Bishop threatens voters

[Dros]

CBS news (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/14/politics/main617519.shtml)

The Colorado bishop is telling Catholics they cannot take part in Communion if they vote for politicians taking stands against Church teachings. Interestingly, he limits the "issues" to abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage, while conveniently not mentioning the death penalty. Guess he isn't so much a Catholic as a Republican.

Several of the races in the area are between two people, both of whom are for one of the "evil issues". So Catholics can't even vote in those races?

I can accept religious leaders telling followers that they cannot receive Communion if they themselves act against Church teachings. But to deny a vote... should Catholics shun every person not following all the teachings as well? It seems to be moving into the same territory of how many people feel about the Taliban putting forth edicts on all aspects of public and personal life.

[virividox]

i dont think its the bishops place to judge who can or cannot receive communion because of political beliefs; although the church is clear on abortion. i guess its a real testy issue

[Chip NoVaMac]

So sad that Faith is being used in such away. There are many Catholics that will follow the Bishops call, right or wrong.

[AhmedFaisal]

... that the priests pretend as if those scriptures are written by god himself. Big news, they are not. They were written by humans, with human views and human ideals, and written by humans with much less knowledge about nature and geography as we have now. Events that were unexplainable back then and seemed so severe that the whole world (or better the whole known world) was affected by it are now well understood to have a much simpler, more worldly cause. What the Thora, Bible and Koran basically are is history books, written under the views, knowledge and expression of the times they were created in and should be interpreted as such. Besides giving people a wrapup of history of the world as it was known it was also a guide for life in society at that time and can not always be transplanted word for word into our times. Some things in these still hold universal truth, some were written under the impression of past events were only valid under these circumstances.
The problem is that for some reason the Bible, Thora and Koran are not interpreted and read in the same way as great philosophical works of equal age and often greater truth such as the writings by Seneca and other great Roman and Greek philosophers but with a fanatic absolutism that isn't justified by the content.
Would the men, often men of great knowledge, that wrote the paragraphs about the creation of the world still have written what they did had they known Darwin and all the other research on evolution and genetic selection and had they had the knowledge about paleontology and biology? Probably not.
Accepting current scientific and social knowledge as reality doesn't mean you are denying god or lack faith, on the contrary. Many scientists are deeply religious for they see the greatness of god's design in the fact that it didn't require god to tinker about every nitty little detail but that his concept of creation was so grand that it just needed setting off with the Big Bang and then unfolded itself without his constant intervention. That is by far more divine and amazing for me than the story of creation in the Bible.
I find it sad that many religious people both in the church hirarchy as well as the common flock have still not realized that analysing and understanding gods creation is showing much more appreciation than just accepting things without asking.
It is sad that the church still hangs onto the idea that the desire for knowledge is a sin (ref.: Apple & the Snake) rather than what makes us humans.
As for the social issues that the church adresses, I too agree that abortion is evil, but as we are humans, creatures with flaws that make mistakes and false decisions it is a necessary one. The church would do better if instead of condemning abortion they would accept the reality that people have sex and want to explore their sexuality and give them the spiritual guidance they need to explore it without fear and without endangering themselves or their partners (that includes accepting and actually promoting contraception).
As for stem cell research, again I do see the stance that the church takes on the issue and many of its arguments are valid, yet when I have to decide between a blotch of cells in a test tube and preserving the life of a human being, with a personality, a family etc. my choice is clear. Life is about the choices we make, another thing that church needs to realize.
The last issue is gay marriage, where again I have to say not everything the church states is absolutely invalid. However, unlike back during the times of the Bible we know now that homosexuality is not a result of a distorted character but a result of genetics and as such not something people can willingly change, and we all need to accept that. I find it more important that heterosexuals realize that marriage should be something not easily done, something you can throw away when you don't like it anymore but a bond that should last for a lifetime then the issue if gay couples should be able to marry or not. Marriage should again become what it was supposed to be a comunity of shared fates, hope, sorrow, joy, fear, burden and profit for a lifetime and not a question of convenience and tax advantage as it is now. In my opinion it should be made sure that people want to marry out of the right motives rather then because of what gender they are.
At any rate, since the church neglects its real duties to society and like politicians hides behind its dogmas it is up to oneself how we wish to lead our lives. That truth, ironically comes from the Bible as well, were Christ teaches that you should pratice faith for yourself, in your chamber and not throw it in everyones face to demonstrate how pious you are.
Regards,

Ahmed

[JesseJames]

Ahmed are you a history major or something? Well said.

I gave up on organized religion a long time ago. I think that there may be a God but I believe that the puny human mind can not comprehend God itself. Sure, we can play with God's end results but how can you truly comprehend God?
No way.
And any person who says that they know the truth about God is either a zealot or a lunatic in my opinion.
Funny but I think the ancient Greek philosophers were the ones on the right track in the first place. It's just that religion is just easier to believe in. Here's a set of rules; follow them.
I hate to say it but most people just aren't smart enough to philosophize, so that is why organized religion is here to stay.
Let the flaming begin.

[AhmedFaisal]

Ahmed are you a history major or something? Well said.

I gave up on organized religion a long time ago. I think that there may be a God but I believe that the puny human mind can not comprehend God itself. Sure, we can play with God's end results but how can you truly comprehend God?
No way.
And any person who says that they know the truth about God is either a zealot or a lunatic in my opinion.
Funny but I think the ancient Greek philosophers were the ones on the right track in the first place. It's just that religion is just easier to believe in. Here's a set of rules; follow them.
I hate to say it but most people just aren't smart enough to philosophize, so that is why organized religion is here to stay.
Let the flaming begin.

In fact no, I am a biology major, however a critical one, and I do have a thing for history, always had.
I don't think having a set of rules is a bad thing in itself. There is a couple of universal rules that will always be true, whether you are christian, muslim, jew, buddhist or whatever. These rules will never change. You should not steal, you should not kill, you should not desire another's wife etc.. These rules are universal because they are what make a stable and peaceful society possible. Other rules however are not so universal and are the result of circumstances and need to be constantly examined whether or not they are still praticable and necessary.
What people, no matter how intelligent they may be however need to realize is that they can only be good citizens and human beings if they don't follow what others tell them to do but by acquisition of knowledge and information from various and diverse sources find their own truth.
Regards,

Ahmed

[rainman::|:|]

this is why i bailed on christianity a long, long time ago.

it's now a sin to be liberal. congratulations, catholics.

paul

[Dros]

I didn't want this to get too much into a "bash religion" thread. Some people like having their faith in the context of a tradition, and in the context of an authoritarian structure. And I have mixed feelings about people that want to be part of that sort of group and pick which parts they want to adhere to. If you want to be in an authoritarian religion, it isn't up to you.

But this bishop also wants to pick and choose. It is pure hypocrisy. His favorite candidates are for the death penalty, so he ignores that aspect of certain politicians platforms and instead takes a very hard line on everything else.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Wow. I feel so proud to be from Colorado. First we have Amendment 2, which allows discrimination against homosexuals, then we have Marilyn Musgrave and Wayne Allard introducing a federal amendment with the same tone, and now we have a religious leader dictating how people may and may not vote (How did John F. Kennedy put it? "I don't speak for the church, and the church does not speak for me").

