Howdy men.

[Admiral Odin]

In my opnion Keyan you place to much faith in the early christians, I do not know if that is right or wrong. I personally don't place that much faith in them. Here is why.

 

 

Christmas was created not only to honor the birth of Christ but to keep peace in the Roman Empire and with an emphsise on keeping the peace first, (I forger which emperor did that).

 

Early Christians committed some of the worst sins. The church has tortured, and burned people in the name of Christ, and because of heresay.

 

The Church was consummed by, secular power. The middle ages saw the height of this power, but the church has yet to cast the chains of worldly power.

 

The Crusades, the inquistion, selling "tickets to heaven" where if you bought them you are guarented to go to heaven. (can't think of the name).

 

This current scandal, because you know if it is happening today, it happened as far back as people can remember.

 

Nuns who can beat a child, and still be considered holy.

 

The church is not a creation of god but that of man. Men run it and men make mistakes. The Pope, is the highest in the church, but does that mean he is closer to god, then you or me? I don't think so. As far as what Gunner did many people do to their pets. Does that mean all of them are commiting a sin? No, even though it goes against the nature's order. Humans are animals, given a superior species but we are still animals.

 

I believe that God does not care that Gunner, or if anyone else gets that surgery. God only cares if we lead good lives. If Gunner were to kill somebody it would be a different story, but nowhere in the ten commandments does it say "Thou shall have only unprotected sex."

 

And face it whether it was hundreds of years ago, or today people have sex not to have children, but because it is fun. (Given that there are many exceptions). You really think that in the middle ages people only had sex to concieve children? No they did it for fun, the kids were a benfite for some, but it was the fun that made sex popular.

 

That and preventing pregnancy has been done before condoms, or surgery. It was effective to a degree.

[edlib]

... selling "tickets to heaven" where if you bought them you are guarented to go to heaven. (can't think of the name).

 

"Indulgences"

 

They are what inspired Martin Luther to work and started the Protestant reformation.

[Ikhnaton]

Admiral, could you possibly be any more of a regurgitator of exaggerated propoganda?

 

 

the problem with indulgences is not that they exist, for they do. In the earlier days of the church, certain actions had certain amounts of indulgence time attached to them, if the other requirements were met. One of these actions is almsgiving, i.e. the giving of money to the church and/or to the poor. However, this practice started to be abused, where bishops would basically tell the richest members of the community that they needed to give a whole lot of money and then they would be assured of salvation. THAT was the problem of the indulgences. It has been long taken care of.

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Admiral

In my opnion Keyan you place to much faith in the early christians, I do not know if that is right or wrong. I personally don't place that much faith in them. Here is why.

 

I do because these were the men who knew Christ first hand (and second and third hand too). Of all men, they should have known best what he taught and intended them to pass on. For Jesus to have left them with wrong ideas about that means that he made a mistake. That is impossible, if he truly was God.

 

Nuns who can beat a child, and still be considered holy.

 

The church is not a creation of god but that of man. Men run it and men make mistakes. The Pope, is the highest in the church, but does that mean he is closer to god, then you or me? I don't think so.

 

The Church is not a creation of man, but of God. Christ himself created it. It is the pure and perfect bride of Christ. Christ celebrated the first Mass at the last supper. Christ ordained the first bishops when he commanded the apostles to repeat that act. It was Christ that gave Peter the keys to heaven and promised that whatever he bound on earth, God would bind in heaven. And it was Christ that gave his promise that the power of hell would never overcome his Church. The pope may be an evil man, but he will never be able to teach in error because of that promise. The bishops may do evil things, but they do not represent the Church when they do, but only themselves. This is recorded in Scripture and in history.

 

As far as what Gunner did many people do to their pets. Does that mean all of them are commiting a sin? No, even though it goes against the nature's order. Humans are animals, given a superior species but we are still animals.

