Voting for Obama a Sin?

[Jilly]

http://www.kmbc.com/video/17995689/index.html

I don't know how to embed a video?

[Mr. Kotter]

Interesting how a story like this warrants more coverage than Gay activists disrupting a church service.

[Brock]

Interesting how a story like this warrants more coverage than Gay activists disrupting a church service.

It helps when there are things like video and facts.

[Mr. Kotter]

It helps when there are things like video and facts.

Gosh, you mean the media sent out, or in this case...the group wishing to make a public spectacle video-taped their antics?

Gosh, I'm shocked BashBack didn't distribute their incident, the media didn't cover that much less newsworthy story than this one about some silly church putting some stupid message on their "own sign."

Shocked, I tell you.

[Jilly]

Listen here, misters...there's already a thread for your shenanigans!

[Mr. Kotter]

Listen here, misters...there's already a thread for your shenanigans!

Honestly, how THIS is newsworthy....and the other is, somehow, not....speaks volumes.

:shake:

[Pitt Gorilla]

Wichita - FTW!

[Jilly]

Honestly, how THIS is newsworthy....and the other is, somehow, not....speaks volumes.

:shake:

I think it's newsworthy because I'm not sure what gives a church the right to lie

[MagicHef]

I think it's newsworthy because I'm not sure what gives a church the right to lie

I can't see the video, but from what I've read, I don't think I agree at all with what this church is doing, but I'm pretty sure everyone in this country has the right to lie, unless they are under oath.

[HolmeZz]

I think it's newsworthy because I'm not sure what gives a church the right to lie

Yeah, it's not like religion has gotten where it is today based on lies, deception, and falsehoods. ;)

[Saggysack]

Spirit One has been known as the wacko Christian group in Wichita for years. They are presently being investigated by the IRS on their tax exempt status for the politcal statements they have made over the years. They are one step beneath Fred Phelps.

[Dave Lane]

Yeah, it's not like religion has gotten where it is today based on lies, deception, and falsehoods. ;)

End of thread.

[Laz]

Interesting how a story like this warrants more coverage than Gay activists disrupting a church service.

don't yoU mean "Terrorize"? :spock:


Gay Activists Terrorize Church in Michigan (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196857)

[FishingRod]

Terrorize

Maybe I'm a homophobe and didn't know it but, I just keep getting this vision of a bunch of Gay guys flitting about, insulting some crusty woman's fashion sense and giving them a new hairdo.

[Carlota69]

Terrorize

Maybe I'm a homophobe and didn't know it but, I just keep getting this vision of a bunch of Gay guys flitting about, insulting some crusty woman's fashion sense and giving them a new hairdo.

And the lesbians giving everyone tips on how to do oil changes and drop a Tranny in a Ford F-150.

[FishingRod]

The two guys that did the movie reviews on In Living color come to mind.

"Hated it"

[SHTSPRAYER]

The two guys that did the movie reviews on In Living color come to mind.

"Hated it"

Men on men.

:clap:

ROFL

[banyon]

Gosh, you mean the media sent out, or in this case...the group wishing to make a public spectacle video-taped their antics?

Gosh, I'm shocked BashBack didn't distribute their incident, the media didn't cover that much less newsworthy story than this one about some silly church putting some stupid message on their "own sign."

Shocked, I tell you.

It's a conspiracy. It's too bad these guys weren't in on it (among others)

http://www.nbc25online.com/images/weyi/NBC25_Masthead_Logo.jpg?h=90

http://www.nbc25online.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=220613

[bango]

And the lesbians giving everyone tips on how to do oil changes and drop a Tranny in a Ford F-150.

I would have thought that Lesbians and Trannies would get along a little bit better than this.

[Mr. Kotter]

End of thread.

Painting with a mighty broad brush, there Dave.

Should we judge all leftist and gay rights folks by the actions of whackjobs too? :shrug:


Sounds fair to me....

:hmmm:

[HolmeZz]

Painting with a mighty broad brush, there Dave.

Should we judge all leftist and gay rights folks by the actions of whackjobs too? :shrug:


Sounds fair to me....

:hmmm:

It's the Christians who are often taking credit for the 'values' this country was founded on. You're asking to be judged by everything this country stood for at that time. You get the good with the bad.

[Ultra Peanut]

Cuz (it's a) sin!

[Mr. Kotter]

It's the Christians who are often taking credit for the 'values' this country was founded on. You're asking to be judged by everything this country stood for at that time. You get the good with the bad.

Then judging others by their good, and their whackjobs, would be fair by your standard too? :shrug:

Well, at least that's consistent....which is more credit than some deserve. :hmmm:

[patteeu]

Ignoring the hijack and returning to the thread topic:

If it's not, it ought to be. :p

[BigRedChief]

With a KC area cathloic bishop saying to vote for Obama is a sin and the Mormons financial backing of the ban of gay marriage we are getting closer to the edge of seperation of church and state.

That bishop has a right to say whatever he wants to. The mormons have a right to pursue their beliefs becoming the law of the land. But, they can't do that and retain their tax-exempt status as a charity/religious organizations.

[Bowser]

With a KC area cathloic bishop saying to vote for Obama is a sin and the Mormons financial backing of the ban of gay marriage we are getting closer to the edge of seperation of church and state.

That bishop has a right to say whatever he wants to. The mormons have a right to pursue their beliefs becoming the law of the land. But, they can't do that and retain their tax-exempt status as a charity/religious organizations.

I agree, but it will be a long time before we ever see that happen, if at all.

[Jilly]

I have an honest question....being a pastor, I refrained from talking about who I was voting for to my congregation, I only addressed the election in terms of where your priorities are as a Christian (for instance, Jesus' main teachings were to love, feed the poor, heal the sick etc.) and so when going to vote we should vote with those values in mind, etc. After the election, I preached a sermon on race relations and the hope of a race now in the election of a black president was something we could feel joy in and feel God's presence in. That now an African American young male can have this role model and know that some of his limitations have been lifted and that as a Christian people who are free in Christ, we can see God's grace in that. I was careful about those who voted for McCain, constantly saying things like, I'm sure many of you are still healing, but I truly hope you can see what good can and has come out of this election, etc.

I don't feel I crossed a line. Some people in my congregation do, others are proud and think I said what needed to be said. What do you think given this very rough sketch of my sermon?

[Sully]

I'm not sure if the tomatoes I threw were a big enough hint...but it sucked.
I guess I need more rotten lettuce to throw next time.

[Brock]

With a KC area cathloic bishop saying to vote for Obama is a sin and the Mormons financial backing of the ban of gay marriage we are getting closer to the edge of seperation of church and state.

That bishop has a right to say whatever he wants to. The mormons have a right to pursue their beliefs becoming the law of the land. But, they can't do that and retain their tax-exempt status as a charity/religious organizations.

Religious organizations have freedom of speech too, deal with it.

[BigRedChief]

Religious organizations have freedom of speech too, deal with it.no they don't. Individuals have freedom of speech.

[Jilly]

I'm not sure if the tomatoes I threw were a big enough hint...but it sucked.
I guess I need more rotten lettuce to throw next time.

oh you

[MagicHef]

What line did they say you crossed? Promoting Obama, or too much politics in general, or something else?

[Brock]

no they don't. Individuals have freedom of speech.

Oh, really? I know of about 10,000 lobbying groups who disagree with you.

[Jilly]

What line did they say you crossed? Promoting Obama, or too much politics in general, or something else?

too political and rubbing salt in the wound of those who voted for McCain

[Mr. Kotter]

no they don't. Individuals have freedom of speech.


Brock is right.