Yup. It's blast to be liberal in Mile High Country.

[wdlove]

I think that the Catholic Church has a right to expect it's congregation to follow church teachings. The heir-achy throughout history has always ruled with a strong hand. They seemed to have become lax lately. One example is the abuse scandal. Need to cleanup from within also.

[baby duck monge]

::sigh::

it's a shame that people have to try to force what they think on other people so... forcefully.

at least there is really no way for them to know if/for whom you voted. of course, if i were a catholic, i would not want to take communion at any church that had such rules in place anyway (regardless of how i would be voting).

[Sayhey]

Wow. I feel so proud to be from Colorado. First we have Amendment 2, which allows discrimination against homosexuals, then we have Marilyn Musgrave and Wayne Allard introducing a federal amendment with the same tone, and now we have a religious leader dictating how people may and may not vote (How did John F. Kennedy put it? "I don't speak for the church, and the church does not speak for me").

Yup. It's blast to be liberal in Mile High Country.

Just work on Salazar's senate campaign and we will see if the Bishop, Allard, and Joe Coors get the last laugh. There are still lots of liberals and lefties in the Rocky Mountains.

[rainman::|:|]

I think that the Catholic Church has a right to expect it's congregation to follow church teachings. The heir-achy throughout history has always ruled with a strong hand. They seemed to have become lax lately. One example is the abuse scandal. Need to cleanup from within also.

Where in the bible does it say that it's the church's responsibility to withhold a sacrament because of political affiliation? When did Christ say that pro-choice people were not welcome? It would seem that this is actually against Christ's teachings. Landover (http://landoverbaptist.com), the parody site, never seems more relevant, their "Unsaved Unwelcome" banner...

Every time the catholic church has taken a firm stance on something, that's when the problems started. Lots of atrocities, you know what i'm talking about. And it's a little annoying that you continue to bring up the abuse scandal when it's not relevant, except that it's the same church. Liberals receiving communion have nothing to do with the church condoning and concealing sexual abuse of children.

paul

[MongoTheGeek]

Its all been done...

Back in the dark ages the pope got King of France in St Peter's Square in sackcloth and ashes in February. The pope had refused sacraments to the entire empire. I can't remember why though.

Communion is a sign of heterodoxy with the church, a unity of beliefs. St Paul admonished people to examine their souls before communion.

Should the church be meddling in politics? Probably not. You've heard the old saw, lie down with dogs...

This is not unprecedented. It could be viewed as allowing people to be in communion, to be presented as being of like mind as allowing for their espoused beliefs.

It is probably a step to far to ban people from communion for voting for a pro-choice candidate. There is a line to be drawn there someplace. Because the church should stand for what is right.

[MrMacMan]

You see there is a reason for the seperation bewteen what powers the church has and what the church doesn't have.

On abortion fine -- Its become a political issue, but saying that people from one spectrum are suddendly not allowed to take part of a religious ceremony?

:eek:

[MongoTheGeek]

On abortion fine -- Its become a political issue, but saying that people from one spectrum are suddendly not allowed to take part of a religious ceremony?


I belong to the LCMS. We have been known to keep people from the ELCA from taking communion. (There was a funny bit on Cheers once where Woody and his girlfriend said the other was going to hell because he was LCMS and she was ELCA, Frasier tried to commiserate saying he was Episcopalian and Lillith was Jewsish. Woody said that it wasn't the same.)

:)

LCMS = Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
ELCA = Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

[rainman::|:|]

so mongo, is your entire argument that because other churches do it in some sense, and since the catholic church has done it in the past, that it's justifiable, despite nothing biblical to support this?

Frankly, a person can morally believe a lot of things contrary to whom they vote for... for instance, i'm pro-life, but i would not vote for a pro-life candidate. It's not a question of a direct vote, do you think abortion should be legal? It's a question of voting for candidates that support and reject different positions with different degrees of intensity. Voting for a pro-life president won't make abortion illegal, will it. But voting for a pro-life candidate (combined with the other restrictions) means you MUST vote republican.

paul

[Dros]

Where in the bible does it say that it's the church's responsibility to withhold a sacrament because of political affiliation?

Well, the Catholics differ from, say, fundamentalist Christians in how much the bible itself is considered the absolute law. If a person is Catholic, isn't the Pope the supreme judge of what is allowed? So I'm fine with the Catholic church telling people to follow church law or get out. People can always find some denomination that suits their needs. Of course, it is tough for some people that grew up in a particular tradition to leave it.

But the key here is that the Bishop is not threatening to withhold communion from people that, say, are pro-choice. He's saying if you are pro-life and yet vote for someone pro-choice, then you can't have communion (I think you get this, Paul, I was just reiterating it for some others).

[Makosuke]

I'm a practicing Catholic, and that's just embarassing, not to mention more or less against any Church doctrine I'm familiar with.

Though I still believe religion, even formal organized religion, isn't the problem--it's just the fact that greedy, self-centered, and generally stupid humans find it far too easy to abuse the positions of respect that formal religion puts them in. People suck, and even if you put the word of God in their hands, they still can't get it right nine times out of ten.

This case is particularly stupid, since almost every political candidate goes against several fundamental rules of Christianity, let alone Catholic Doctrine. Last I checked, one of the Ten Biggies in the Old Testament is "Thou Shalt Not Kill". That would seem to unequivocally preclude not only the death penalty, but also participation in war in any form whatsoever. Last I checked, Jesus also made some pretty strong points about forgiving everybody, yet there are probaby a dozen political candidates in the US who *don't* espouse the "throw away the key" line for imprisoning criminals. When was the last time you saw a politician visiting prisoners? Not to mention that Jesus described communism as the right way to live (no, not the mess that is Marxism, the basic communist principle of to each according to their need, from each according to their ability), and yet most "fundamentalist Christians" seem to think communism in any form is akin to devil worship.

Heck, I'm against abortion myself, but I'm not about to start voting Republican, since every single other part of the party line goes fundamentally against everything I see taught in my own religion.

[BrianKonarsMac]

why do people feel the need to go to a church, temple, mosque, etc. in order to worship? if you truly believe there's a god, and you love him as much as you pretend to and you truly follow your beliefs, then he will love you equally without requiring you to pray and offer worship and sacrifice in his name.

not to be sexist by using the masculine reference, i truly believe "god" or whatever you'd like to call him, would have no sexually defining characteristics at all.

[TimDaddy]

this is why i bailed on christianity a long, long time ago.
paul
Hell, I'm not even a liberal, and they get mad at me because of how I may occasionally vote. I think most politicians are crooks, and I vote for the one that seems the least crooked. I am against abortion, but I will not sit back and vote for an anti-abortion politician for that reason alone. One politician cannot end abortion. I will vote for my choice, and if he or she supports abortion, tough. It is already happening, anyway. My vote isn't going to kill a single baby. I voted for Bush, and all he has done is kill babies with brown skin and a different religion. And his partial birth abortion ban won't last because it forces women to die for their unborn children.

it's now a sin to be liberal. congratulations, catholics.paul

The first neighbor to jump on me for voting for a moderate to conservative democrat was indeed Catholic. But, there is a Catholic church in Lexington that is taking all kinds of crap from the right-wingers over inviting a gay couple with an adopted child to attend their church. So, I'd say Catholics are the same as whites, blacks, straights, gays, muslims, etc: You've got you're good ones, and you've got your bad ones. Personally, I think a true believer would never deny an innocent child the word of God even if they did think that the parents were commiting a sin. Let's see, daddy and daddy are bad, so you get to go to Hell, too. Jesus loves you!

