The CIC OT Zone's Official You're All Huge Idiots Religion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Erkle

Rear Admiral
Sorry my mistake, I was listing differences between Catholics and Protestants. But even though the Protestant chruches are young they seperated from the Catholic Church for their own reasons which is what makes them different.

Jim
 

PopsiclePete

Mission programmer
Erkle said:
1. The Catholic Church at times worships Mary over Jesus, in my mind a form idoltry since Mary just brought Jesus into the world and was not set up herself for worship by God.
The Catholic do not worship Mary over Jesus; they pray her to intercede to God. See, it's just as pressure groups asks a lobbyist to intercede do the President to influence politics, the Catholics ask Mary to intercede to God (she must be in good terms with Him, because she was choosen amongst all women to deliver Jesus to the world).
Erkle said:
2. The strangest thing I know of is that in the past (middle ages) the Catholic Church preformed all services in Latin (and some still do) a language that most people of the time did not speak so they where not able to understand their worship.

3. The Catholic Church does not encourage praying on your own or confessing sins on your own. You have to go to Church and talk with their minister. Sounds to me that they think you need a middleman between you and God.
This is not a fith thing, but a political one. Unfortunately, the Catholic church has been created by the Romans who wanted to control and convert all the roman empire to their new religion. Bishop titles were gifts to man of confidence of the Emperor (and after the fall of the empire, the kings) to rule over the land just as Lords and amass riches. Control was the key in the dark ages... that's why you had to confess you sins to a minister, services were in a language only the elite people knew, etc. Ignorance is a powerfull tool to control the masses.

Since Vatican II in the 70's, this has changed. Better late than never I guess, but too late to keep it's fidels. Catholic churches are deserted now because people got fed up of being told what to think and what to do. The Catholic church no longer seeks power or control, but still won't admit having built all it's structures and rituels for such, hence won't change it.

Being catholic myself I work hard to try to convince catholics to re-center our cult on the central message of Jesus; but that's hard since 80% of the catholic fidels here are grumpy old people who do not want to change their habits and/or rituels. (witch explains why the church itself doesn't change much - it's mostly old people camped in their old habits)
 

Erkle

Rear Admiral
PopsiclePete said:
The Catholic do not worship Mary over Jesus; they pray her to intercede to God.
Ok I can see your point but why is it that when you go into a Caholic church and most homes you see statues of Mary prior to statues of Jesus (and yes I know that their are images of Jesus on the cross and in stained glass windows and such) but making a statue for people to pray to is in my mind making an idol because Mary is not part of the Holy Trinity. And your right the Catholic church takes a long time to do things. Didn't they just forgive Gaileo or was it da Vinci for saying that the Earth was not the center of our solar system?

Jim
 

Nappydman

Spaceman
To try and center it back on the original topic, I think it's very sad that Bush wants to make sure gay marriages can never happen. Whether or not you find it a religious issue, my point is that America is supposed to be a country founded on the idea that all people can have the choice to do as they please, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. Whether or not being gay is a choice or not is irrelevant. To deny citizens of your country the freedom to legally take the final step in a relationship with the person they love is wrong, and against the spirit of the Constitution.
 

PopsiclePete

Mission programmer
Erkle said:
Ok I can see your point but why is it that when you go into a Caholic church and most homes you see statues of Mary prior to statues of Jesus
Not in any church or home I visited... I mean there are statues representing Mary with baby Jesus in her arms, statues of Joseph and such, the the most proeminent symbol is always the cross. At home and in all the families I know there are only crucifixes. Our Cathedral has a small chapel for Mary in wich you can lit a candle and pray for her to intercede, but nothing major.
Erkle said:
but making a statue for people to pray to is in my mind making an idol because Mary is not part of the Holy Trinity.
I believe there are statues of Mary especially because we cannot make a physical representation of God. I might have been seen in the past as a way to help the newly converted pagans to pray to God via Mary, since many pagans were used to pray in from of idols. Since praying to an idol if forbidden in Jew/Christian/Muslim religions praying in front of the statue of an intercessor might have been seen as acceptable, I suppose.
 