 

But we are special animals. Man is the only animal with a soul, created in the image of the Creator. Every sexual act between humans is a holy thing, because trasmission of that sacred state occurs. A man and women cooperate with God to produce a new life, a new image of God - another Christ, in a way. Not so with animals. Their sexual acts do not serve this holy purpose.

 

I believe that God does not care that Gunner, or if anyone else gets that surgery. God only cares if we lead good lives. If Gunner were to kill somebody it would be a different story, but nowhere in the ten commandments does it say "Thou shall have only unprotected sex."

 

Nor do the Ten Commandments say that beating someone up is wrong. But it is. The spirit of the commandment that tells us not to kill also tells us not to cause physical harm to our fellow man. In the same way, the commandment that tells us not to commit adultery tells us that it is wrong to use our sexual faculties for purposes other than what God intended. That may not be obvious to you, so think of it this way. Not everything we can do that is wrong is spelled out exactly in the Ten Commandments. But sexual morallity is made very clear in Scripture. Fornication, for example, is not directly forbidden in the Ten Commandments, but it is shown to be wrong elsewhere.

 

What GUNNER has done is every bit as wrong as murder, and is certainly worthy of hell. GUNNER himself, not being aware of this, cannot be faulted for it, mind you. After all, one cannot commit a mortal sin if he is unaware that it is a grave matter. But just because GUNNER is off the hook, so to speak, does not mean that what he did was OK. As always, it is not for us to decide what should be right and wrong - rather, we must turn to God and do his will and accept what he has commanded us to do, either directly or through his representatives on Earth, even though we may not always understand why. I have no doubt that GUNNER and many others felt they were doing exactly that when they sterilized themselves. But although they have honorable intentions, they have made a mistake, and we must help others to not make this same mistake - for them and for all the people who will never look into the face of God because they will never be born.

 

And face it whether it was hundreds of years ago, or today people have sex not to have children, but because it is fun. (Given that there are many exceptions). You really think that in the middle ages people only had sex to concieve children? No they did it for fun, the kids were a benfite for some, but it was the fun that made sex popular.

 

That and preventing pregnancy has been done before condoms, or surgery. It was effective to a degree.

 

You misunderstand, my friend! Sex is not made only for procreation. The unitive aspect is also very important. In that, man and wife grow closer together, show their trust and love for one another, and help eachother get to heaven. The principle is not that sex is just for procreation, but that it is not man's place to remove one of God's purposes in creating sex. It is not for the clay to decide the shape of the bowl - the clay must allow itself to be shaped by the potter.

[Ikhnaton]

Keyan, my friend, i know we're on the same side, but you gotta be careful about calling someone's actions wrong. What GUNNER did is wrong for us Catholics to do, and possibly other religions, at least Christian. Objectively, yes, we can say it is wrong, but we can't say he did wrong.

 

I dont' want to fall into moral subjectivism, but at the same time, if someone never knew nor held the belief that contraception is objectively wrong, then how can they be guilty of sin?

 

I just don't want people thinking of Catholics as being judgemental. But otherwise, you're doing a fine job

[Zargon]