[applebum]

Last I checked, one of the Ten Biggies in the Old Testament is "Thou Shalt Not Kill". That would seem to unequivocally preclude not only the death penalty, but also participation in war in any form whatsoever.

Actually the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder", which is how you can get around war and even the death penalty. The Catholic Church does not support the death penalty, but they don't say that it is wrong for individuals to support it. There is certainly justification for it in the Christian faith, as the death penalty was used frequently in the Old Testament. One of the confusions in Christianity is that God said one thing in the Old Testament, then Christ often said something opposite in the New Testament.

Also, one thing most people don't realize is that while the Catholic Church often has a uniform set of rules, they are almost never applied consistently from Church to Church. This Bishop is going well beyond what is acceptable at most Churches. The problem is when someone like this makes the news, everyone thinks this is the way all Catholics are. This is just one Bishop's interpretation of what he feels is the proper way to proceed. As with any church, if one doesn't like this, he/she should find another Catholic Church where the priest is not so harsh. Also, the key point in Christianity is that we have been given free will. The Church can give its opinion, it is our choice wether we follow that or not. In any Religion, people who follow doctrines without giving any thought to them are just scary.

Religion is a very personal thing. One should always choose a denomination/faith that best suits his/her needs and brings added value to their lives. I don't judge religion based on what makes the news - I would think it is all crap. Luckily I have know wonderful people of many faiths. I have clearly seen how religion can really enhance people's lives. I accept religion based on the individual and how they live their lives.

[TimDaddy]

But voting for a pro-life candidate (combined with the other restrictions) means you MUST vote republican.

paul

We have our pro-life democrats here, in KY. But, they'll fight to the death against the republicans on other issues. (Part of the reason we are on a second consecutive year without a budget being passed at the end of the regular session.)

[TimDaddy]

As with any church, if one doesn't like this, he/she should find another Catholic Church where the priest is not so harsh.

Looking at church the way I do, as a business, this is a good idea. They offend their customers, customers leave, they go out of business. But, if there really is anything to the church, it is kind of sad that they will change the rules to remain popular. But, I don't think that if there is a God he is anywhere near as hateful as many Christians, Jews, and Muslims want you to believe. And, I also think the church is just the world's largest corporation. Sorry, Wal-Mart. But, that's just me.

[applebum]

why do people feel the need to go to a church, temple, mosque, etc. in order to worship? if you truly believe there's a god, and you love him as much as you pretend to and you truly follow your beliefs, then he will love you equally without requiring you to pray and offer worship and sacrifice in his name.


Why do people give their moms cards and gifts on Mother's day? If you love your mom as much as you pretend to and you truly do things to help her, she will love you without requiring you to get her a card and/or gift.

It is called respect and love. In both cases, we don't do it because we have to, but because we want to. Anyone who goes to church thinking it will make God love them more or get them to Heaven, doesn't understand what church is for.

[TimDaddy]

I think that the Catholic Church has a right to expect it's congregation to follow church teachings. The heir-achy throughout history has always ruled with a strong hand. They seemed to have become lax lately. One example is the abuse scandal. Need to cleanup from within also.

Does the Bible tell you who to vote for? (I'm really asking, if it's in there, let me know!) I agree that a church should expect its congregation to follow its teachings, if its teachings are in accordance with its religion. But, all people sin, so don't all politicians sin? Voting for a pro-choice candidate does not mean that you want to get an abortion or that you even support abortion. I have already stated that I am against abortion, unless the woman's life is in great jeopardy. I have voted for several pro-choice candidates based on other issues, such as taxes, gay rights, and the environment. Not that a single one of those three are more important than a baby's life, but I don't see any REAL attempts at progress against abortion coming from the republicans, anyway. They want just enough support to stay in power, then enough opposition to keep abortion legal, so that they have a reason to stay in power.(speculation)

[bousozoku]

I think that the Catholic Church has a right to expect it's congregation to follow church teachings. The heir-achy throughout history has always ruled with a strong hand. They seemed to have become lax lately. One example is the abuse scandal. Need to cleanup from within also.

They've become lax lately and you cite the abuse scandal? Sure, they're lax because the abuse became public knowledge. It's been happening for a very long time--before they were lax.

The Catholic church seeks freedom from god by naming the pope as "god on earth". In this way, they can claim anything they want and god will service them, not the opposite way. Isn't this the main reason for these religions, anyway? Give the population something to believe and they'll be easily controlled.

AhmedFaisal:

You make too much sense for most people--nicely said. :)

[Counterfit]

Actually the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" That depends very much on the translation. Mine reads "You shall not kill" Ex. 20:13


The Catholic church seeks freedom from god by naming the pope as "god on earth". Understand this very clearly: THE POPE HAS NEVER BEEN, IS NOT, AND WILL NEVER BE DIVINE. EVER EVER EVER!!!

[Krizoitz]

The Catholic church seeks freedom from god by naming the pope as "god on earth". Give the population something to believe and they'll be easily controlled.


That is absolutely untrue and just goes to show that peoples intolerance towards relgion is based on unfounded rumors and not actually bothering to learn what the group teaches. As a Catholic I see the Church accused of teaching this or believing that so often and the truth of it is none of those accusations are actually true. If you don't want to believe in organized religion that is your choice. If you don't like what the Catholic church teaches, thats your choice. But to go around accusing Catholics of doing things that we aren't doing is just hate mongering, and really makes me wonder how many people here are actually open to new ideas.

Now this part isn't aimed at anyone specific, but is a general observation related to the above comment.
One of the things that really bugs me about the left. They champion this idea of thinking for yourself and being critical, but if you then go and choose to follow something like organized religion after you have done so they acuse you of not thinking for yourself. You are apparently only free to choose if its an idea they like.

Take for example a friend of mine (female) who got into a conversation with a feminist (self proclaimed). My friend had decided that she wasn't interested in a career, she wanted to be a full time mother. She had gone to college, explored her options and decided that when she graduated and got married she didn't want to work if she didn't have to once she and her husband had children. This was her choice, not his, he didn't force it on her, its what she wanted. Well this feminist asked her what she wanted to do when she got done with college. She said she had decided to become a stay at home mom. Well the feminist went postal on her. Accused her of supporting the oppression of women, etc. Apparently she felt that a woman could only choose what she wanted her to choose. Glad to see open mindedness alive and well.

[Krizoitz]

why do people feel the need to go to a church, temple, mosque, etc. in order to worship? if you truly believe there's a god, and you love him as much as you pretend to and you truly follow your beliefs, then he will love you equally without requiring you to pray and offer worship and sacrifice in his name.

not to be sexist by using the masculine reference, i truly believe "god" or whatever you'd like to call him, would have no sexually defining characteristics at all.