steampunk

Spaceman
Wedge009 said:
Well said! With a WC reference too! :) But yes, I find the idea of homosexuality completely unnatural, clearly the parts don't line up properly. I've heard some argue that animals sometimes engage in homosexual behaviour, but I find that to be a petty excuse. People are supposed to be different from animals, with all the intelligence to make a choice that their sentience implies. Which again goes to my point that homosexuality is a choice, not 'genetics'. Not everything is genetics - one only needs to observe this from identical twins (essentially 'clones').
Some animals do indeed engage in homosexual behaviour. This behaviour does seem to be well documented and thus proves that homosexuality can indeed be governed by genetics. Hence the same is likely to be so with humans. While humans have big brains, this does not neccessarily mean we can go against what is in our genes. Its like saying, I choose to have purple skin, *poof* I have purple skin. That's silly. Its not neccessarily a choice to make.
 

steampunk

Spaceman
Preacher said:
The Scriptures couldn't be a whole lot more clear than they are that this is just plain WRONG, and yet somehow people manage to rationalize it. It absolutely boggles the mind....
Guess the scriptures are wrong then.

Mind unboggled.
 

Farlander

Rear Admiral
A couple of corrections.

Erkle said:
1. The Catholic Church at times worships Mary over Jesus, in my mind a form idoltry since Mary just brought Jesus into the world and was not set up herself for worship by God.
Catholics worship no one but God. Mary is not worshiped, but honored. Worship of Mary or anything else that is not God would be a grave sin against the first commandment.

Erkle said:
3. The Catholic Church does not encourage praying on your own or confessing sins on your own. You have to go to Church and talk with their minister. Sounds to me that they think you need a middleman between you and God. Meaning you can not have a personal relationship with your own saivor?
This is also manifestly untrue. All Catholics are strongly encouraged to pray on a daily basis. In particular, it is strongly suggested that Catholics make a daily Act of Contrition, in which they apologize to God for their sins and make a promise to do better from that point forward. A personal relationship with the savior is an essential aspect in the spiritual life of every Catholic.

It is not the only aspect, however. There is another relationship - the communal relationship, and this is vital as well. Christ did not leave his people with no plan and no guidence. He left then a Church, which is his perfect bride, regardless of the sinfulness of its earthly members. It is not just me and God, God and me, me and God. I am part of a vast community of believers, and we depend on one another for support, help, and encouragement. If one commits a mortal sin, then he must be reconciled with God and with God's Church. This is the Sacrament of Confession, and it has been part of the Church since its beginning. See John 20:22-23:

"And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'"

I am perfectly aware that churches founded in more modern times take this to mean something different, but this is the Catholic Church's position, and has been since the beginning - I mention it only to clarify the Church's position on the matter, which you have not gotten quite right.
 

Dark Ficus

Spaceman
Some animals do indeed engage in homosexual behaviour.
Some animals eat one another. Should we, also, begin this practice because it is considered natural?

If this man were heterosexual and living with his girlfriend out of wedlock, would he become a bishop? I doubt he'd even become a priest. What makes the difference between this and living with a boyfriend? Either way, this man is engaging in extra-marital sexual intercourse with his partner (regardless of gender) which is definitely sinful behavior, according to the Bible.

BTW, God's decree in Leviticus regarding homosexuality is in the same part (chapter 18) as God's decree regarding incest, bestiality, and child sacrafice. I do not understand how someone could state that the one verse regarding homosexuality was meant only for that particular time and those particular people, yet the rest of the chapter is still pertinent to the church. Additionally, Paul speaks about homosexuality being sinful in his letter to the Romans and in his first letter to the Corinthians.

And 'detestable' doesn't mean that it will only make you ceremonially unclean, as someone has stated previously.

There is a difference between being a homophobe and being a Christian. I have no problem if you choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, however, you cannot serve God in a leadership capacity when your life clearly dictates that you are not willing to follow Him completely. We are all sinners, however, when we blatantly choose to ignore God's word, we have no place in the ministry.
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
Farlander said:
Catholics worship no one but God. Mary is not worshiped, but honored. Worship of Mary or anything else that is not God would be a grave sin against the first commandment.
well it really isnt against the first commandment to worship other gods or other beings at all.