For once.... ;)

[Mr. Kotter]

too political and rubbing salt in the wound of those who voted for McCain

I don't think it's rubbing salt in the wound.....but I do think, based on what you say, that it was crystal clear who you supported, and vicariously, were encouraging them to vote for. In that sense, you probably did the same thing as most pastors did before the election; and most probably said something similar afterward as well.

I don't think you crossed a line, but don't be surprised that others will think that you did. Different individuals and denominations (even congregations) have differing levels of tolerance when it comes to sermons or religious material that has political overtones. If you are comfortable putting yourself out there, good for you; but don't be surprised when others are not comfortable with that.

Personally, I like pastors who take a stand---even if I may personally disagree with them. Having said that, that very quality.....has drawn me to churches and pastors in the past, and driven me away from others. It's a bit of a double-edged sword/catch 22 for you. You've got to decide where the balance is for yourself, I guess.

[MagicHef]

too political and rubbing salt in the wound of those who voted for McCain

If your sermon was as you described it, I think they are simply still healing, as you said. I do find it very interesting how emotionally attached people get to their candidates, who, in all probability, they have never met before. I don't think you necessarily said anything wrong, but I am not surprised at all that there were people upset by your sermon.

[Jilly]

I don't think it's rubbing salt in the wound.....but I do think, based on what you say, that it was crystal clear who you supported, and vicariously, were encouraging them to vote for. In that sense, you probably did the same thing as most pastors did before the election; and most probably said something similar afterward as well.

I don't think you crossed a line, but don't be surprised that others will think that you did. Different individuals and denominations (even congregations) have differing levels of tolerance when it comes to sermons or religious material that has political overtones. If you are comfortable putting yourself out there, good for you; but don't be surprised when others are not comfortable with that.

Personally, I like pastors who take a stand---even if I may personally disagree with them. Having said that, that very quality.....has drawn me to churches and pastors in the past, and driven me away from others. It's a bit of a double-edged sword/catch 22 for you. You've got to decide where the balance is for yourself, I guess.

It is definitely a risk I take and felt the liberty to take after being there 7 years. I'm not surprised by it too much, I think more with who it was that was upset and that's because I felt like they were ones who realized their own responsibility in listening to a sermon and realized a sermon goes both ways. Honestly, I was really going for the reconciliation angle and being of a denomination that one of our major focuses is anti racism and proreconciliation, felt like that message would have been heard with joy, rather then anger. But honestly, I've been there seven years and never made anyone angry to this extent, so...well...in my opinion, sort of makes me feel like I did something right. I don't think the message from the pulpit should always make people comfortable.

[MagicHef]

It is definitely a risk I take and felt the liberty to take after being there 7 years. I'm not surprised by it too much, I think more with who it was that was upset and that's because I felt like they were ones who realized their own responsibility in listening to a sermon and realized a sermon goes both ways. Honestly, I was really going for the reconciliation angle and being of a denomination that one of our major focuses is anti racism and proreconciliation, felt like that message would have been heard with joy, rather then anger. But honestly, I've been there seven years and never made anyone angry to this extent, so...well...in my opinion, sort of makes me feel like I did something right. I don't think the message from the pulpit should always make people comfortable.

In the context of your church, what exactly does this mean?

[Mr. Kotter]

It is definitely a risk I take and felt the liberty to take after being there 7 years. I'm not surprised by it too much, I think more with who it was that was upset and that's because I felt like they were ones who realized their own responsibility in listening to a sermon and realized a sermon goes both ways. Honestly, I was really going for the reconciliation angle and being of a denomination that one of our major focuses is anti racism and proreconciliation, felt like that message would have been heard with joy, rather then anger. But honestly, I've been there seven years and never made anyone angry to this extent, so...well...in my opinion, sort of makes me feel like I did something right. I don't think the message from the pulpit should always make people comfortable.

The problem, in a nutshell, is this: in politics, there is....really, no right or wrong. Period. Right and wrong in politics depends on individual priorities, ideological orientation, and what one thinks is the proper role of government. And contrary to what ideologues say, there is no correct...or right or wrong answer, in that. Such differences are deeply rooted in philosophical and practical differences of opinion that are entirely reasonable and rational.

It can become a divisive issue when one "side" or the other in political alliances, tries to seize the "high ground." This is especially true for pastors and others that folks consider to be (consciously or not) to be what James Q. Wilson calls "opinion leaders." When an opinion leader that someone respects, from the perspective of a member of an audience, articulates a political opinion that is inconsistent with that person's own beliefs there is cognitive dissonance that is discomforting.

Individuals handle such discomfort differently. Some are offended. Some shrug it off as, "well, that's their opinion." The thing with pastors is, insecure folks somehow attribute their pastor's opinion as reflective of what God and the Bible might say on the issue. That may, or may not, be true. If their opinion is inconsistent with the pastor, then they may feel their own values and moral character are being questioned/challenged. When that happens, many people will eventually vote with their feet.

[BigRedChief]

Brock is right.

For once.... ;)
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. The constitution only grants freedom of speech as individuals.

You can ban together in a common cause and have one person speak for the whole group. bt its still individual protection, not groups.

[Brock]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. The constitution only grants freedom of speech as individuals.

You can ban together in a common cause and have one person speak for the whole group. bt its still individual protection, not groups.

You are wrong. The NRA, the Trial Lawyers, the Dairy Producers, etc. are all organizations, and they all have the same freedom of speech that any individual person has.

[Mr. Kotter]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. The constitution only grants freedom of speech as individuals.

You can ban together in a common cause and have one person speak for the whole group. bt its still individual protection, not groups.


Read the Buckley vs.Vallejo decision to see what the Supreme Court says about it.

[Jilly]

The problem, in a nutshell, is this: in politics, there is....really, no right or wrong. Period. Right and wrong in politics depends on individual priorities, ideological orientation, and what one thinks is the proper role of government. And contrary to what ideologues say, there is no correct...or right or wrong answer, in that. Such differences are deeply rooted in philosophical and practical differences of opinion that are entirely reasonable and rational.

It can become a divisive issue when one "side" or the other in political alliances, tries to seize the "high ground." This is especially true for pastors and others that folks consider to be (consciously or not) to be what James Q. Wilson calls "opinion leaders." When an opinion leader that someone respects, from the perspective of a member of an audience, articulates a political opinion that is inconsistent with that person's own beliefs there is cognitive dissonance that is discomforting.

Individuals handle such discomfort differently. Some are offended. Some shrug it off as, "well, that's their opinion." The thing with pastors is, insecure folks somehow attribute their pastor's opinion as reflective of what God and the Bible might say on the issue. That may, or may not, be true. If their opinion is inconsistent with the pastor, then they may feel their own values and moral character are being questioned/challenged. When that happens, many people will eventually vote with their feet.


Great insight, thank you.

[BigRedChief]

You are wrong. The NRA, the Trial Lawyers, the Dairy Producers, etc. are all organizations, and they all have the same freedom of speech that any individual person has.
Again maybe we are splitting hairs.

Trial laywers and Dairy producers don't have gauranteed free speech in the constitution. Individuals in those organozations have free speech protection.

I'm not saying the NRA doesn't have freedom of speech.

[Jilly]

In the context of your church, what exactly does this mean?

Becoming a Pro-reconciling/Anti-racist church

Reconciliation Ministry is the special ministry of the Church that fights the primary causes of racism in North America. Strides toward becoming a Pro-reconciling/Anti-racist Church were made with support from the Reconciliation Offering soon after the 2020 Vision was adopted.

Reconciliation MinistryThe Pro-reconciliation/Anti-Racism Initiative was founded upon the need to make visible God’s beloved community. It invites the church to listen to the once silenced voices of its racial/ethnic communities, learn from their wisdom and gain insight from their leadership. It calls the church to discernment and prayer, study of the scriptures and reflection, dialogue and table fellowship. The true goal is to transform, strengthen and deepen the church’s spirituality, resulting in a community that understands its mission to be about bringing justice and salvation to the world.