Here's my take on it. Going to Church is like going to school. Most people don't take the time to study scriptures, but as a priest or minister thats what you have devoted your life to, being a teacher of God's word. So going to church is partly an educational thing. Its also important because part of being Christian is being a member of larger whole, a community. Part of believing in the Christian God is believing in that community as well, that we are all part of the Body Of Christ.

Don't get me wrong I think that its important to have individual faith as well. IMO its important that you develop a personal relationship with God too. Its kind of like eating. If you only eat one thing its not very healthy, but if you have a balanced diet its much more healthy. The same goes with religion. Organized religion and individual religion are important as parts of a whole.

As for your comment on sexual characteristics, the reason that God seems to have them isn't because he is like us, but we are like him, made in his image.

[Krizoitz]

... that the priests pretend as if those scriptures are written by god himself. Big news, they are not.
According to who? You? Just because human hands wrote them doesn't mean that God didn't inspire them to do so. You can't prove that the Bible isn't divinely inspired anymore than I can prove that it was. Thats why its faith. You are free to believe what you will but to state unequivocably that the Bible is JUST a book written by a bunch of old guys strikes me as incredibly arrogant.

What the Thora, Bible and Koran basically are is history books, written under the views, knowledge and expression of the times they were created in and should be interpreted as such. Besides giving people a wrapup of history of the world as it was known it was also a guide for life in society at that time and can not always be transplanted word for word into our times. Some things in these still hold universal truth, some were written under the impression of past events were only valid under these circumstances.
The problem is that for some reason the Bible, Thora and Koran are not interpreted and read in the same way as great philosophical works of equal age and often greater truth such as the writings by Seneca and other great Roman and Greek philosophers but with a fanatic absolutism that isn't justified by the content.
To some the Bible is viewed merely as an interesting historical document, and thats fine if people want to see it that way, but to those who believe it isn't just a history book. You may not believe that but we do. You ask us to throw away what is important to us, what makes sense to us, what we believe simply because you tell us to? Why should we believe you? Why should we believe its just history?


It is sad that the church still hangs onto the idea that the desire for knowledge is a sin (ref.: Apple & the Snake) rather than what makes us humans.

Considering that throughout history the best institutions of higher learning have been religious ones, I don't think thats even remotely true. If it were true Notre Dame, Xavier, Gonzaga, not to mention countless non-Catholic religious institutions wouldn't exist.


As for the social issues that the church adresses, I too agree that abortion is evil, but as we are humans, creatures with flaws that make mistakes and false decisions it is a necessary one. The church would do better if instead of condemning abortion they would accept the reality that people have sex and want to explore their sexuality and give them the spiritual guidance they need to explore it without fear and without endangering themselves or their partners (that includes accepting and actually promoting contraception).

So what you are saying is rather than expecting people to overcome sin and temptation we should just accept it and allow other sinful activity to happen? Sorry it doesn't work that way. You may not agree with what the church teaches, but when it comes to sex, marriage and birth control there really has been no ambiguity. The idea of "exploring" sexuality goes against what the church teaches allready, why should they accept it?

I understand that the idea is to prevent further harm but this is a case, atleast in the churches eyes, of the ends justifying the means. Like the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.



As for stem cell research, again I do see the stance that the church takes on the issue and many of its arguments are valid, yet when I have to decide between a blotch of cells in a test tube and preserving the life of a human being, with a personality, a family etc. my choice is clear. Life is about the choices we make, another thing that church needs to realize.

Actually the church does realize that life is about choices, but that doesn't mean all choices are good ones. Yes it is a noble goal to try and help others who are afflicted, but who are we to say which life is more valid? If we start saying that unborn children aren't as important do we then go on to say that disabled people aren't as important? Or un-intelligent people? I realize that it would take a big leap to go from stem-cell research to eugenics, it might never happen. But in the eyes of the church it is still wrong. You are talking about taking someones life without their consent to save another. I realize that not all people believe that all people agree on what is and isn't life at that stage, but the chuch has always had a clear and concrete stance, and its like before, its a matter of the ends justify the means.




The last issue is gay marriage, where again I have to say not everything the church states is absolutely invalid. However, unlike back during the times of the Bible we know now that homosexuality is not a result of a distorted character but a result of genetics and as such not something people can willingly change, and we all need to accept that. I find it more important that heterosexuals realize that marriage should be something not easily done, something you can throw away when you don't like it anymore but a bond that should last for a lifetime then the issue if gay couples should be able to marry or not. Marriage should again become what it was supposed to be a comunity of shared fates, hope, sorrow, joy, fear, burden and profit for a lifetime and not a question of convenience and tax advantage as it is now. In my opinion it should be made sure that people want to marry out of the right motives rather then because of what gender they are.
Again this is because your view of what is acceptable and what the church teaches are different. The Church teaches that having homosexual urges isn't wrong, but acting on them is. Just like kleptomaniacs, or alcoholics. We are all given obstacles to over come in life.
Asking the church to accept homosexual relationships as being ok, is like asking them to accept that abortion is ok. It goes against the fundamental teachings. They may be great people and really like each other but they have missed the point of why God gave us sex. Again obviously you are free to choose how you believe, but the Church doesn't get to decide what parts of God's teachings it accepts or not.


At any rate, since the church neglects its real duties to society and like politicians hides behind its dogmas it is up to oneself how we wish to lead our lives. That truth, ironically comes from the Bible as well, were Christ teaches that you should pratice faith for yourself, in your chamber and not throw it in everyones face to demonstrate how pious you are.

Its real duties to society are to spread the word of God and act as God's messenger on Earth. That includes speaking out against injustice. You may not agree with how they do it, but its not up to you to decide how the Church should act, its up to God. As for Christs teaching about praying in a chamber, he also admonished us to care for the weakest among us, to love each other, and to pray as a community as well. I suggest you not try and pull individual verses out of Bible without fully understanding the context.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Just work on Salazar's senate campaign and we will see if the Bishop, Allard, and Joe Coors get the last laugh. There are still lots of liberals and lefties in the Rocky Mountains.

:)

I am volunteering for Salazar's campaign. A fun bit of irony: a friend of mine, whose company does all the advertising for Coors Light, invited me to a baseball game a couple weeks ago, at Coors Field. Surprise, surprise, the tickets we had were for the Coors suite. Among the people to show up were Mr. Pete Coors and his daughter Melissa. Both were quite charming, very charismatic, and generally pleasant people. After the game, as he was leaving, and we were shaking hands, he said "I'll be counting on your vote in November." I replied, with a smile, "Not a chance. I'm a Democrat. I'm working for Salazar." His smile faded a bit as he hastened the handshake and promptly left.

Everybody who heard me was rather pissed. I may be a cheeky bastard, but I must say I am damn pleased with myself.

[bousozoku]

That is absolutely untrue and just goes to show that peoples intolerance towards relgion is based on unfounded rumors and not actually bothering to learn what the group teaches. As a Catholic I see the Church accused of teaching this or believing that so often and the truth of it is none of those accusations are actually true. If you don't want to believe in organized religion that is your choice. If you don't like what the Catholic church teaches, thats your choice. But to go around accusing Catholics of doing things that we aren't doing is just hate mongering, and really makes me wonder how many people here are actually open to new ideas.
...


You must be in a separatist Catholic church then.

In every Catholic church I've been and with every Catholic (and there were many in the northeastern U.S.A.), they refer to the pope as the Holy Father and that his words come directly from god.