What does the first commandment say? "I am the lord thy god, thou shalt worship no other gods BEFORE me" this means that the god of the bible must always be #1 on your list of dieties/things to worship, and you cannot place any other god ahead of him, but you can still worship other minor dieties and or other such things. This is why many of the Japanese christians are also shintos.


Dark F: you seem to forget that paul consideres all forms of sex between any combination of sexes or beings wrong and evil and that celebacy is the best way. He also considers women evil.
 

Dark Ficus

Spaceman
What does the first commandment say? "I am the lord thy god, thou shalt worship no other gods BEFORE me"
Incorrect translation. "I am the LORD thy God, thou shalt worship no other gods BESIDES me."

The Hebrew word could be translated either way, this is usually indicated in a footnote in most texts.
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
And even if your leanings are dictated by Genetics, are you not the choser of your own path? Do you not chose to go out with a women or man, in the end? You mean to tell me, my posting here is genetic fate? Or did I decide to turn on my computer on my own? I'm sure genetics has a lot to do with preferences, but in the end I feel that everything is up to you to decide. And as most with life experience will tell, the right choice is seldom easy or favorable. That's my personal feeling on the whole genetic excuse. I also feel that it's wrong, and should not be condoned.

Now, just for speculation and some role-play, lets take this out of a Christian standpoint. Evolution is the latest craze, isn't it? Survival of the fittest, we came from a monkey which came from a fish. Would you not classify homosexuality as, if it is truely genetic, a weakness? Then perhaps it is best to let them stay the way they are. If they don't have the will to overcome their own weakness, than their genes are unsuitable to be passed on to future generations. Even if they addopt, it can be rest upon that their weakness will only be passed on in ideals, not genetics. I've yet to hear a hardcore darwinist play out this type of speculation. So I just played a little devil's advocate, and now I have to take a shower because thinking like that has left me feeling very unclean...
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Hobbie said:
...The government or anyone else for that matter shouldn't tell them what to do because it is their own personal business.
... then there really wouldn't even be a problem outside of the Episcopalians themselves.
...T it is a violation of the Constitution to not allow these people to practice however they please.
Yer missin' the point, bub. I was askin' Christians how they view the controversy as R/T the Church, not going into the whole gov't deal on whether or not to wade in w/ more laws concerning same. That's a separate issue.

Bob McDob said:
I'm much less concerned with religion than the Bush administration's apparent desire to meld it with state. ...but the administration's idea of outlawing gay marriage seems, honestly, petty. Is Bush claiming that Christians have some sort of monopoly on the idea of marriage, or that theirs is inherently better? (I'd prefer the entire marriage thing be abolished and replaced with common-law unions, anyway. Serves the same purpose without trying to legislate morality).
You seem to be forgetting the fact that gay marriage is ALREADY "outlawed", in that it is not (nor ever has been) a recognized legal entity in this nation. All G. Dubbs & Co. are trying to do is to see that it REMAIN that way. In short, the idea is to preserve the status quo, rather than invent a whole new paradigm. That's hardly "melding religion with state". No doubt Dubbs' viewpoint is one that is heavily influenced by his faith, but there are plenty or nonreligious people who also think that to accord gay unions the same status as marriage is wrong.

And, he's not saying that Christianity's viewpoint is a monopoly, because it ISN'T: The fact is, ALL the major monotheistic faiths (us, the Jews, & the Muslims), on the whole, believe that gay marriage is/would be wrong.

Napoleon said:
...those who determined such basics as the concept of the trinity (decided sometime in the 5th or 6th century if i remember correctly).
Well, the "doctrine" of the trinity maybe was developed when you say it was, but the concept thereof was orginated by none other than Christ Himself, in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). He commanded the apostles to baptize converts "in the name of the Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit...
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Bingo, Aries.

