here's the part which really seems to stick in people's throats... the issue of same sex marriage and gay rights is not, no matter how much some people would like it to be, a moral issue. it's strictly civil law.
|
|
Sheila M
Denver, CO
|
Please refer to 2 Corinthians, 3:6. I am sure that some of the practices of the RCC seem to an outsider to be discriminatory, that is not the intent.
|
|
Sheila M
Denver, CO
|
dances_with_weebles wrote: <quoted text>
actually, the constitution was NOT based upon judeo-christian concepts. it was formed and written by a group of mostly deists who fought hard to keep god out of it and the laws of the nation.
your right, however, the church has a moral authority, but only over its followers and then only if they are willing to allow it to... not the nation or even the states. on top of that... and here's the part which really seems to stick in people's throats... the issue of same sex marriage and gay rights is not, no matter how much some people would like it to be, a moral issue. it's strictly civil law. I disagree, for a Catholic marriage is a sacrament, not just a civil contract. A Catholic would say that the sexual act within marriage must be left open to the transmission of life. The majority of the founders and writers of the constitution were not deists. Yes, in our country we do have separation of church and state but the church exist in part to be a moral authority and teacher. Yes, nobody is compelled to obey.
|
|
Tim
Berkeley, CA
|
You are confused. The constitution is the law of our land, and spirit of the law does not refer to biblical precepts, it is a term that is used to refer to the spirit of the law, what the law was written for or about, not just the letter of the law, or the actual wording of the law. It has nothing to do with the bible. Take some basic civics courses and this might be clearer to you. And again, the constitution was built on the concept of freedom and equality, which are not exclusively judeo-christian concepts, not all of the founding fathers were of jueao-christian faiths or beliefs. They are much more universal. Sheila M wrote: Tim I did not say that the laws of our country our built on Catholic doctrine. I said our constitution was built on Judeo-Christian concept.
Spirit of the law would refer to adherence to biblical precepts. In other words do not be perfunctory in living your faith, but understand the full intent, ie the spirit.
|
|
Tim
Berkeley, CA
|
That is fine for you, but not all marriage is Catholic, nor a sacrament. Many are performed outside of churches. All marriages are civil contracts, unless they happen only in a church and you do nothing legal about it, including getting a marriage license. Once you have done that, it is a civil contract in the eyes of our government. So to deny me the rights to make this civil contract based on judeo-christian belief is not treating me as equal is it? And check again about the founding fathers. There were many deists, and not all of them are judeo-christian. Besides, this is all moot in this thread. The catholic church made a choice, and now have to deal with the fallout of that choice. That is their right. I have no problem with that, neither does anyone else who supports the government in following the anti-discrimination laws of Massachusetts. But the Catholic church should not be given an exemption because they choose to follow their own teachings, unless you give all agencies the same exemption, the state is choosing to promote one religion over all others, including non religion, and that is against our constitution. Sheila M wrote: <quoted text>
I disagree, for a Catholic marriage is a sacrament, not just a civil contract. A Catholic would say that the sexual act within marriage must be left open to the transmission of life.
The majority of the founders and writers of the constitution were not deists.
Yes, in our country we do have separation of church and state but the church exist in part to be a moral authority and teacher. Yes, nobody is compelled to obey.
|
|
Tim
Berkeley, CA
|
I don't need to refer to anything in the bible. I am not disputing the Church's right to follow their own teachings. I am not an outsider, and for you to assume otherwise is your fault. The fact that they are not allowed to receive funding for adoptions if they discriminate against anyone of race, creed, or sexual preference is the law in the state. The fact that they refuse to provide services to gay couples is against the anti-discrimination law of that state. So that is discriminatory, whatever their intent. If they did not choose to follow their teachings in the matter of homosexuality, which up until recently they had not chosen to follow that teaching, they received funding. The RCC told Catholic Charities to stop that practice. They then were not in compliance with the anti-discrimination laws. Their choice. Not one argument that they have that right here from me. But they do not deserve an exemption from the laws just because they made a decision to be true to their faith. Sheila M wrote: Please refer to 2 Corinthians, 3:6. I am sure that some of the practices of the RCC seem to an outsider to be discriminatory, that is not the intent.
|
|
Sheila M
Denver, CO
|
Soon we will see, if the marriage act becomes a constitutional amendment.