I have no hate of any church that makes certain of the truth and hurts no one but it's rare that any do.

It's interesting that you're fighting everyone so hard. It would make one believe that you realise the truth and don't want to believe it. It is nice, though, that the church makes you feel as good as it once made me feel.

[Krizoitz]

In every Catholic church I've been and with every Catholic (and there were many in the northeastern U.S.A.), they refer to the pope as the Holy Father and that his words come directly from god.

Yes he is refered to has Holy Father, all priests are refered to as Father, its a title, it does not mean that he is God, nor has anyone ever claimed that he is. Also there is no claim that everything he says comes directly from God. He is the successor of Peter and the leader of Gods Church here on Earth, that is a far cry from being God. Why don't you get your facts straight before you start accusing people of believing things that they don't or teaching things that they don't.

[e-coli]

Catholics:
2000 years of using religion to politically manipulate the public.

Republicans:
200 years of using religion to politically manipulate the public.

:rolleyes:

By the way, if anyone want to write this jerk and tell him what you think of his actions, here's his fax number:

(719) 636-1216

(A great way to finally use that new Fax feature in Panther) :D

[IndyGopher]

Yes he is refered to has Holy Father, all priests are refered to as Father, its a title, it does not mean that he is God, nor has anyone ever claimed that he is. Also there is no claim that everything he says comes directly from God. He is the successor of Peter and the leader of Gods Church here on Earth, that is a far cry from being God. Why don't you get your facts straight before you start accusing people of believing things that they don't or teaching things that they don't.
In response to this, and some of your earlier posts, I have to say that I wonder where you get your information on Catholic beliefs and history... the doctrine of Papal Infallability is, to any one who considers even for a moment what that means, a very STRONG implication that the pope is supposedly divine. As recently as the 1950's, Pope Pius XII invoked Papal Infallability to decree that Mary ascended bodily into Heaven ("Assumption") having never died. Find that in the Bible. Nope, not there. Pretty important thing to leave out of the Bible, isn't it? Made a pretty big deal about Enoch (Gen 5:24) and Jesus ascending into Heaven, so I find it absurd that they would have left Mary out.
Find Purgatory in the Bible. Nope, not there, either. Purgatory was invented completely as a philosophical answer to the problem that All Men Sin, All Sinners Go To Hell... so how do we get people into Heaven? Oh, well, there's Purgatory! Must have slipped God's mind when He was instructing man to write His Bible.
The point of this is, Catholicism absolutely holds within its doctrines declarations that the Pope is divine. The belief, in effect, that the Pope calls into being things that he conceives as truth. That boils down to the Pope having the power of creation. Either that, or the Pope DOES IN FACT speak for God. Alone. No one else has that authority, according to Catholic doctrine.
I'm Christian, and I really do not like to get into Catholic-Bashing.. But when I hear self-proclaimed Catholics glossing over some of their own doctrines, I get a little bent out of shape. If the Catholic Church doesn't believe these things (any more) then they could save themselves a LOT of face by simply issuing another one of their decrees stating so. It's no greater embarrassment than de-canonizing saints, and they don't seem to mind doing that.
I'm all in favor of people worshipping God. I think that God would want you to vote for political candidates that support the Church. I think it is good for a Church to educate their congregation about the political candidates (so long as they do it fairly and honestly). Give the people as much information as possible. Send them home. Tell them to pray about it.. then vote for whoever that still, small voice tells them to vote for. I honestly believe if people did that, en masse, we would have a much better political landscape.

[MongoTheGeek]

still, small voice

no comma :)

I once spent half an hour listening to a sermon on that comma. :)

[Krizoitz]

In response to this, and some of your earlier posts, I have to say that I wonder where you get your information on Catholic beliefs and history... the doctrine of Papal Infallability is, to any one who considers even for a moment what that means, a very STRONG implication that the pope is supposedly divine. As recently as the 1950's, Pope Pius XII invoked Papal Infallability to decree that Mary ascended bodily into Heaven ("Assumption") having never died. Find that in the Bible. Nope, not there. Pretty important thing to leave out of the Bible, isn't it? Made a pretty big deal about Enoch (Gen 5:24) and Jesus ascending into Heaven, so I find it absurd that they would have left Mary out.
Find Purgatory in the Bible. Nope, not there, either. Purgatory was invented completely as a philosophical answer to the problem that All Men Sin, All Sinners Go To Hell... so how do we get people into Heaven? Oh, well, there's Purgatory! Must have slipped God's mind when He was instructing man to write His Bible.
The point of this is, Catholicism absolutely holds within its doctrines declarations that the Pope is divine. The belief, in effect, that the Pope calls into being things that he conceives as truth. That boils down to the Pope having the power of creation. Either that, or the Pope DOES IN FACT speak for God. Alone. No one else has that authority, according to Catholic doctrine.

The Pope is considered to be the direct succesor to Peter whom Jesus gave authority over his Earthly church, so yes he does act as a representative for God according to Catholic belief. This does not make him God or divine. This has never been claimed at any time by the church.
As for what is and isn't in the Bible, not everyone takes a fundamentalist approach to it. The Bible is God's message to us, but its not his only one. While I can't personally say whether Mary ascended into heaven I can say that its not something the Pope just randomly decided.


I'm Christian, and I really do not like to get into Catholic-Bashing..

Coulda fooled me.


But when I hear self-proclaimed Catholics glossing over some of their own doctrines, I get a little bent out of shape. If the Catholic Church doesn't believe these things (any more) then they could save themselves a LOT of face by simply issuing another one of their decrees stating so. It's no greater embarrassment than de-canonizing saints, and they don't seem to mind doing that.

And I get bent out of shape when mis-informed or completely un-informed people start accusing me and my church of things that are blatantly not true. Not like its anything new. I've been accused of worshipping Mary and worshiping the Pope before too. People have these half-truths and completely random "Facts" about the Catholic church that they go off about without ever bothering to further explore them and what is actually taught by the church and use those to condemn us.

You don't agree with what the Church teaches. Thats fine, God gave us free will, and America is a free country. But don't accuse the Church of things that aren't true unless you expect to be called on it.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Also, one thing most people don't realize is that while the Catholic Church often has a uniform set of rules, they are almost never applied consistently from Church to Church. This Bishop is going well beyond what is acceptable at most Churches. The problem is when someone like this makes the news, everyone thinks this is the way all Catholics are. This is just one Bishop's interpretation of what he feels is the proper way to proceed. As with any church, if one doesn't like this, he/she should find another Catholic Church where the priest is not so harsh. Also, the key point in Christianity is that we have been given free will. The Church can give its opinion, it is our choice wether we follow that or not. In any Religion, people who follow doctrines without giving any thought to them are just scary.



The problem in finding another Catholic church is that the Bishop is generally not at the parish level, but at the Diocese level. So going to another church requires a great deal of travel.

Also for a person in the Catholic Church, it is hard to conceive going against the desires of the Church. Including demands from the Bishop.

[applebum]

The problem in finding another Catholic church is that the Bishop is generally not at the parish level, but at the Diocese level. So going to another church requires a great deal of travel.

Also for a person in the Catholic Church, it is hard to conceive going against the desires of the Church. Including demands from the Bishop.