PopsiclePete said:
The Catholic do not worship Mary over Jesus; they pray her to intercede to God.
Not quite correct. There was movement afoot for awhile there where good ol' Pope JP2 was actually considering elevating Mary to the status of "Co-Redemptrix of Humanity" (see http://www.cta-usa.org/watch8-97/bishops.html for a reference). Sounds to me like a pretty worshipful office to hold, wouldn't you say?...Calling her "Co-" indicates equality w/ Jesus, and makes her eligible for worship. If the idea was for her to simply be an "assistant", the term would be something like "Sub-Redemptrix". Anyway, I dunno what ever happened to that idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if JP2 ended up rejecting it either because
(a) He was pressured to by the more stable and orthodox of his advisors, and/or
(b) He realized how stupid that would be, and what a fool he would look like to do so.

Nappydman said:
...America is supposed to be a country founded on the idea that all people can have the choice to do as they please, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else...To deny citizens of your country the freedom to legally take the final step in a relationship with the person they love is wrong, and against the spirit of the Constitution.
Uh huh.
...and if I love your 6-year-old niece (or better yet, daughter, if you have one), and she loves me, we should be allowed to marry and have sex because it's the "final step in our love relationship" with one another?...

Bottom line here is your statement "as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else" is right on...yet, not quite as you intended it, I trust.
To allow pedophile marriages would be harmful to the child. To allow gay marriages would hurt and cheapen the institution of marriage. To hurt the institution of marriage would be to weaken the institution of the family. To weaken the family would be to weaken all individuals in the family. To weaken all the individuals in all the families would be to hurt the nation. Common sense, bub. It is not in the best interests of the nation to allow by law for a new legal entity which would harm its citizenry. We do that, we might as well make make murder, kidnapping, terrorism, robbery and other such fun things legal as well.

steampunk said:
Some animals do indeed engage in homosexual behaviour. This behaviour does seem to be well documented and thus proves that homosexuality can indeed be governed by genetics. Hence the same is likely to be so with humans
.... this does not neccessarily mean we can go against what is in our genes. Its like saying, I choose to have purple skin, *poof* I have purple skin. That's silly. Its not neccessarily a choice to make.
That animals do it don't prove squat, bub. The key here is the word "can", as in "can be governed". This is not the same as "IS governed". In all likelihood, one's turning out gay is a combination of biological and enviro'l factors, with the enviro being the more major of the 2 influences.

Sorry, but yer wrong about the "choice against genetics" thing. For starters, we don't know that it is genetic at all, such is only a theory. Second, it IS a choice, when it comes right down to it. Cases in point:

-- I'm heterosexual and proud of it. Yet, I'm also single, and I'm CHOOSING to keep myself clean before God, and to not have sex again until such time as I get married. It ain't gonna be easy in the least, but it can be done
-- If it ain't a choice, then how do you explain that this bishop was married & had kids before "discovering" that he's gay, and going with that lifestyle?...
-- If you theorize that he "always knew it, but chose to get married/etc. to keep up the image, since he wasn't ready to come out of the closet yet", then how could he manage to get sexually excited enough w/ the wife to be able to live a normal married life/have kids/etc.?...One word: CHOICE.
-- The existence of bisexuality is a pretty strong argument in itself against the theory that we're "hardwired" (i.e., genetically programmed) to be either straight or gay.

Napoleon said:
...Dark F: you seem to forget that paul consideres all forms of sex between any combination of sexes or beings wrong and evil and that celebacy is the best way. He also considers women evil.
Wrong, bub, it is YOU who either forget, or else (more likely) never knew in the first place about the subject you speak of:
What Paul actually said was that he *wished* that all people could be "as I am", meaning single and content to stay that way (1 Corinthians 7, starting w/ verse 7). He goes on quite extensively to say what are the proper and accepted means of being related to one another in a marital situation, albeit ONLY between ONE man and ONE woman. He even states that single-ness (as Paul himself is) is the exception rather than the rule, and is only for those to whom God bestowed it as a spiritual gift. In short, he acknowledged that marriage was the "norm" in human relationships. If you find Paul too sexually restrictive for your tastes, that's your right; but don't take it up with him, or with us here: take it up with his Boss (you know; that resurrected Jewish carpenter guy?...) :p
 

overmortal

Bearded Person
Wow . . . I ignored this thread for such a short amount of time and it grew and grew and grew. I guess I'll throw my two cents in.