Keyan, the main problem I have with my church that I stopped attending, and many other churches is simple. The bible is obviosuly very very open to interpretation. What was originally written has since been lost forever by those who copied that word, and edited the bible for their own views. We can NEVER know exactly what happened and what was said becuase of this, and many churches simply refuse to accpet that it is now not straight from gods mouth, but has been skewed and altered by man. The basis for the Catholic Church is subject to this same scrutiny, and they have obvisouly made many many mistakes in their history, as men do. I do not hold the Catholic Church to godly standards for that exact reason, you know what mistakes I would use as the most obvious examples(ie. the holocaust and refusal to help the jewish race, but I wont go into b/c i have a very surface knowledge of it.). Now I am not stupid enough to say that only your church makes mistakes. As Victor Frankl, a jewish auhor and holocaust survivior wrote about a Lutheran prist in Germany whose house was on one side of a concentration camp he wa sin fo a while, and his church on the other. He walked through the camp everyday saying NOTHNG about what was happening in that camp, and testafied in court he saw nothing wrong going on the camp at the Nurembourg trials. My own mother referred to my brothers house as the "house of sin" when he and his fiance moved into together 2 months before they got married as there lease started then, they even slept in different bedrooms. She also accused me fo gross immorality when my extremely ill girlfriend(who could not sit up withou my aid) slept at my apartament so I could take care of her and wake her up every 3 hours for more medication. I was told I wa sbeing immoral and bad, and asked "whet will people think?" Her very first response was "god". The subjectivity of most churches(I have met amany people like and worse than my mother before) is what turns me off to them and keeps me from going, that and they all hav a tendency to gossip like HS girls, which is a sin, and is just as sserious a sin as adultery mind you. Do I still believe that god is the one true god of heaven and that christ is our saviour, yes! Do I believe that I have to go to church weekly, tithe, pray often, sing praise songs(which I hate, I like hyms) and hob nob at chruch to get to heaven. Of course not, do I believe that GUNNER did anything wrong at all, of course not.

 

One thing I did notice tho, is that you make the assumption that everyone here believes in heaven as a asis for your arguments, if I did not believe in heaven, it wouldnt matter much to me. The ne problem I have with Job, is tha tgod made an example of him. The resoning that, it will be made up for later is not a good reason to me to put someone through intolerable and 'unjust' pain an suffereing, just to show up Lucifer. I do however respect someone that has such strong faith and beliefs, and can talk about it with skeptics without shoving it down their throats, as people in my familyand church tend to do.

[Ikhnaton]

Zarg, what proof do you have that the bible was edited to suit anyone's purposes? The only recorded history i know of anyone editing the bible was Martin Luther, who removed certain books from the bible and actually added the word "alone" to one of Paul's books. Then of course the King James Version is translated in such a way to give credence to protestant views.

 

However, if you look at a translation such as the Douay-Rheims, they have found that it matches up with such ancient texts as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Rylands Papyrus. There is more evidence to support the fact that the Bible hasn't changed than that it has changed.

 

also, Zarg, in any religion, you're going to find those who are uppity and think they are holier-than-thou. It is human pride, a human mistake. Religion doesn't take that away. You have to use the tools that your faith and religious education gives you to overcome these vices. I can understand how people can get turned off from religion because of this, but the truth is, you have to look at the teachings themselves, not at the people. people make mistakes and sin, but the teachings remain the same. You need to worry about you, not what others think of you.

[Zargon]

watch the history channel, people of every sect that re copied the bible are known to have taken liberties with it, and you take what was the said the way you want to, and then rewrite in the new translation that way. Latin doesnt go straight to english...or french, or anything, so it has to be done. There is no way in hell(or heaven) that todays bible is identical to the 'orignal bibles' of way back when

[Ikhnaton]

but it does match up with the scripts i just mentioned.

[Admiral Odin]

Ike

 

You don't dispute it, although I do not know much about how indulgences were established, I do know that they were sold and that I beleive is wrong. I do not believe that if you do a certain number of deeds that you can go directly to heaven. It sounds to much like do one bad deed, then do one good deed and they cancel each other out.

 

What is a worse sin, to bring a child into the world that is unwanted or to have surgery? I say the first one.

 

Keyan, you did say that the bible did not give many solid do's and don'ts. It is a guide, and who can say which interpetation is correct. The Gospels even have some errors in, each not exactly matching with the other. I have a hard time putting my absolute faith in it, until I see gospels written by christ. If memory serves, the church has covered alleged Gospels of Christ. I don't remember much about this.

 

I'm sorry Keyan, but Bishops and the other clergymen at all times represant the church. They do not suddenly stop representing the church when they do an evil act. It is sad but true, and do not forget that the church has hushed up those acts in the past.