I am Catholic, so I know what you are saying. However, the Bishop doesn't actually preside at all the Churches in the Dioces. And not every priest is going to follow his orders directly - again, inconsistency. Also, I think this Bishop's statement is done simply to look tough, as there is absolutely no way for him to know who one voted for. Although I am sure there are many Catholics in his Diocese that will feel guilt or just not vote.

All Men Sin, All Sinners Go To Hell...

Care to give me the verse on that. No where does it say all sinners go to hell. That was the point of Christ coming to earth...we are all sinners, but by His grace we are saved. They didn't have to make up Purgatory for that. I have been Catholic now for 12 years and have never once heard Purgatory talked about or taught. One does not have to believe in Purgatory to be Catholic. Nor does one have to believe in the Assumption of Mary to be Catholic. The Church accepts and teaches this (based on longstanding oral traditions) but individuals do not have to.

IndyGopher, I find it interesting that you used the Bible to show how the Catholic Church believes some things not specifically in the Bible, but failed to point out that the whole concept of the Pope is very much in the Bible. Jesus specifically tells Peter that he is the Rock upon which the Church will be built. He then basically gives Peter all the powers that He (Christ) has to declare things (thus able to speak for God). Matthew 16:18-19 Following this logic, if Peter has all this power, he can then pass it on to whoever he sees fit. This is where the Church would get the line of succession of the Popes. This of course is up to interpretation, however, it is a rather logical interpretation for the Church.

Also, as far as Catholics following their Doctrines...there are some things the Church teaches that must be adhered to and others that do not. Having been Catholic for 12 years, there are still teachings that I do not understand, some I don't agree with at all, and other I support wholeheartedly. Before I converted, I made sure that I agreed with all teachings that I had to (and I did) and also decided to keep an open mind when it came to others that weren't required.

Find that in the Bible. Nope, not there. Pretty important thing to leave out of the Bible, isn't it? One of the things I like about being Catholic is that most are non-fundamentalist. As a result, simply quoting the Bible about what is or isn't in there doesn't affect us much. For instance, the Bible doesn't mention anything of Christ from His 13th year through His 29th. I imagine some pretty important things were said and done during that time. Perhaps they weren't recorded at all, or perhaps it was and we just haven't found the writings yet. Maybe we will. But even if we did, I bet it would never go into the Bible. I imagine that adding to or even taking from the Bible at this point would be akin to heresy and would never be allowed.

[yuc7zhd2]

(no, not the mess that is Marxism, the basic communist principle of to each according to their need, from each according to their ability), and yet most "fundamentalist Christians" seem to think communism in any form is akin to devil worship.


Marxism is not what happened in the soviet block. Marx himself would have been ashamed of it. Just thought you should know.

[yuc7zhd2]

Lets get one more thing straight too... I haven't had faith in God since the 80's, but I grew up catholic and I never ever ever never ever worshipped mary, believed that the pope was god on earth or any of the other ************ I've heard here, nor was I encouraged to do so. The pope and priests are servants of god on earth, as are the congregation. And in addition, just because the pope or a bishop or priest issue some command does not mean that the congregation unquestioningly follows that command. Quit the sect bashing, all of your faiths are founded on ignorance, including my own lack of such.

[bousozoku]

Yes he is refered to has Holy Father, all priests are refered to as Father, its a title, it does not mean that he is God, nor has anyone ever claimed that he is. Also there is no claim that everything he says comes directly from God. He is the successor of Peter and the leader of Gods Church here on Earth, that is a far cry from being God. Why don't you get your facts straight before you start accusing people of believing things that they don't or teaching things that they don't.

My facts are coming from the church, and I suspect yours are too.

I suppose, though, that no one is right but you. It appears that no one else has had a true religious experience because they don't agree with yours.

[pseudobrit]

There are many Catholics that will follow the Bishops call, right or wrong.

And twice as many who will abandon the Church because this asshole opened his mouth and let fly this ignorant command.

The Church needs to police its own, indeed. Not its congregation's voters, no, that's none of the Church's Goddamn business.

Its renegade Bishops who overreach their mandate are the ones who need to be brought back into the fold.

I'm Catholic. A once proud Catholic at that.

[pseudobrit]

the doctrine of Papal Infallability is, to any one who considers even for a moment what that means, a very STRONG implication that the pope is supposedly divine.

No, it carries the implication that the Pope is divinely inspired in matters of the faith only, which is where Catholics believe the infallibility of the Bible lies too. The Pope has come down from a direct line of leaders who can be traced back to the Apostle Peter, who Jesus chose as his representative on Earth.

I'm sensing a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment from a few people.

I suppose next I'll be told how ridiculous it is that we commit the sacrilege of worshipping statues and the Blessed Virgin.

Where the **** are we, anyway? Belfast?

[Stelliform]

The only reason this is news is because it is the Catholic church. Minority protestant churches do this every election down here. I have never seen CNN cover that. (Although down here it favors the democrats.) ;)

[Chip NoVaMac]

The only reason this is news is because it is the Catholic church. Minority protestant churches do this every election down here. I have never seen CNN cover that. (Although down here it favors the democrats.) ;)

I think you would see the same if the Southern Baptist Conference (as an example) came out and said the same thing.

[blackfox]

According to who? You? Just because human hands wrote them doesn't mean that God didn't inspire them to do so. You can't prove that the Bible isn't divinely inspired anymore than I can prove that it was. Thats why its faith. You are free to believe what you will but to state unequivocably that the Bible is JUST a book written by a bunch of old guys strikes me as incredibly arrogant.
To some the Bible is viewed merely as an interesting historical document, and thats fine if people want to see it that way, but to those who believe it isn't just a history book. You may not believe that but we do. You ask us to throw away what is important to us, what makes sense to us, what we believe simply because you tell us to? Why should we believe you? Why should we believe its just history?