The Pro-reconciliation/Anti-racism initiative has made steady progress. In 2007, Regions were urged to assume primary leadership in enabling congregational involvement in the work of racial reconciliation. In 2008, eight Regions of the Southeast Regional Fellowship called a minister to serve as minister of Reconciliation and Anti-racism Ministries.

[Mr. Kotter]

Great insight, thank you.

You're welcome.

FWIW, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to take a stand; I'm just saying that doing so....can have consequences. If you can live with those consequences, fine. If not, well....choosing a less judgmental tone might be desirable. It's why many pastors have been "neutered" politically. Personally, I find that trend regrettable, even if it is understandable.

[Brock]

Again maybe we are splitting hairs.

Trial laywers and Dairy producers don't have gauranteed free speech in the constitution. Individuals in those organozations have free speech protection.

I'm not saying the NRA doesn't have freedom of speech.

We're not "splitting hairs". You're drawing a distinction that doesn't exist in the constitution.

[MagicHef]

Becoming a Pro-reconciling/Anti-racist church

Reconciliation Ministry is the special ministry of the Church that fights the primary causes of racism in North America. Strides toward becoming a Pro-reconciling/Anti-racist Church were made with support from the Reconciliation Offering soon after the 2020 Vision was adopted.

Reconciliation MinistryThe Pro-reconciliation/Anti-Racism Initiative was founded upon the need to make visible God’s beloved community. It invites the church to listen to the once silenced voices of its racial/ethnic communities, learn from their wisdom and gain insight from their leadership. It calls the church to discernment and prayer, study of the scriptures and reflection, dialogue and table fellowship. The true goal is to transform, strengthen and deepen the church’s spirituality, resulting in a community that understands its mission to be about bringing justice and salvation to the world.

The Pro-reconciliation/Anti-racism initiative has made steady progress. In 2007, Regions were urged to assume primary leadership in enabling congregational involvement in the work of racial reconciliation. In 2008, eight Regions of the Southeast Regional Fellowship called a minister to serve as minister of Reconciliation and Anti-racism Ministries.

Thanks.

[patteeu]

I have an honest question....being a pastor, I refrained from talking about who I was voting for to my congregation, I only addressed the election in terms of where your priorities are as a Christian (for instance, Jesus' main teachings were to love, feed the poor, heal the sick etc.) and so when going to vote we should vote with those values in mind, etc. After the election, I preached a sermon on race relations and the hope of a race now in the election of a black president was something we could feel joy in and feel God's presence in. That now an African American young male can have this role model and know that some of his limitations have been lifted and that as a Christian people who are free in Christ, we can see God's grace in that. I was careful about those who voted for McCain, constantly saying things like, I'm sure many of you are still healing, but I truly hope you can see what good can and has come out of this election, etc.

I don't feel I crossed a line. Some people in my congregation do, others are proud and think I said what needed to be said. What do you think given this very rough sketch of my sermon?

I doubt very seriously that many of the McCain voters in your audience were racists and they probably didn't think our country needed to elect a black leftist to generate hope for race relations. I would have found your obvious political cheerleading kind of annoying, but I don't think you crossed any uncrossable lines. You're free to have an opinion and you didn't hit anyone over the head with a 2x4 or run around shouting "we're number 1" or anything. Your post-election statements are more political than anything I heard in my local Catholic church (either before or after the election), but you tried to be gentle (in your gloating, haha). Don't worry about it. They'll get over it.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Becoming a Pro-reconciling/Anti-racist church

Reconciliation Ministry is the special ministry of the Church that fights the primary causes of racism in North America. Strides toward becoming a Pro-reconciling/Anti-racist Church were made with support from the Reconciliation Offering soon after the 2020 Vision was adopted.

Reconciliation MinistryThe Pro-reconciliation/Anti-Racism Initiative was founded upon the need to make visible God’s beloved community. It invites the church to listen to the once silenced voices of its racial/ethnic communities, learn from their wisdom and gain insight from their leadership. It calls the church to discernment and prayer, study of the scriptures and reflection, dialogue and table fellowship. The true goal is to transform, strengthen and deepen the church’s spirituality, resulting in a community that understands its mission to be about bringing justice and salvation to the world.

The Pro-reconciliation/Anti-racism initiative has made steady progress. In 2007, Regions were urged to assume primary leadership in enabling congregational involvement in the work of racial reconciliation. In 2008, eight Regions of the Southeast Regional Fellowship called a minister to serve as minister of Reconciliation and Anti-racism Ministries.

ROFL

This explains everything!

[patteeu]

ROFL

This explains everything!

I don't read many of the religion threads around here so I might have missed something, and Jilly is unfortunately afflicted with liberalism to be sure, but she generally walks softly in this forum on political issues and she's got a sense of humor so I think she deserves to be treated somewhat gently in return. She's not a bomb thrower and she's never been a troll (like most of the rest of us) afaik. JMO

[MagicHef]

I don't read many of the religion threads around here so I might have missed something, and Jilly is unfortunately afflicted with liberalism to be sure, but she generally walks softly in this forum on political issues and she's got a sense of humor so I think she deserves to be treated somewhat gently in return. She's not a bomb thrower and she's never been a troll (like most of the rest of us) afaik. JMO

Oh, I agree. I only asked that because I had heard the term associated with some out-there ideas. I don't see any of those types of ideas represented in her answer. In fact, I have been very pleasantly surprised that someone on here has been willing to have an intelligent discussion about religion with me.

[SHTSPRAYER]

I don't read many of the religion threads around here so I might have missed something, and Jilly is unfortunately afflicted with liberalism to be sure, but she generally walks softly in this forum on political issues and she's got a sense of humor so I think she deserves to be treated somewhat gently in return. She's not a bomb thrower and she's never been a troll (like most of the rest of us) afaik. JMO


I'm sorry Pat, I couldn't help it.

It just sounds like yet more left wing indoctrination posing as religion. And it does explain alot in terms of Sully's worldview and what I interpret to be a very warped perspective on alot of things.

I don't want to say anything else. To each his own, I guess.

[NewPhin]

I'm sorry Pat, I couldn't help it.

It just sounds like yet more left wing indoctrination posing as religion. And it does explain alot in terms of Sully's worldview and what I interpret to be a very warped perspective on alot of things.

I don't want to say anything else. To each his own, I guess.

What do you say when people say that your view of Christianity is just right wing indoctrination posing as religion?

[SHTSPRAYER]

Oh, I agree. I only asked that because I had heard the term associated with some out-there ideas. I don't see any of those types of ideas represented in her answer. In fact, I have been very pleasantly surprised that someone on here has been willing to have an intelligent discussion about religion with me.

I'm sorry for ruining the discussion but I just can't--- you know, this left wing wackiness-- it's just--- it's very frustrating.

And when I'm being disrespected and called all sorts of names, and talked down to by these nutjobs, well, I can get a little snappy.

I don't know these people personally, but they seem like a very young, very idealistic couple, and I should just take it all with a grain of salt.

This movement to somehow usurp Christianity and alchemize it with Marxism and all of this college course race/class/gender mumbo jumbo and the entire left wing narrative including abortion and gay marriage is just way, way too over the top for me.

And I just have a hard time playing along and indulging these types. So I'm sorry.

[Adept Havelock]

What do you say when people say that your view of Christianity is just right wing indoctrination posing as religion?

The same thing he does when it's pointed out he has a very warped worldview (from many people's perspective).

He throws a hissy-fit and cuts and pastes trAnn Cooter. :shrug:

[SHTSPRAYER]

What do you say when people say that your view of Christianity is just right wing indoctrination posing as religion?