 

Oh, and by the way I am Roman Catholic, I believe in God, Christ, and the scriptures. I only interprate them differently and I have some problems with the church, luckly I will not be burned at the stake because of this.(also I'm enjoying this converstation, very interesting)

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Ikhnaton

Keyan, my friend, i know we're on the same side, but you gotta be careful about calling someone's actions wrong. What GUNNER did is wrong for us Catholics to do, and possibly other religions, at least Christian. Objectively, yes, we can say it is wrong, but we can't say he did wrong.

 

I dont' want to fall into moral subjectivism, but at the same time, if someone never knew nor held the belief that contraception is objectively wrong, then how can they be guilty of sin?

 

I just don't want people thinking of Catholics as being judgemental. But otherwise, you're doing a fine job

 

Wha? I had a whole paragraph there explaining that GUNNER could not be guilty of any wrong-doing because he was not aware of its being wrong. Believe me, I would not use such harsh terms if I didn't make it clear that I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. GUNNER's my buddy, and I wouldn't want him or anyone else to be offended or feel as if they are under attack.

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Admiral

Ike

 

You don't dispute it, although I do not know much about how indulgences were established, I do know that they were sold and that I beleive is wrong. I do not believe that if you do a certain number of deeds that you can go directly to heaven. It sounds to much like do one bad deed, then do one good deed and they cancel each other out.

 

What is a worse sin, to bring a child into the world that is unwanted or to have surgery? I say the first one.

 

That's just it - that's not for you to decide.

 

Keyan, you did say that the bible did not give many solid do's and don'ts. It is a guide, and who can say which interpetation is correct. The Gospels even have some errors in, each not exactly matching with the other. I have a hard time putting my absolute faith in it, until I see gospels written by christ. If memory serves, the church has covered alleged Gospels of Christ. I don't remember much about this.

 

I don't believe there is any reason to think that Christ himself ever wrote anything. I may be wrong about that, but I do remember reading it somewhere, so I'm not sure. And the Gospels do have things that don't match up - but never in matters of faith and morals, which is all we can be certain of. The Bible is not a history book or a science book, and we cannot be certain that there are not some errors on exact place names, etc. The only thing that the Church teaches about the Bible is that it teaches the truths on matters faith and morals that God willed to be written down. There is nothing in the Bible that says everything we need to know is written in it. In fact, it says just the opposite.

 

I'm sorry Keyan, but Bishops and the other clergymen at all times represant the church. They do not suddenly stop representing the church when they do an evil act. It is sad but true, and do not forget that the church has hushed up those acts in the past.

 

You must see the distiction between the Church and its members. The Church is the mystical body of Christ. It is perfect. Its members are far from it. When a man sins, be he clergy or laity, he is not representing the Church in any way. He is representing that evil that he chose for himself. When a man does evil, he does not make the Church evil. Take that whole fiasco with Bill Clinton. He did an evil thing, but that doesn't make the whole country evil or even the just the Presidency evil. It means that Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton alone did something wrong.

 

Oh, and by the way I am Roman Catholic, I believe in God, Christ, and the scriptures. I only interprate them differently and I have some problems with the church, luckly I will not be burned at the stake because of this.(also I'm enjoying this converstation, very interesting)

 

Yes, I remember you are Catholic, and that's why I am speaking to you on Catholic terms. You must realize as a Catholic, that you can't just take what you want from the religion and leave the rest. You have to accept it all, or you are really not accepting anything. This does not mean you condone the wrongdoings by clergy, but it does mean you must keep it in perspective.

 

You say you interpret the scriptures differently. But as a Catholic, you must realize that you have no authority to interpret scriptures on your own. And lets be honest - are you really qualified to do so? Are any of us here? We should leave that to the men who devote their entire lives to its study.

[Admiral Odin]

It is for me to decide, it is for each one of use to decide, that is why we have free will. Why do you think that it is not for me or anyone else to decide?

 

All I remember is there was supposedly some Gospels that Christ wrote, that is all I know about it. However it doesn't stop the fact that the Church does on occasions hush things up.