I am unclear as to which testament you (and Ahmed) are referring to. If it was the Old Testament (and/or Torah), it has been said that the oldest sections of that book were written between 1000-900BC, went under 3 revisions and had sections added over the next Millenium. The Torah, by itself (the first 5 chapters of the OT), are said to have had four distinct authors, with the last author contributing around 400BC and editing the previous work(s). About the time of the fall of Judea to the Romans (aroung the time of Christ) it was further added to (eg the Talmud) and the New Testament was canonized in AD 367 (more on that later). The oldest sections of the OT were written around the time of King David (1000BC or so) and were done by combining oral teachings and some writings, and described events that had taken place many centuries earlier. What does this have to do with your quote? Well, it comes down to history and writing. Alphabet-based writing is largely credited to the Phonecians @ around 1600BC, although symbol-based writing such as Hierogliphs predated this some. If you follow what I have listed above, you must concede that this book had many authors, editors and varied source material, all divorced from the events described. It also had to endure many translations over the centuries, from Aramaic to Greek to English to name a few...and translation is a messy business. While I have no doubt that the people involved with the evolution of this document were in many cases devout and pious persons, I do not believe that God spoke through them, for if He/ She did, then the translations and editings would have remained more consistent than they have. Also the passage of Centuries between when the Oral retellings of the events described and when they were finally transcribed lends itself to a subtle but compounding distortion of the facts, as any oral storyteller knows. So diverse a history has this document, that it is difficult to feel that they were all inspired by God in a direct, relevant way to its' writing. The New testament, also written much after the fact(s) described was also susceptible to much of what I have written above, being written by many authors, and translated and edited over the Centuries.
Now, I believe the Old and New Testaments do be remarkable books, full of such Wisdom, that it is difficult to believe that its' authors were not somehow inspired. There are, however, many other great books written over history by philosophers and statesmen, that are similar genius, often written by singular authors, and it that regard, the Bibles are just one of many great books containing great truths gleamed by men. What makes them different is the promotion of the Testaments by large, powerful organizations, and with Catholicism in particular, a hierarchy of power ofdiscernment as to the meaning of the text(s). Like many great books, the Bible is steeped in metaphor, and wording made all the more subjective by the myriad interpretations of the author(s)...it is arrogant of the Catholic faith (or indeed many) to have the sole interpretation rights as to the meaning and truth of the Books, or indeed, how Faith is to be properly manifested, or the judges of humanitys' worth in Gods' eyes. By definition, each faith is exclusive to its' members, who become so by the acceptance of both the literal truth of the Bible and its' particular interpretation by that faith. This flys in the face of the inclusive doctrine set forth by Christ, as he accepted many diverse (and sinful) peoples, showed them love and did not judge them for themselves of for their adherence to his example. I wish Christians would realize this hypocrisy and not be so petty about their differences, as we are all judged for ourselves, you do not get extra-credit for converts or group adherence.
Lastly, the concept of God and of Salvation is of such powerful import, that as a judge of who is worthy (or not), people or organizations are given great power over others, and subsequently much wealth (in many cases). I feel that the reason that adherence to Church Dogma is required by most religions (this Dogma, BTW, being less the word of God than the Testaments), is that w/o such a requirement, you lose your exclusivity and subsequently your power over others, as the hiearchy is maintained by these rules, and would otherwise fall into the egalatirian morass, such as a Democracy. Which is not to say, that the Church w/in this system has not done good-for the world and its' faithful...but for many it is easier living under a system where the thought/interpretation of the rules of right and wrong is done for you...as the fall of the Soviet Union illustrated somewhat...stability by the obedience of the masses, which in some ways benefited both the master and the subject. When that was stripped away with the fall, many people did not know how to think or fend from themselves, and anarchy briefly prevailed...The point being that many people were happy and indeed, needed the comfort of that system, but were less for it, as they did not believe what they did by the hard work and sacrifice of discovering their truth, but by blind obedience under threat of expulsion (or execution). The repetition of Dogma for so long has the effect of a mantra, in that you begin to believe its' legitamacy in your mind, only because it has been repeated so often...Faith is often described as being loyal to an idea or cause, or the belief that some supernatural force controls human destiny...both do not explicitly require factual basis, but it would seem only fair to search out for yourself how much might just exist (for, or to the contrary) of your position before relinquishing the responsibility of guiding your self - in growth,determination
and responsibility - on this earth to someone else, no matter their pedigree.
So as pertaining to this Bishop...I do not find him to be my definition of a Christian, and I think he is a prick...End Rant.

[revenuee]

Why do people give their moms cards and gifts on Mother's day? If you love your mom as much as you pretend to and you truly do things to help her, she will love you without requiring you to get her a card and/or gift.

It is called respect and love. In both cases, we don't do it because we have to, but because we want to. Anyone who goes to church thinking it will make God love them more or get them to Heaven, doesn't understand what church is for.


i don't give my mom cards and things on just mothers day ... i do stuff like that randomly ... i do the same with my g/f ... i don't wait to valentines day or some anniversary to give her flowers or something nice, i do it because it makes me happy to see her surprised not because i have too ...

i stopped going to church because i felt that the people that were telling me to go were telling me to do it because it is the thing you are supposed to do, not because they themselves understood why they were going

[AhmedFaisal]

And more eloquently stated than when I tried before you. I hope you put me in the same sentence as Krizoitz because I was referring to the Bible(s) and not because you believe I have similar views and opinions as he does :eek: , the contrary is the case, my opinions and views are similar to yours and I actually find it very insulting to get told by certain fundamentalists that just because I do not believe in every word of the scripture in a literal way that I lack faith or that I am a sinner. In fact, this arrogance and self-rightousness they display is a far greater sin, in fact, it is one of the capital sins.
Regards,

Ahmed

[AhmedFaisal]

... that I find disturbing is that especially in these times they still keep men like Bernard de Clairvaux among the saints, the man who was one of the key criminal masterminds responsible for the crusades, an atrocity in the name of God that still haunts us to the present day. When I pick up his documented teachings and writings, I find frightening similarities between him and islamic fundamentalists such as Osama bin Laden, both in rethoric and content. And for those who say the guy is not among the major saints, you are wrong, he IS, including the fact that he is the patron of such exalted institutions like the Queens College in Cambridge, and this is just one of the sickening list of mass murderers and butchers the church lists among its most distinguished figureheads, I could list many more.
Regards,

Ahmed

[blackfox]

And more eloquently stated than when I tried before you. I hope you put me in the same sentence as Krizoitz because I was referring to the Bible(s) and not because you believe I have similar views and opinions as he does :eek: , the contrary is the case, my opinions and views are similar to yours and I actually find it very insulting to get told by certain fundamentalists that just because I do not believe in every word of the scripture in a literal way that I lack faith or that I am a sinner. In fact, this arrogance and self-rightousness they display is a far greater sin, in fact, it is one of the capital sins.
Regards,

Ahmed
Yes Ahmed, you are correct in that I only mentioned you in reference to your mention of the Bibles. Although I am sure you are aware of this point, I will explain this as a postscript to my above post. I do not necessarily believe that Krizoltz (or many other religious souls) are fundamentalists, although I understand your point. There are many people who find their path w/in Organized Religion and are deeply thoughtful people. I focused primarily on the evils I see in Organized religion and the sadness I feel for those who frame their faith as blind alliegance. I have nothing against Religion, indeed I consider myself a spiritual individual. I could comment much the same about Science, or many other things in this world that are not looked at with a critical eye. We are all searching for the Truth both as a species and as individuals. It is a journey that it without end, and without an singular answer, as it comes to each of us in different forms and ways. It is my great dissapointment that we cannot let go of our petty differences and see the myriad ways in which we are the same. For this cooperation and the open-mindedness it requires would aid us each towards these goals. As you correctly stated, Pride is indeed a sin, as it often precludes a healthy willingless to admit you are wrong and to accept ideas fairly on their merit...indeed it is selfish. Yet we are all guilty of it, but it is only those who refuse to admit this conceit who will be doomed to never find the real answers to the questions they seek, because they refuse the effort,sacrifice and pain required by the acknowledgement that we are imperfect and foolish and that the complex, often paradoxical nature of the answers to most of the questions worth asking do not have simple pat answers...as we, and our world are not simple either. Take thy beam out of thine eye...

[Neserk]

That is a typical right wing strategy. You aren't a real (fill in the blank) if you vote in favor of/against issue (fill in the blank).

I think God has a special place for people who use their religion to try and influence politics. And it ain't pretty!