That's fine. People can say whatever they want. I've never been under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church is a right wing indoctrination center. Most of the people, if not all really, who bash Catholicism don't go to church. So what do I care what they think? It's like somebody from Europe telling me that baseball sucks when they don't understand the game and never even played it.

[SHTSPRAYER]

The same thing he does when it's pointed out he has a very warped worldview (from many people's perspective).

He throws a hissy-fit and cuts and pastes trAnn Cooter. :shrug:

OK, well what about my worldview do you think is warped?

[NewPhin]

That's fine. People can say whatever they want. I've never been under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church is a right wing indoctrination center. Most of the people, if not all really, who bash Catholicism don't go to church. So what do I care what they think? It's like somebody from Europe telling me that baseball sucks when they don't understand the game and never even played it.

There are plenty of Catholic monks who probably fall a lot closer inline to Jilly's view of race and class than your own. Are they just falling victim to leftist indoctrination? Maybe, just maybe, it's possible for people to lead earnestly contemplative lives of faith and arrive at different places politically. Is it really necessary for us to try to slap labels on each other's faiths and label one group as "authentic" and another as "inauthentic"?

[MagicHef]

I'm sorry for ruining the discussion but I just can't--- you know, this left wing wackiness-- it's just--- it's very frustrating.

And when I'm being disrespected and called all sorts of names, and talked down to by these nutjobs, well, I can get a little snappy.

I don't know these people personally, but they seem like a very young, very idealistic couple, and I should just take it all with a grain of salt.

This movement to somehow usurp Christianity and alchemize it with Marxism and all of this college course race/class/gender mumbo jumbo and the entire left wing narrative including abortion and gay marriage is just way, way too over the top for me.

And I just have a hard time playing along and indulging these types. So I'm sorry.

Don't worry, you didn't ruin the discussion, it's actually going on in another thread. I understand the frustration, but for me, this is the first time I've heard a lot of the viewpoints that Jilly has been bringing up, so I'm more interested than anything.

[SHTSPRAYER]

There are plenty of Catholic monks who probably fall a lot closer inline to Jilly's view of race and class than your own. Are they just falling victim to leftist indoctrination? Maybe, just maybe, it's possible for people to lead earnestly contemplative lives of faith and arrive at different places politically. Is it really necessary for us to try to slap labels on each other's faiths and label one group as "authentic" and another as "inauthentic"?

Oh absolutely in secular terms, sure. But when you define yourself exclusively as a Christian, and then go on to say things like "gee, I really don't know if it's all just a fairytale" or "there are many paths to heaven", then I think you're not being fully honest with yourself, or anyone else for that matter.

That's all I'm saying. I'm sure Jilly, Catholic Monks, Hassidic Jews et al could have similar if not identical views on race and class, but that has nothing to do with religion in specific, and has everything to do with their secular world view.

Indeed, most of the people I hear talking in the terms I hear Jilly and Sully speak in, are secular progressive atheists. I hear that kind of talk in college classrooms where by and large, Jesus Christ is persona non grata.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Don't worry, you didn't ruin the discussion, it's actually going on in another thread. I understand the frustration, but for me, this is the first time I've heard a lot of the viewpoints that Jilly has been bringing up, so I'm more interested than anything.


I hear ya.

[Adept Havelock]

OK, well what about my worldview do you think is warped?

The way you act like a 10 year old and throw a temper-tantrum at anyone who disagrees with you, for starters.

Then there's your repeated statements that anyone who disagrees with you "doesn't believe in right or wrong", "empowers Satan", and other assorted nonsense. Heck, you call people "Moonbats" if they dare disagree with one of your points, even if they are sympathetic to other parts of your philosophy.

Oh, and then there is the way you believe "Evil" has some bizarre supernatural existence apart from the acts of human beings.

To top it off, someone who racks up 4,000 posts doing little to nothing but those things in the space of a few months strikes me as pretty warped.

Then their's your schizoid "I want to be a good poster" moments followed by days of the same tired old bulls*it. Here's a hint, the time for that was when you signed up.

D2112/Bill Parcells may be right, and you may be a decent fellow outside of this forum. However, for the most part all I've seen is a boorish ignoramus who stomped into a public place and started acting like an idiot.

Now, if you want to follow your pattern, this is where you dismiss this post as "mere moonbattery", post a smiley, or cut and paste something from trAnn Cooter.

[Jenson71]

That's all I'm saying. I'm sure Jilly, Catholic Monks, Hassidic Jews et al could have similar if not identical views on race and class, but that has nothing to do with religion in specific, and has everything to do with their secular world view.

Indeed, most of the people I hear talking in the terms I hear Jilly and Sully speak in, are secular progressive atheists. I hear that kind of talk in college classrooms where by and large, Jesus Christ is persona non grata.

It's not. It's just different from the literalism that comes from the more vocal and politically powerful Christians.

I first learned of these interpretations through a Roman historian who happens to be an Episcopalian, who considers Jesus to be an apocalyptic preacher, like Bart Ehrman considers Jesus to be. Ehrman is an agnostic, but the historian, as I mentioned, isn't. I go to his Bible study a lot and enjoy his discussions, in part because of the historical value, rather than any spiritual value.

One thing to recognize though, is that many scholars since the late 19th century, have looked for the Historical Jesus. And everyone has come out with a different Historical Jesus.

[SHTSPRAYER]

The way you act like a 10 year old and throw a temper-tantrum at anyone who disagrees with you, for starters.


That's just part of my act.



Then there's your repeated statements that anyone who disagrees with you "doesn't believe in right or wrong",

I think many people are ambivalent about right and wrong.

"empowers Satan", and other assorted nonsense.

Hey, I know you're one of those types that thinks that you are intellectually superior to people who have faith in what can't be seen or proven. That's fine. But when I'm making comments about good and evil, those comments are specifically directed at those other dummies like myself who believe in a God and a Devil. Try and show some courtesy.

Heck, you call people Moonbats if they disagree with one of your points, even if they are sympathetic to other parts of your philosophy.

Yes, I do. I think it's valid.

Oh, and then there is the way you believe "Evil" has some bizarre supernatural existence apart from the acts of human beings.

It's kind of ironic, how this subject bothers you so much.

To top it off, someone who racks up 4,000 posts doing little to nothing but those things in the space of a few months strikes me as seriously warp

I only know this from experience, I bother people like you because I say the truth. So you come up with all sorts of excuses to get rid of me "He doesn't post in the football forum" "He's a troll" etc etc.

You can't stand me because I get in the way of your perpetual bachanal.

[SHTSPRAYER]

One thing to recognize though, is that many scholars since the late 19th century, have looked for the Historical Jesus. And everyone has come out with a different Historical Jesus.

A historical Jesus is just a man.

Look, I've read Crossan's books, and enjoyed them as a matter of fact. But at the end of the day, do I want to believe in a Jesus who didn't walk on water, or heal lepers, or turn water into wine, or do I want to believe in a Jesus who did perform miracles?

Once you start cookie cutting "well I like this part, but this part is stupid" what are we left with, really?

I know that's what Thomas Jefferson did with his bible as a matter of fact.

[Jenson71]

A historical Jesus is just a man.

Look, I've read Crossan's books, and enjoyed them as a matter of fact. But at the end of the day, do I want to believe in a Jesus who didn't walk on water, or heal lepers, or turn water into wine, or do I want to believe in a Jesus who did perform miracles?

Once you start cookie cutting "well I like this part, but this part is stupid" what are we left with, really?

I think they would say you are left with the truth. And they would argue that the miracles aren't that important. Why do you need miracles to follow Jesus Christ? Can't his actions and words be enough? Why do you need to be dazzled? You have no faith otherwise?