 

 

There is nothing in the Bible that says everything we need to know is written in it. In fact, it says just the opposite.

 

Then how can you say what Gunner did was a sin? It was never writtened, only men not the Lord have said it was a sin. There is a possiblity that they were wrong.

 

You must see the distiction between the Church and its members

 

I see the clergy and the Church closely tied. The clergy are supposed to be holy, and close to God. They take vows and if the break those vows it reflects upon the church, and themselves. If the church doesn't punish them for those actions then they may as well condone those acts. Keep in mind that I see the church as an institution of Man, not of God. For me church is a place of worship, but it doesn't mean that it is the only place of worship. Also the church can be wrong, and is wrong on some items.

 

I believe in the essence of being a catholic. The bible for me is a guide on how to live a good life, the Clergy are guidesmen. I believe that leading a good life will get me into heaven, and if God is merciful and caring as I believe he is then I don't see how I or anyone can be damned for not following the church exactly.

 

But getting back to the topic of the surgery. I get that you believe that Gunner mutilated himself for going against nature. Then isn't each and every surgery a person has a mutliation of the body and a sin? Please tell me if I messed up what you were saying.

[Redwing]

Originally posted by Keyan Farlander

Yes, I remember you are Catholic, and that's why I am speaking to you on Catholic terms. You must realize as a Catholic, that you can't just take what you want from the religion and leave the rest. You have to accept it all, or you are really not accepting anything. This does not mean you condone the wrongdoings by clergy, but it does mean you must keep it in perspective.

 

You say you interpret the scriptures differently. But as a Catholic, you must realize that you have no authority to interpret scriptures on your own. And lets be honest - are you really qualified to do so? Are any of us here? We should leave that to the men who devote their entire lives to its study.

 

This summarizes my entire problem with Catholicism. I don't think my input is needed further here.

[GUNNER]

Dang guys ! You guys are on a roll. I started a post last week and after about the 30th line I got an error and it dumped my IE. So needless to say I never reposted it.

 

Keyan, I know you are not meaning to make me out to look like a big time sinner but I was feeling a like bad there till I saw your last post.

 

I in no way feel like I did a huge error in GODs eyes but it sounds like you and me, and a few other, interpet the bible differently.

 

As far as I know. In the bible GOD tells us to put him to the test when it comes to our finances. And to lean only on him to provide for us. I have never seen where it say to have sex at will and he will keep an eye on our family size.

 

Tell you what though, this thing has me so intruged let me ask my pastor what he thinks.

[Redwing]

Originally posted by GUNNER

Dang guys ! You guys are on a roll.

 

Aren't we always?

 

Hey we miss you on RS.net...*tugs sleeve* Post there? Pleeaase?

[Zargon]

Originally posted by GUNNER

it sounds like you and me, and a few other, interpet the bible differently.

 

Well thats perfectly fine GUNNER, thats what its all about. Why else would there be so many denominations out there if it wasn't up for interpretation. A guy in my dorm went to a chruch that belive that premarital co-habitation and sex are OK, if you ARE in fact going to get married, and thats its the final test of your relationship before marraige, and this was all scripturally based.

 

Keyan, I think its pretty impossible to not judge the chruch(especailly on as infamous as the catholic church) on its members. After all, are they not the ones that acutally make up the church? Ones clergy are held to the highest standards, as they should be. This is an area where the catholic chruch has alos suffered greatly, especially recently. If ones members do not define the chruch, and ones leaders do not define the church, then what? You cannot base your judgement on ones theoretical practices, if they are in fact not practiced.