[Krizoitz]

Blackfox,
You're description of the physical process of writing down the Bible is interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that if God had a hand in writing it he could easily have done so. Also you claim that mistranslations, etc, could have occured. Possibly, but who is to say that these weren't part of God's plan? Those arguments might make it a little harder to claim a literal interpretation but to those who believe in the Bible, we also believe that its not just some old book, but it is a living testament that we today are part of. I understand that to many people its an interesting book, just like lots of other scriptures from other religions. But to those of us who do believe we don't believe because it can be proven that it was written by God, we believe because of our faith.

You go on to claim that the reason that there is Church doctorine is to oppress and control, and there are times where certain people abuse their power, no one will question that, but just like a teacher or a parent sets down rules, so does the church. The intent isn't to control so much as to guide.

Also the reason Catholics believe that the Church has the ability to set forth guidelines is because that we believe that the Pope is the direct succesor to Peter whom Jesus gave such power. I'm not saying you have to believe this but it is what we believe.

I also feel its important to mention that the churches leaders aren't perfect they are humans just like we are. Being of faith doesn't mean you have all the answers, thats why it is refered to as a faith JOURNEY.

Having said that I believe that this particular Bishop has made such a mistake. Obviously it is unfortunate to have to vote for a candidate who supports a view the church doesn't, but Bush isn't exactly a saint either. I think most in the Church realize there is a difference between supporting a candidate and supporting ALL his views.

[Krizoitz]

My facts are coming from the church, and I suspect yours are too.

I suppose, though, that no one is right but you. It appears that no one else has had a true religious experience because they don't agree with yours.

You claimed that Catholics believe that the Pope is equal to God, and this is absolutely not true. I may not know everything and I have never claimed to, but I do know many things about my church and that is one of them.

[skunk]

You claimed that Catholics believe that the Pope is equal to God, and this is absolutely not true. I may not know everything and I have never claimed to, but I do know many things about my church and that is one of them.
For the sake of accuracy, look at the heritage of the title. Pontifex Maximus = High Priest of pre-Christian Rome (literally: bridgemaker). This is not the designation of a god, but his/her representative.

[Skilz34]

Blackfox,
You're description of the physical process of writing down the Bible is interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that if God had a hand in writing it he could easily have done so. Also you claim that mistranslations, etc, could have occured. Possibly, but who is to say that these weren't part of God's plan? Those arguments might make it a little harder to claim a literal interpretation but to those who believe in the Bible, we also believe that its not just some old book, but it is a living testament that we today are part of. I understand that to many people its an interesting book, just like lots of other scriptures from other religions. But to those of us who do believe we don't believe because it can be proven that it was written by God, we believe because of our faith.

You go on to claim that the reason that there is Church doctorine is to oppress and control, and there are times where certain people abuse their power, no one will question that, but just like a teacher or a parent sets down rules, so does the church. The intent isn't to control so much as to guide.

Also the reason Catholics believe that the Church has the ability to set forth guidelines is because that we believe that the Pope is the direct succesor to Peter whom Jesus gave such power. I'm not saying you have to believe this but it is what we believe.

I also feel its important to mention that the churches leaders aren't perfect they are humans just like we are. Being of faith doesn't mean you have all the answers, thats why it is refered to as a faith JOURNEY.

Having said that I believe that this particular Bishop has made such a mistake. Obviously it is unfortunate to have to vote for a candidate who supports a view the church doesn't, but Bush isn't exactly a saint either. I think most in the Church realize there is a difference between supporting a candidate and supporting ALL his views.

Did Peter Have The Primacy? (taken from http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/peteprim.htm)

There is little doubt that Peter was a very important and influential figure in the early Christian church. He was one of The Lord's apostles, as ultimately chosen directly by The Father (Matthew 20:23). He, along with the others, spent years learning and traveling with Jesus. It was courageous Peter who single-handedly attempted to defend The Lord from the mob That Fateful Night. Peter would have been a good and loyal friend for anyone.
Peter's bold and impetuous personality often made him the first to step into a situation, and the first to speak. The Lord's answers to the other apostles' questions, as recorded in the Bible, were often directed toward the very forward Peter for this reason.

But, did Jesus Christ actually appoint Peter over the other apostles? And more importantly, was the Christian church founded on Peter, or on Jesus Christ? What does The Bible really say about it?

Let's take a close look at all of the pieces of the picture -


When John and James' mother asked Jesus to place her two sons in a high position, and the other ten apostles "became indignant about it" (Matthew 20:24), The Lord's response was -
"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you." (Matthew 20:25-26)

The apostles would be given great positions of responsibility, as we shall see below, but not over each other.


In the famous "keys to the Kingdom" verse, although Peter was the first to speak up, The Lord was talking to all of the twelve disciples gathered there before Him -
"I will give you [plural] the keys to the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Then He warned His disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Christ (Matthew 16:19-20).

Once again, as we shall see below, Jesus stated that the apostles would be given tremendous authority, but not over each other.


Peter's name Cephas meant a small rock, but Jesus throughout The Bible, past (see Rock Of Ages) and future (see The Kingdom of God) is referred to as The Rock -
"On this Rock I will build My church" (Matthew 16:18)

The Rock on which the Christian church would be built on is Jesus Christ. That is what the events of the entire Bible lead to, or away from. What mere sinful human could ever take the place of The Son of God?


Peter never exalted himself over the other apostles before Christ's Crucifixion, and later, after Jesus' Resurrection when the church was becoming popularly established, he remained a very prominent, but humble servant of God -
"As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself." (Acts 10:25-26).

So just what was, and will, be the role of Peter and the other apostles? The answers are plainly found in your Bible -


Jesus Christ stated very clearly the future office of Peter and the other 11 apostles -
"You are those who have stood by Me in My trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as My Father conferred one on Me, so that you may eat and drink at My Table in My Kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Luke 22:28-30)

Each of the apostles will rule over individual tribes of Israel - 12 apostles for 12 tribes.


Which tribe will Peter rule over? The apostle Paul answered that question for us -
"They saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, Who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles". (Galatians 2:7-8)


And so what of the future? In the new Jerusalem we read -
"And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." (Revelation 21:10-14)


And just where did the tradition of "Peter at the pearly gates" come from? In further describing the above new Jerusalem, of which Peter will be one of the twelve foundations, and will have charge of one of the twelve gates, we read -
"The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl." (Revelation 21:21)

[Neserk]

Why do people give their moms cards and gifts on Mother's day? If you love your mom as much as you pretend to and you truly do things to help her, she will love you without requiring you to get her a card and/or gift.


A mix of not wanting to disappoint her and because I love her. But I think that is shown on a regular basis, not just once a month.


It is called respect and love. In both cases, we don't do it because we have to, but because we want to. Anyone who goes to church thinking it will make God love them more or get them to Heaven, doesn't understand what church is for.

No, most people go to church because they feel guilty for not going. I stopped going because I wanted to (and went because I had to)when I was about 17. I quit going period when I was about 25. But I still feel guilty for not going on Sunday. Why? Because I've been ingrained with the idea that that is where I should be on Sunday :rolleyes: That is true for many.

[Neserk]

Does the Bible tell you who to vote for?

Indirectly. And Bush is definately NOT who it told people to vote for in the 2000 election (not that who we voted for actually mattered).