It's not my beliefs, but I can respect and understand the others' and be reasonable all the while.

[SHTSPRAYER]

I think they would say you are left with the truth. And they would argue that the miracles aren't that important. Why do you need miracles to follow Jesus Christ? Can't his actions and words be enough? Why do you need to be dazzled? You have no faith otherwise?


I didn't say that at all. Indeed, when I was a skeptic, it was all those miracles that I assumed were put in their to impress the potential converts.

No, what I meant was, taking anything out NOT JUST THE MIRACLES or even worse, replacing something that wasn't there and THEN redefining Jesus and Christianity.



It's not my beliefs, but I can respect and understand the others' and be reasonable all the while

I can respect it, too. That doesn't mean I'm not entitled to criticise it. Have I been unreasonable?

[Jenson71]

Besides, I see the Catholic interpretation as being the most Traditional and the Golden Mean. On our right, we have the creationists. On our left, we have the people who said Jesus probably said 1/10 of what the Bible says he said.

We're perfect, what can I say? I'll acknowledge my bias, but I also acknowledge that we do believe in facts and reason, that's very important. And there is no shortage of Catholic Biblical scholarly literature out there.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Besides, I see the Catholic interpretation as being the most Traditional and the Golden Mean. On our right, we have the creationists. On our left, we have the people who said Jesus probably said 1/10 of what the Bible says he said.

We're perfect, what can I say? I'll acknowledge by bias, but I also acknowledge that we do believe in facts and reason, that's very important.


What is your take on the "other" gospels? The Dead Sea Scrolls?

[Sully]

I'm sorry for ruining the discussion but I just can't--- you know, this left wing wackiness-- it's just--- it's very frustrating.

And when I'm being disrespected and called all sorts of names, and talked down to by these nutjobs, well, I can get a little snappy.

I don't know these people personally, but they seem like a very young, very idealistic couple, and I should just take it all with a grain of salt.

This movement to somehow usurp Christianity and alchemize it with Marxism and all of this college course race/class/gender mumbo jumbo and the entire left wing narrative including abortion and gay marriage is just way, way too over the top for me.

And I just have a hard time playing along and indulging these types. So I'm sorry.

ROFL
I don't know what to say, Shit. I think your view is just as warped as you think mine is. But making stuff up doesn't help your cause much.

[SHTSPRAYER]

ROFL
I don't know what to say, Shit. I think your view is just as warped as you think mine is. But making stuff up doesn't help your cause much.


Like I said, to each his own.

Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing, Sully.

[Jenson71]

What is your take on the "other" gospels? The Dead Sea Scrolls?

The other Gospels, like the Gospel of Peter? A source of tradition can contain truths or skeletons of truths like the other Gospels, and can be examined using similar scholarship.

The Dead Sea Scrolls? I haven't read much of them, and can't remember much of what I've read. They seem to be from a community that was really anticipating the end of the world was coming - soon.

What's your take?

[SHTSPRAYER]

The other Gospels, like the Gospel of Peter? A source of tradition can contain truths or skeletons of truths like the other Gospels, and can be examined using similar scholarship.

The Dead Sea Scrolls? I haven't read much of them, and can't remember much of what I've read. They seem to be from a community that was really anticipating the end of the world was coming - soon.

What's your take?

I think that they are valid. I mean, they are certainly not forgeries.

I think that alot did get lost along the way, I mean, it had too, right? Hundreds of years, dozens of languages...

And lets face, most of the New Testement is written by Paul, who's only meeting with Jesus was on the road to Damascus.

It's all so very fascinating and I can understand how or why people can or would want to pick it apart and dissect it.

What do you think of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon?

[Adept Havelock]

That's just part of my act.

As I said, maybe it's an act, maybe it's not. I've seen little to support the former. :shrug:

I think many people are ambivalent about right and wrong.

Not believing that right and wrong are as shts prayer defines them ≠ being ambivalent.


Hey, I know you're one of those types that thinks that you are intellectually superior to people who have faith in what can't be seen or proven.
Not at all. I've repeatedly stated that my own disbelief in the supernatural is a form of faith. I have no proof there is no invisible man in the sky orchestrating the entire universe, therefore my belief there is not must be based on...faith.


But when I'm making comments about good and evil, those comments are specifically directed at those other dummies like myself who believe in a God and a Devil. Try and show some courtesy.
So I should "be courteous" to your personal beliefs, but shouldn't express my own belief that it's supernatural nonsense no different from Astrology, Phrenology, Crystal Healing, etc.? Sounds like you don't want courtesy, you just don't want me to express my own opinion on the subject. Nevermind the fact that you asking for someone to be courteous after months of douchebaggery is pure hubris.

Heck, you call people Moonbats if they disagree with one of your points, even if they are sympathetic to other parts of your philosophy.

Yes, I do. I think it's valid.

Ah, unless you agree with the entirety of shts prayers worldview, you are a leftist extremist. :rolleyes:

Nonsense. That would be no different than me claiming that since your beliefs don't accord with mine, you must be a Phelpstard.


Oh, and then there is the way you believe "Evil" has some bizarre supernatural existence apart from the acts of human beings.

It's kind of ironic, how this subject bothers you so much.
The subject doesn't bother me, but I find your inability to recognize every refutation of that point you've offered so far supports my statement rather hilarious.


To top it off, someone who racks up 4,000 posts doing little to nothing but those things in the space of a few months strikes me as seriously warp

I only know this from experience, I bother people like you because I say the truth. So you come up with all sorts of excuses to get rid of me "He doesn't post in the football forum" "He's a troll" etc etc.

You can't stand me because I get in the way of your perpetual bachanal.

Wrong again. You bother me because, though I agree with some of your statements, you chose to enter a public place and act like a boorish ignoramus. If you were a moonbat instead of a wingnut, I'd feel the very same way. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I didn't want to get rid of you.

You do more to undermine your (IMO somewhat warped) worldview with your childish behavior and crass antics than any number of reasoned refutations ever could. That's one of the main reasons I stated in that thread I thought you should stay. You're a clown. Clowns are funny, but no one takes them seriously.

And yes, spending the time to rack up 4,000 posts in the space of a few months acting that way speaks to just how sad and warped you really are. ;)

Feel free to convince yourself it's a crusade against all that is wrong with America and the World.

You go, Don Quixote-Dogbert. The funny hat suits you. :thumb:

[SHTSPRAYER]

As I said, maybe it's an act, maybe it's not. I've seen little to support the former. :shrug:.


Aint no difference to me, Huckleberry.


Not believing that right and wrong are as shts prayer defines them ≠ being ambivalent.

Sigh. The blind will lead the blind into a ditch, I suppose.

Not at all. I've repeatedly stated that my own disbelief in the supernatural is a form of faith. I have no proof there is no invisible man in the sky orchestrating the entire universe, therefore my belief there is not must be based on...faith.

If you say so. :rolleyes:


So I should "be courteous" to your personal beliefs, but shouldn't express my own belief that it's supernatural nonsense no different from Astrology, Phrenology, Crystal Healing, etc.? Sounds like you don't want courtesy, you just don't want me to express my own opinion on the subject. Nevermind the fact that you asking for someone to be courteous after months of douchebaggery is pure hubris.

Look, I know when I'm being sassed and I know when I'm being antagonized. So don't come off like you've been an angel all along.


Ah, unless you agree with the entirety of shts prayers worldview, you are a leftist extremist.

That's a BS narrative. Left wing extremism is defined not by whether or not I arbitrarily approve of it or not, but by it's universal, understood definition, and damn right I disagree with it.


The subject doesn't bother me, but I find your inability to recognize every refutation of that point you've offered so far supports my statement and not yours makes me

I don't even know what you just said.