 

I am not saying that I have spent my whole life deeply studying the bible, nor have i devoted large amounts of time philosophically breaking it down. But how am I not qualified to interprete what I read in the bible? Would God not give me the power to interpret his message? Why would he make it so that only someone that has dumped thousands of dollars and years of his life qalified to do so? That's preposterous to me, hes is all of ours God, when Jesus spent his life on earth, who did he spend his time with? Prostitutes, tax collectors, poor fisherman, and other trash of the time. Those are today's drug dealors, used car salesmen, hookers, pimps, and gangbangers. So why would god only cater to the clergy then? The Pope in my opinion has no more power or authority from God than I do, and thats my interpretation. You give him that authority over you because you intreprete that to be right. how does this make either of us wrong?

 

btw: Keyan, I do no ttink that you are stupid b/c of your views and am not trying to belittle you, you have more faith than anyone I know, and I respect that.

[Ikhnaton]

Admiral, in regards to a child that is not wanted, all I can say is that every child is wanted. It may not be wanted by it's biological parents, but every child is wanted by someone. And who is to say that this child may not have a full and happy life even if it is not wanted? pre-determining a child's life as being bad before it is even born or conceived is playing God.

[Rebel Loyaltist]

My grandfather once told me "never discuss religion or politics, you'll go in circles" Well my grandgfather never posted at XWA.Net!

 

First I would like to do what these thread was originally about. Yo Gunman how it been hangin? It been tight? Then do ya thand playa do ya thang.( 1 0\/\/ /\/ joo 411 1/\/ kool talk )

 

Now to the current subject. I've read the topic and have a few to say.

 

KF I remember you saying that Protestantism isn't what Christ intended for man. But who is to determine that? Man? Man is far from perfect and could never determine what he wanted for us. If we could then we all be perfect.

 

You also said that the disciples would know first hand what Jesus wanted us to do. But how is this so? Each one of them interepted Jesus in a different way. Remember Judas thought that Jesus actually meant a royal kingdom on earth (like the Roman's kingdom) and got fed up with Jesus. We know the rest of the story.

 

Also you said that the early church banned protective sex because it was immoral. Even though I don't think it's immoral I would like to believe you when you said that the church banned it because it was immoral. But the truth is people don't always tell the truth. They might have had their own selfish reasons for it. Now I don't know what their reasons were for banning it ,wether it be good or bad, but we will never know their true intentions.

 

You also said that what Gunner did was worthy of hell but because he didn't know it he's off the hook? Can the same be said about Hitler of bin Laden? Both have killed lots of people but they thought what their were doing was right! So are they off the hook too?

 

You also said (I know it may seem that I'm picking on you a lot but bear with me I'm almost done ) somthing about God letting the church believe in artifical contraception was bad for two millennia. First times changes people's mind about things change. Vatican II is a good example. Second God gave us free will to do things. It's up to the person to decide what they do with it.

 

You also said that masturbation is wrong. I really don't understand why think so but maybe you can explain to me. If you're going to say that it gives sexual pleasure when you be waiting to be married and have sex. Their is also another reason. It also allows the person with release semen from the body without having sex. The only other way to release semen with sex is a wet dream which leaves a nasty mess

 

You also said something about the bishops not representing the church when they do bad things. Now I wish whole heartedly that this true I really do. But the thing is some people see something bad with one aspect of something and think that everything relating to that aspect is like that. I hate sterotyping I really do.

 

And finally I don't think getting a vasectomy is bad. Would it have been bad for Hitlers dad to get vasectomy?

 

We may have different ways of interpeting to Bible but we are all Christians. We all share the basic beliefs in the end we'll be happy in heaven (hopefully)

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Admiral

It is for me to decide, it is for each one of use to decide, that is why we have free will. Why do you think that it is not for me or anyone else to decide?

 

As I explained, free will does not mean you get to decide what is right and wrong, it means you have the freedom to choose between right and wrong. Do you have the right to decide if murder is wrong or if theft is wrong?

 

Then how can you say what Gunner did was a sin? It was never writtened, only men not the Lord have said it was a sin. There is a possiblity that they were wrong.

 

First of all, I never said GUNNER sinned. I even said that one cannot commit a mortal sin without being aware that it is gravely wrong.