The church preferes to obey the laws they understand to be priori to Massachusetts law.
I did not say you were an outsider-try to fairly parse in the future.
|
|
Tim
Berkeley, CA
|
That the church prefers to obey only some of the laws? Does that mean that the church is above the law? If so, again, I encourage you to learn more about the laws of this country. You did imply that I was an outsider, so don't tell me to fairly parse in the future please, again, you assume more than you know. Which is not much if you believe that the church can choose which laws to follow. And this marriage act becoming a constitutional amendment will not hold muster as it creates a special class of citizens with more rights than all citizens, so in reality, it is a waste of time because it will not hold up for long. And as for parsing fairly, we are in a forum about gay adoption, not marriage, as I have pointed out. Your arrogance is quite unbecoming. Sheila M wrote: Soon we will see, if the marriage act becomes a constitutional amendment.
The church preferes to obey the laws they understand to be priori to Massachusetts law.
I did not say you were an outsider-try to fairly parse in the future.
|
|
Sheila M
Denver, CO
|
The church has as priori the law of God, as the church understands that to be(how much clearer might I be)
No where did I say that the church can pick and choose laws as she sees fit. The law of God is priori for the church.
If the Marriage Act is amended to the Constitution or not is not the purpose of this thread.
Arrogance is the kettle calling the pot black.
|
|
dances_with_weeb les
Diadema, Brazil
|
Sheila M wrote: Please refer to 2 Corinthians, 3:6. I am sure that some of the practices of the RCC seem to an outsider to be discriminatory, that is not the intent. actually, the bible is even more moot in this discussion than it is in our every day lives. to quote the bible in a secular discussion is rather inane, wouldn't you say? in fact, the bible, not only does not apply to this topic, but even to our daily lives. it applies to absolutely noone in this day and age. also... that the practices of the rcc seem discriminitory is rather an understatement, i would say. they are discriminatory to the point that throughout world and religious history the 'church' has even tried to exterminate unbelievers. maybe you should get a bit of education before you start preaching to people of how wonderful and full of grace the rcc is.
|
|
dances_with_weeb les
Diadema, Brazil
|
Sheila M wrote: The church has as priori the law of God, as the church understands that to be(how much clearer might I be)
No where did I say that the church can pick and choose laws as she sees fit. The law of God is priori for the church.
If the Marriage Act is amended to the Constitution or not is not the purpose of this thread.
Arrogance is the kettle calling the pot black. oh yeah... according to the bible that you so love to quote the act of marriage is simply having sex with a person. that's why, to become legal in the 'eyes of god and country' the marriage has to be 'consumated'.(the bride and groom have to go somewhere and boink.) just having a marriage ceremony, civil or religious is not enough. in past times the act of marriage even had to be verified by an interested third party by inspecting the marriage bed sheets for signs of blood. that's where the idea of a bride being a virgin came from. sex had to hurt her and to make her bleed. btw... do you have any idea as to how many people are you married to?
|
|
Tim
Berkeley, CA
|
Did you read the story at the top of this thread? The headline actually says it all, but try reading the story as well. There are threads for what you are trying to discuss, but this one is specifically about gay adoption and exemption of the anti-discrimination laws of Massachusetts. Now, try again. Now that done with, no where did I say the church did not have the right to follow thier teachings, I fully support them in that. Sheila M wrote: The church has as priori the law of God, as the church understands that to be(how much clearer might I be)
No where did I say that the church can pick and choose laws as she sees fit. The law of God is priori for the church.
If the Marriage Act is amended to the Constitution or not is not the purpose of this thread.
Arrogance is the kettle calling the pot black.
|
Judge it!
Scorpio
Most Popular