Wrong again, chucklehead. You bother me because, though I agree with some of your statements, you chose to enter a public place and act like a boorish ignoramus. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I didn't want to get rid of you.

Not you personally, but alot from your crowd.

You do more to undermine your (IMO somewhat warped) worldview with your childish behavior and crass antics than any number of reasoned refutations ever could. That's one of the main reasons I stated in that thread I thought you should stay. You're a clown. Clowns are funny, but no one takes them seriously

I am what I am. Either love me or leave me alone.

[Adept Havelock]

Not believing that right and wrong are as shts prayer defines them ≠ being ambivalent.

Sigh. The blind will lead the blind into a ditch, I suppose.

:rolleyes:

Disagreeing with shts prayers definition of right and wrong ≠ blindness.

Not at all. I've repeatedly stated that my own disbelief in the supernatural is a form of faith. I have no proof there is no invisible man in the sky orchestrating the entire universe, therefore my belief there is not must be based on...faith.

If you say so. :rolleyes:

It is. What else is a belief that isn't supported by evidence but faith? I can understand it makes you uncomfortable that I'm content in my faith, but it is what it is.

So I should "be courteous" to your personal beliefs, but shouldn't express my own belief that it's supernatural nonsense no different from Astrology, Phrenology, Crystal Healing, etc.? Sounds like you don't want courtesy, you just don't want me to express my own opinion on the subject. Nevermind the fact that you asking for someone to be courteous after months of douchebaggery is pure hubris.

Look, I know when I'm being sassed and I know when I'm being antagonized. So don't come off like you've been an angel all along.
I haven't claimed I was an angel. Perhaps my sigline might clarify that for you. :) And if you've been "antagonized"...:crybaby: Victim card much?

None of which changes the fact that I have just as much right to express my opinion as you do.

Ah, unless you agree with the entirety of shts prayers worldview, you are a leftist extremist.

That's a BS narrative. Left wing extremism is defined not by whether or not I arbitrarily approve of it or not, but by it's universal, understood definition, and damn right I disagree with it.
No, the only BS narrative is your implication that anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do is a Left Wing Extremist.


The subject doesn't bother me, but I find your inability to recognize every refutation of that point you've offered so far supports my statement and not yours makes me

I don't even know what you just said.
That doesn't surprise me at all.

edit- I see you responded before my edit. The gist of the post being I find your inability to recognize your examples undermine your own POV to be hilarious.


Wrong again, chucklehead. You bother me because, though I agree with some of your statements, you chose to enter a public place and act like a boorish ignoramus. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I didn't want to get rid of you.

Not you personally, but alot from your crowd.

My Crowd? Heh. Judging from my rep page (the best barometer I've got for my appeal on this board) my crowd ranges from conservatives like D2112, Chief4ever, VP, BD, Kotter, etc. to liberals like UP, Banyon, cannibal, etc. :shrug:

I am what I am. Either love me or leave me alone.

Why? You're yet to extend that courtesy to any other poster you've disagreed with.

Hubris. Pure hubris. :shake:

[SHTSPRAYER]

Adept, you are devoted to your narrative. Nothing I say will change that. Peace.

[Adept Havelock]

Adept, you are devoted to your narrative. Nothing I say will change that. Peace.

Peace?

:hmmm:

.

[Jenson71]

What do you think of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon?

I don't know anything about it, to be honest.

Anyway, I believe in miracles and believe Jesus performed miracles and that they still happen today. I believe in exorcism, and stigmata and appearances and Saintly intervention.

Life is hard and depressing and religion goes right along with that. I don't think there's anything particularly joyful in our lives about Jesus. He doesn't walk with me, He doesn't cheer me up when I'm down, and He doesn't make me feel good about myself. As far as I can tell, the Christian life is poor and miserable. It's hard and if you don't think so, you're not doing it right. You just have to cope with it long enough until you die, doing what the Church says is best for your unworthy soul. Sometimes I think the only thing that makes any sense is The Fall.

So, none of this is what the thread or conversation is about, but I wanted to say it.

[MagicHef]

Life is hard and depressing and religion goes right along with that. I don't think there's anything particularly joyful in our lives about Jesus. He doesn't walk with me, He doesn't cheer me up when I'm down, and He doesn't make me feel good about myself. As far as I can tell, the Christian life is poor and miserable. It's hard and if you don't think so, you're not doing it right. You just have to cope with it long enough until you die, doing what the Church says is best for your unworthy soul. Sometimes I think the only thing that makes any sense is The Fall.

Huh. I find myself cautiously agreeing yet completely disagreeing with everything here. I would say that being a Christian allows me to see how poor and miserable this life is, and how wretched I am, yet at the same time gives me hope in what I can be in this life as well as what will be after. This makes me more joyful than anything else in this world could.

I understand what you mean about how life is hard and depressing, but I'm not sure I know completely what you mean about Jesus not walking with you, cheering you up, or making you feel better about yourself. In my experience, that is not true. Have you never had everything around you fall apart, and yet still been able to marvel at how great everything is, knowing your mighty, powerful, loving God is there for you?

When you say that sometimes the only thing that makes sense is The Fall, do you think that that is just pessimism, or is that more of a reason-based, prevailing viewpoint?

Sorry, I'm not trying to probe or anything, feel free to completely ignore this post if it's too personal or anything like that.

[Jenson71]

Huh. I find myself cautiously agreeing yet completely disagreeing with everything here. I would say that being a Christian allows me to see how poor and miserable this life is, and how wretched I am, yet at the same time gives me hope in what I can be in this life as well as what will be after. This makes me more joyful than anything else in this world could.

First off, I'm incredibly inconsistent; whether that is good or bad I can't tell yet. I think in part I rebel against those who speak with authority (though they have none) but also their ideas (even if I agree with them). So, reading a post by KCJohnny about what the Catholic Church says not only depresses me, but makes me suspicious of the entire thing. More than once have I been accused by him of speaking against Catholic Teaching, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, to say the least.

I understand what you mean about how life is hard and depressing, but I'm not sure I know completely what you mean about Jesus not walking with you, cheering you up, or making you feel better about yourself. In my experience, that is not true. Have you never had everything around you fall apart, and yet still been able to marvel at how great everything is, knowing your mighty, powerful, loving God is there for you?

Everything fall apart around me? No. I have had relatives die, but I viewed the entire process as completely natural, neither sacred or un-. Never did I feel closer to God, unfortunately. Perhaps I will; I hope someday.

The times I do feel closer to God are rare. But they ususally involve the sense of awe and sacredness and mystery of not knowing. This puts me in a tough position - on one hand, I would like to know about God and my Faith and I do study it to a signficant degree, and on the other hand, where is the awe if God is wrapped up neatly in a few pieces of paper, or worse when He is "in nature, all around us"?

Part of this, I will acknowledge, is probably a lack of maturity.

When you say that sometimes the only thing that makes sense is The Fall, do you think that that is just pessimism, or is that more of a reason-based, prevailing viewpoint?

Pessimism, more than anything.

Oh, and unfortunately, the last time I think I was left in some excitment at the power of a Divine power was after watching the movie The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

[MagicHef]

First off, I'm incredibly inconsistent; whether that is good or bad I can't tell yet. I think in part I rebel against those who speak with authority (though they have none) but also their ideas (even if I agree with them). So, reading a post by KCJohnny about what the Catholic Church says not only depresses me, but makes me suspicious of the entire thing. More than once have I been accused by him of speaking against Catholic Teaching, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, to say the least.


Oh, I completely understand. I'm not Catholic, but I have found myself agreeing with non-Christians over Christians on this board and in real life. What really helps me is to understand what God or the Bible says versus what any human, no matter how pious they claim to be, says.


Everything fall apart around me? No. I have had relatives die, but I viewed the entire process as completely natural, neither sacred or un-. Never did I feel closer to God, unfortunately. Perhaps I will; I hope someday.