 

But if the Church teaches something, it CANNOT be wrong. Christ gave Peter the keys to heaven and promised that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven and that the Church would never be overcome by the power of hell. This is what God promised. Peter had the authority, and that that authority has been passed down in an unbroken line all the way to John Paul II. Note that this authority and certainty is only on teachings about FAITH and MORALS.

 

I believe in the essence of being a catholic. The bible for me is a guide on how to live a good life, the Clergy are guidesmen. I believe that leading a good life will get me into heaven, and if God is merciful and caring as I believe he is then I don't see how I or anyone can be damned for not following the church exactly.

 

That is not the essence of being Catholic, that is the essence of being Protestant! Remember, the Catholic Church predates the Bible by a considerable amount of time. What were the Christians supposed to be doing before we had a Scriptural cannon? What was their guide?

 

And they may not be damned for not following the Church exactly - though they will if they know that they must. There are non-Catholic Christians and indeed non-Christians who will be in heaven, I am sure, but their salvation still was achieved through the Catholic Church (by Christ's sacrifice), even if they had never heard of it or realized it. (Anyone wishing to debate this, keep in mind that I am not making an argument here, I am talking to Admiral Catholic to Catholic about Catholic teachings.)

 

But getting back to the topic of the surgery. I get that you believe that Gunner mutilated himself for going against nature. Then isn't each and every surgery a person has a mutliation of the body and a sin? Please tell me if I messed up what you were saying.

 

Not "nature." "The Natural Law." Having heart surgery, for example, does not violate the Natural Law in any way. Indeed, you are supporting it by allowing the heart to again function as it was intended. Also remember that procreation is a very sacred thing, since it involves man's cooperation with God in creating new life. In a way, you are telling God to "keep out." This is because God infuses the new human being with a soul at the instant the sperm and egg combine. You put up a physical barrier to stop the sperm and egg from coming together, and you put up a physical barrier keeping God out.

[Zargon]

due to my lack of enthusiam for being told that we cannot be right unless we follow cathlic doctrines over and over, I am dropping out of this conversation.

[Keyan Farlander]

I said that Catholics cannot be right without following Catholic doctrine. But it should be obvious to everyone that right and wrong is not something that you get to make up on your own.

[edlib]

I think that ultimately the question comes down to whether or not you believe the Catholic church is the absolute spiritual authority in the universe.

 

Personally, I don't.

 

While I have nothing against Catholics or the Catholic faith, I just don't believe it is the sole administration of Christian Spirituality.

 

Obviously Keyan (and Ike), you honestly do, (and I commend you both on the strength of your faith and the obvious knowledge of the teachings of your beliefs,) and just as obviously, many of the rest of us do not.

While you have made all your points strongly and with true conviction, nothing written here has swayed my views one iota, and I doubt it ever will. I'm sure it's the same for everyone else on both sides of the discussion.

[Keyan Farlander]

That's not what the question boils down to. If so, I wouldn't have said anything at all.

 

...and if it hasn't even swayed you a little, you haven't faced the hard questions. So far, I've posted some tough questions, but nobody has even tried to answer them.

[Admiral Odin]

Keyan, but man does determine right and wrong.

 

For instance not all theft is wrong. For example a man who steals bread for his family because he lacks income hasn't done anything wrong. However if this man were to steal say jewels the obviously he did do wrong.

 

Killing is wrong correct? Well yes it is, however unless that killing is done for say a holy crusade, or perhaps killing the enemy in a war (not like the holocaust) it is considered necessary and well right. People may not like it but the do accept it, or the burning of heretics was also codoned by the church.

 

Right and wrong, is not predetermined, and clear cut. It is based upon the cituations the act is commited. To lie to a friend and tell them something to bost their spirist is not wrong, even though lieing is. Everything in our society determines what is considered right and wrong not just our religion. Besides the obviouse cases, many acts are not black and white, but in a grey area.

 

It comes down to that each person themselves must determine what is right and wrong.