1) Homosexuality is a choice made by individuals. It follows the "TISA" principle. Thought, Imagination, Stronghold, Action. You have a 'thought' of a homosexual nature. The source of this thought, according to the Bible, is the devil (Satan, Lucifer, and whatever else you want to call him) who has been documented as a temptor (among other things). If you dwell on that thought, it's an imagination. Allow that process to continue, and you'll have yourself a genuine fixation (a mental stronghold), which will eventually result in an action (Much like the scripture "From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks"). There you have it. The road to homosexuality in a nut shell. Enjoy.

2) I, myself, feel that to hate a gay person is just as much sin as committing homosexual acts. The key is to understand that, while you don't agree with the sin, you still love the sinner. Else, how would we ever reach out to people and share the LOVE of Christ with them? Hmm . . .

3) The New Testament gives the qualifications for ministers (I don't remember book/chapter/verse right off the top of my head). Usually, it explains "The husband of but one wife". Well, obviously, that rules out polygamy, and, because all ministers then were men, homosexuality. At the time, I beileve it was also required that a minister be married. Of course, that's not exactly required today. But, still, polygamy and homosexuality . . not a good idea, especially for a minister.

4) All of this controversy and people throwing scripture and verse back and forth . . mmm . . I love a good dogfight. It kinda reminds me of the "Christian Singles" chat on AIM. Perhaps we should all have a scheduled chat on the subject sometime? That'd be fun.

5) President Bush = darned good leader. We needed someone who was going to stand up to the politically correct BS and start kicking people in the balls. God bless America! We need more Texans! (Too bad I'm stuck here in NC)

6) Beastiality? Pedophelia? Incest? hehehe . . EWW! (yes, the immature response was guaged and intentional)

7) BTW, if you kids are interested, on my old band's website, there's a message board dedicated specifically to subjects like this one. It never got much use, but I'd love to see this kind of thing happening there all the time. www.overmortal.com and select the message board. I hope to see you all there.
 

Starkey

Avenging Rooster
Preacher said:
...and if I love your 6-year-old niece (or better yet, daughter, if you have one), and she loves me, we should be allowed to marry and have sex because it's the "final step in our love relationship" with one another?...
I don´t want to get sucked into this neverending discussion, but relationships with children are forbidden because, in one sentence, their mind and body are not ready for it. That´s also why they don´t let children drink.

That doesn´t have anything to do with homosexual prejudice or with anyone allowing them or not to be gay.

BTW, I´m straight, happy with it and if people want to be gay, let them be gay. Away from me.

Good luck keeping this thread alive.
 

Lynx

Spaceman
Preacher said:
To allow gay marriages would hurt and cheapen the institution of marriage. To hurt the institution of marriage would be to weaken the institution of the family. To weaken the family would be to weaken all individuals in the family. To weaken all the individuals in all the families would be to hurt the nation. Common sense, bub. It is not in the best interests of the nation to allow by law for a new legal entity which would harm its citizenry. We do that, we might as well make make murder, kidnapping, terrorism, robbery and other such fun things legal as well.
I'm sorry to report that you actually sound like Senator Rick Santorum.:rolleyes: From your point of view homosexuality is comparable to murder, terrorism etc. YOU think it is a crime, at least you sound very much like it. This post shows your ignorance and prejudice.

And a chain reaction like you described wouldn't happen since this is one issue which many people care about. If it would be legalized, most people wouldn't even take notice it because they couldn't care less about, only some would open their mouths and scream out because of the "destruction of moral virtues" and endagering the state. In what way could this actually endanger the state?

The point of the church is strange indeed. The pope says that we should respect homosexuals and not discriminate against them, but at the same time he voices his concern about gay marriages and gayness in general. It's like the church says "You are a very bad person, but we don't damn you to hell for it."

I`m interested in which way gay marriages would actually hurt or weaken the institution of marriage and family or lead to the other than hurting the worldview of several people? If I was married, it wouldn't hurt me one bit if they would be made legal. Could you enlighten me please?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top