The times I do feel closer to God are rare. But they ususally involve the sense of awe and sacredness and mystery of not knowing. This puts me in a tough position - on one hand, I would like to know about God and my Faith and I do study it to a signficant degree, and on the other hand, where is the awe if God is wrapped up neatly in a few pieces of paper, or worse when He is "in nature, all around us"?

Part of this, I will acknowledge, is probably a lack of maturity.


Yeah, I have to admit, I've never had "everything fall apart around me," that language was probably too strong. But, I've found myself sensing God's presence more when times are tough. In regards to the awe and mystery of God, I have always found that the more I learn about God, the more I am in awe, and the more I want to learn about God. This has even applied to things that it seems like it wouldn't, like coming to understand complex concepts in upper-level math classes made me want to learn more about them and God, as He was the one to set all of that in order.

That probably seems a bit odd, but the point of that whole diatribe is: You won't be able to learn enough about God to take the awe and mystery away.


Pessimism, more than anything.

Well, I'm glad to hear that.

[Jenson71]

Well, I hate math. So that shuts that door. :D

[MagicHef]

Well, I hate math. So that shuts that door. :D

I wish I had something to suggest that you try to feel closer to God, but I sure don't. But, I do have questions. First, you being a Catholic, and me not knowing much at all about Catholicism, what are the differences you see between your beliefs and mine, me being your run-of-the-mill evangelical baptist Christian?

[Jenson71]

I wish I had something to suggest that you try to feel closer to God, but I sure don't. But, I do have questions. First, you being a Catholic, and me not knowing much at all about Catholicism, what are the differences you see between your beliefs and mine, me being your run-of-the-mill evangelical baptist Christian?

1. The Pope (Apostolic Tradition goes back to St. Peter - The Rock)
2. Church Tradition (rules and beliefs) along with Scripture (not Bible alone)
3. The Saints (intercession of Saints helps us get closer to God -> I should try this more)
4. Sacraments (we have 7 of utmost importance)
5. More than faith needed for salvation (good works)

I think those are the main differences.

Oh, and I think there's a strong element of importance of human reason and philosophy. That's what attracts me to Catholicism.

[MagicHef]

1. The Pope (Apostolic Tradition goes back to St. Peter - The Rock)
2. Church Tradition (rules and beliefs) along with Scripture (not Bible alone)
3. The Saints (intercession of Saints helps us get closer to God -> I should try this more)
4. Sacraments (we have 7 of utmost importance)
5. More than faith needed for salvation (good works)

I think those are the main differences.

Oh, and I think there's a strong element of importance of human reason and philosophy. That's what attracts me to Catholicism.

1. I knew that Peter was considered the first Pope, but to me his role seems much different than current Popes. How did this come about, or am I mistaken?

2. It seems to me like the non-Catholic church has a personal relationship with God replacing the rules and traditions of the Catholic church. Do you feel like there is an emphasis on this in the Catholic church, or is it something you would have to pursue on your own?

3. Is there any Biblical support of Saint's intercession, or is it a Catholic tradition?

4. Same as #3

5. Is this based on James, or is there more, as well?

Also, isn't the Apocrypha recognized by Catholics? Is this considered to be on the same level as the Bible? Also, what about Papal decrees?

[Jenson71]

1. I knew that Peter was considered the first Pope, but to me his role seems much different than current Popes. How did this come about, or am I mistaken?

Traditionally, came about when Jesus said "Rock, on you I will build my Church" and gave Peter the keys to heaven. Peter was head of the Jerusalem Church, then went to Rome shortly before he died establishing the Papacy there. The role of the Pope has of course changed throughout the past 2000 years, but early documents show it was recognized as having authority in regards to doctrinal disputes.

2. It seems to me like the non-Catholic church has a personal relationship with God replacing the rules and traditions of the Catholic church. Do you feel like there is an emphasis on this in the Catholic church, or is it something you would have to pursue on your own?

As a Catholic, you can definitely have a relationship with God and are encouraged to pray to God. More modern Catholics believe in a personal relationship with God rather than praying to the Saints, in my opinion.

There is a tradition of mysticism, reaching God through inner devotion, largely because of Neoplatonism of Renaissance Italy.

3. Is there any Biblical support of Saint's intercession, or is it a Catholic tradition? 4. Same as #3

As far as I know - Tradition. Perhaps there is some Scriptural foundation, but I don't think anything direct.

5. Is this based on James, or is there more, as well?

We don't see any conflict between what James says and what Paul ultimately says.

Also, isn't the Apocrypha recognized by Catholics? Is this considered to be on the same level as the Bible? Also, what about Papal decrees?

Correct, it is. And yes, they are all part of the Magisterium, the Tradition and Scripture, each important in Catholicism.

[SHTSPRAYER]

I don't know anything about it, to be honest.

Anyway, I believe in miracles and believe Jesus performed miracles and that they still happen today. I believe in exorcism, and stigmata and appearances and Saintly intervention.

Life is hard and depressing and religion goes right along with that. I don't think there's anything particularly joyful in our lives about Jesus. He doesn't walk with me, He doesn't cheer me up when I'm down, and He doesn't make me feel good about myself. As far as I can tell, the Christian life is poor and miserable. It's hard and if you don't think so, you're not doing it right. You just have to cope with it long enough until you die, doing what the Church says is best for your unworthy soul. Sometimes I think the only thing that makes any sense is The Fall.

So, none of this is what the thread or conversation is about, but I wanted to say it.

That's alot to digest.

For me at this moment in time, Jesus is my guide in helping me overcome my own prejudices, while learning to accept the prejudices of others.

[patteeu]

I'm sorry Pat, I couldn't help it.

It just sounds like yet more left wing indoctrination posing as religion. And it does explain alot in terms of Sully's worldview and what I interpret to be a very warped perspective on alot of things.

I don't want to say anything else. To each his own, I guess.

No problem. You're used to the rough and tumble types in here who would rather cut off your savior's head than live in harmony with a religious conservative. Being fairly new around here, you probably didn't know that Jilly was different so I thought I'd point it out.

And I'm sure the situation wasn't helped by the fact that one of the first things you found out about Jilly was that she was married to Sully. ;)

[MagicHef]

1. The Pope (Apostolic Tradition goes back to St. Peter - The Rock)
2. Church Tradition (rules and beliefs) along with Scripture (not Bible alone)
3. The Saints (intercession of Saints helps us get closer to God -> I should try this more)
4. Sacraments (we have 7 of utmost importance)
5. More than faith needed for salvation (good works)

I think those are the main differences.

Oh, and I think there's a strong element of importance of human reason and philosophy. That's what attracts me to Catholicism.

Also, how exactly does one get in contact with the Saints for intercession? Do you pray to them?

[SHTSPRAYER]

Also, how exactly does one get in contact with the Saints for intercession? Do you pray to them?


Yes. My patron saint is St Jerome.

St Jerome is patron saint of lost causes.

[MagicHef]

Yes. My patron saint is St Jerome.

St Jerome is patron saint of lost causes.

I'm sure many here would find that fitting. Wikipedia says that he is the patron saint of archeologists, archivists, Bible scholars, librarians, libraries, schoolchildren, students, and translators. Are you one of those things? I guess I'm wondering how you get a patron saint. Also, what does it mean when someone is a patron saint of a non-person, like a library?

[SHTSPRAYER]

I'm sure many here would find that fitting. Wikipedia says that he is the patron saint of archeologists, archivists, Bible scholars, librarians, libraries, schoolchildren, students, and translators. Are you one of those things? I guess I'm wondering how you get a patron saint. Also, what does it mean when someone is a patron saint of a non-person, like a library?

It's a soul in heaven that represents you or a place here on earth. A patron saint can intercede on your behalf to perform divine intervention.

[MagicHef]

It's a soul in heaven that represents you or a place here on earth.

So, are you an archeologist, archivist, Bible scholar, librarian, schoolchild, student, or translator? I suppose you were a schoolchild and student before, but does it matter if your patron saint doesn't cover what you are? Also, why do we need a soul in heaven to represent us?

[SHTSPRAYER]

I suppose you were a schoolchild and student before, but does it matter if your patron saint doesn't cover what you are?


I'm sorry, I meant St. Jude. :(

St. Jude is the patron st of lost causes.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Also, why do we need a soul in heaven to represent us?


I suppose you don't, but every little bit helps. I also have a guardian angel. I also believe my grandmother watches over me.

[MagicHef]

I'm sorry, I meant St. Jude. :(

St. Jude is the patron st of lost causes.

Okay, he seems to be the patron saint of: Armenia; lost causes; desperate situations; hospitals; St. Petersburg, Florida; the Chicago Police Department, and Clube de Regatas do Flamengo, which appears to be a soccer team in Brazil. I guess what I'm wondering is where all of this tradition came from. What happened to lead the Catholic Church to decide these patron saints were necessary?

[SHTSPRAYER]

Okay, he seems to be the patron saint of: Armenia; lost causes; desperate situations; hospitals; St. Petersburg, Florida; the Chicago Police Department, and Clube de Regatas do Flamengo, which appears to be a soccer team in Brazil. I guess what I'm wondering is where all of this tradition came from. What happened to lead the Catholic Church to decide these patron saints were necessary?

It's just a tradition. It's a cultural thing. You know, among the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Mexicans, Dominicans...

It's just a Catholic thing. Everybody has there thing, you know?

[MagicHef]

It's just a tradition. It's a cultural thing. You know, among the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Mexicans, Dominicans...

It's just a Catholic thing. Everybody has there thing, you know?

Oh, I understand, at least I think I do. I guess my concern is, do the saints have a role in salvation?

[SHTSPRAYER]

Oh, I understand, at least I think I do. I guess my concern is, do the saints have a role in salvation?

Salvation is predicated on faith in Christ. Period.

Saints are like, maybe Bodhitsatva's in Buddhism?

[MagicHef]

Salvation is predicated on faith in Christ. Period.

Saints are like, maybe Bodhitsatva's in Buddhism?

Okay, cool. Thanks.

[gblowfish]

Jesus loves me....




But he CAN'T STAND YOU!!!

[Jenson71]

So, are you an archeologist, archivist, Bible scholar, librarian, schoolchild, student, or translator? I suppose you were a schoolchild and student before, but does it matter if your patron saint doesn't cover what you are? Also, why do we need a soul in heaven to represent us?

Because God is too busy and too just to deal with our unworthy souls. This is important: we are unworthy sinners and don't let your pride tell you differently. We need help, and who better to help us then the most honored men and women from our tradition - those that lived (and died) completely for Christ? Do you ever ask your pastor to pray for you or someone that you deem especially holy/spiritual to keep you in his or her thoughts? Same thing, except with the Saints, they are even closer, being that they are in Heaven with God.

I guess what I'm wondering is where all of this tradition came from.

It's completely non-Semitic as far as I know, although there are angels in Judaism. So look where else Christianity was born into: Greco-Roman religion. They had gods for literally everything. Greeks had gods for entryways to rooms. Not just the rooms, but entryways to the rooms themselves. So I see an adoption there - the difference is that the Saints were once living and are now dead and in heaven. The Saints are usually associated with things that were important to them in their lives, so it seems to make sense they would still find those interesting and of course, help out the living anyway they can.

[Jilly]

First off, I'm incredibly inconsistent; whether that is good or bad I can't tell yet. I think in part I rebel against those who speak with authority (though they have none) but also their ideas (even if I agree with them). So, reading a post by KCJohnny about what the Catholic Church says not only depresses me, but makes me suspicious of the entire thing. More than once have I been accused by him of speaking against Catholic Teaching, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, to say the least.



Everything fall apart around me? No. I have had relatives die, but I viewed the entire process as completely natural, neither sacred or un-. Never did I feel closer to God, unfortunately. Perhaps I will; I hope someday.

The times I do feel closer to God are rare. But they ususally involve the sense of awe and sacredness and mystery of not knowing. This puts me in a tough position - on one hand, I would like to know about God and my Faith and I do study it to a signficant degree, and on the other hand, where is the awe if God is wrapped up neatly in a few pieces of paper, or worse when He is "in nature, all around us"?

Part of this, I will acknowledge, is probably a lack of maturity.



Pessimism, more than anything.

Oh, and unfortunately, the last time I think I was left in some excitment at the power of a Divine power was after watching the movie The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

I think this just makes you human...I think if we can't come to our faith with some honesty, knowing that days of doubt will always exist, then we really have no faith at all.

[Jilly]

I don't read many of the religion threads around here so I might have missed something, and Jilly is unfortunately afflicted with liberalism to be sure, but she generally walks softly in this forum on political issues and she's got a sense of humor so I think she deserves to be treated somewhat gently in return. She's not a bomb thrower and she's never been a troll (like most of the rest of us) afaik. JMO

oh, I'm going to try not to get a big head about this, Pat E O... ;) But honestly, thank you for being nice..and Magic Hef, you too. Thanks for being open to my ideas without being judgmental...that says a lot for your faith, imo.

[MagicHef]

Because God is too busy and too just to deal with our unworthy souls. This is important: we are unworthy sinners and don't let your pride tell you differently. We need help, and who better to help us then the most honored men and women from our tradition - those that lived (and died) completely for Christ? Do you ever ask your pastor to pray for you or someone that you deem especially holy/spiritual to keep you in his or her thoughts? Same thing, except with the Saints, they are even closer, being that they are in Heaven with God.


Oh, I agree that I am an unworthy sinner, I truly hope that anything I said did not lead you to believe that I think differently. I understand why it seems like these saints would be a good thing, but to me, it seems like this is part of what the Holy Spirit does:


In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

[Brock]

Because God is too busy and too just to deal with our unworthy souls.

What an unfortunate viewpoint. Sorry about that.

[MagicHef]

Because God is too busy and too just to deal with our unworthy souls.

What an unfortunate viewpoint. Sorry about that.

Oh, yes, I forgot to mention that. Do you really believe that an Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent God could be too busy? To me, all the things He has done for me and continues to do for me prove that He has a personal interest in my life.

[Jenson71]

I guess I just don't know. Present, but not voting.

[Jilly]

I guess I just don't know. Present, but not voting.

This is cheesy, and I'm not normally into Christian music, but I love the lyrics of this piece....maybe you'll find them helpful?

oh, great god, be small enough to hear me now
there were times when i was crying
from the dark of daniel's den
and i have asked you once or twice
if you would part the sea again
but tonight i do not need a fiery pillar in the sky
just wanna know you're gonna hold me if i start to cry
oh, great god, be small enough to hear me now

oh, great god, be close enough to feel you now
there have been moments when i could not
face goliath on my own
and how could i forget we've marched around
our share of jerichos
but i will not be setting out a fleece for you tonight
just wanna know that everything will be alright
oh great god, be close enough to feel you now

all praise and all honor be
to the god of ancient mysteries
whose every sign and wonder turn the pages of our history
but tonight my heart is heavy
and i cannot keep from whispering this prayer
"are you there?"

and i know you could leave writing on the wall
thats just for me
or send wisdom while i'm sleeping,
like in soloman's sweet dreams
but i don't need the strength of samson
or a chariot in the end
just want to know that you still know how many hairs
are on my head
oh great god, be small enough to hear me now