Christianity ruins families.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now we know why the Roman Catholic Church has inflicted so much suffering on the world. They're a cult of suffering that thinks it purges sin.

his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work.

1 Cor 3:13.

[giblets]

Galatians 5.

Yep, doesn't say you can't cut off or alter a body part. Says Jesus doesn't care.

[giblets]

1 Cor 3:13.

That passage is pretty vague.

[Ben Kenobi]

Fire, after the day of judgement not clear enough for you?

That first passage was about circumcision.

I guess what you want is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, which is a bit further down, 1 Cor 6:19-20

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own, you were bought for a price

[giblets]

I have no idea what your point is. Given that Paul didn't have a problem with circumcision I don't think his statement that "your body is a temple" means you can't alter it, physically.

[Robert]

Imran Siddiqui, my point is that the difference is very small, if there is a difference at all. It's a theological difference that nobody can see anyway in reality.
Protstants say that faith saves us. (and grace saves us). But faith always comes with works. (though the works don't save).
Catholics say there is no faith without works, thus faith and works save.
It's just the same with different emphasizes.

A protestant considers works something that comes with faith anyway. A catholic wants it to be named explicitly. Ergo, the main difference is sola scriptura. (there are a zillion small differences of course)

[giblets]

As an Evangelical, the barriers are lower in some ways but not in others. For me the divide between Episcopalians and Anglicans was far greater than those between Catholics and Evangelicals.

The main divisions:

1. Apostolic succession
2. 3 doctrines of Mary
3. Infant Baptism.
4. Real Presence.

So there are some real differences between the two, but the differences are not nearly as great as they are perceived.

Hold on, is Ben saying there's a massive divide between Episcopalians and Anglicans on these issues?

[Ben Kenobi]

Hold on, is Ben saying there's a massive divide between Episcopalians and Anglicans on these issues?

No, I'm saying that while I was an evangelical Mennonite, that I believed I was closer to Catholics than Episcopalians and Anglicans.

The "two" was meant to refer to Catholics and Protestants in general. Sorry for not clarifying. That was vague and unclear.

So there are some real differences between the Catholics and Protestants, but the differences are not nearly as great as they are perceived.

[Kidlicious]

I'm a Protestant, and I have never met a Protestant that have not believed that one is saved by faith alone, but who also believes that a faith without fruits, without works, is a dead faith.

I believe that the point that Jesus himself made was that his disciples shouldn't do anything out of a feeling of obligation to the Law. Doing things out of a feeling of obligation to the Law might make people start to think that the old way is better. Precisely, his point was to do everything because of his love.

[Nikolai]

... but Plomp and I are in disagreement about the difference between Protestants and Catholics is merely one of following tradition. So how can you argue the same?

I bet that Ben would disagree with Plomp's characterization as well (ie, there are great issues than just tradition).

In Protestantism, works are most defintely evidence of faith, but aren't needed for justification. This was very important in Luther's time due to the practice of the Catholic Church of selling indulgences for salvation (if you are already saved because you believe in Jesus, why should you have to buy something to reserve your place in heaven?).

I agree with you, and as I read it, so does Plomp. I think it's more of a semantic difference in our view and his. We Protestants have our traditions too, but they are less expressed than the Catholics. Most of us baptize children for example.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran Siddiqui, my point is that the difference is very small, if there is a difference at all. It's a theological difference that nobody can see anyway in reality.

It most definitely could be seen in 1517, when Luther put his 95 Theses up. I mean there was an actual reason Luther was excommunicated. It wasn't because there was an insubstantial difference. The concept of sola fides had very large consequences, especially in the translation of the Bible into local langauges. That's pretty darned "real".

Have the two come closer since then (especially since the Second Vatican Council)? Sure. But to claim the difference was solely one of respecting tradition or not is being absurd. And the differences still mean something to this day, especially in the fludity of Protestant denominations that flow directly from Luther's stress on each believer can speak and listen directly to God and doesn't need an intercessor.

[Robert]

It's the core difference that will make it impossible to ever get together.
In Luther's days there was absolution for money. Then the sola fide/sola gratia was indeed a big difference.

I see big differences between protestantism and roman catholicism. But I see big differences between calvinism and pentacostal churches as well.

[Ming]

No sensible person would sleep with someone who was HIV+ trusting their condom. Not when it's a life or death decision. That's all I'm arguing here. Arguing that 'oh they use condoms' makes it all ok when you aren't willing to test those beliefs tells me that condoms do break, leak or fail often enough to raise concerns.

I still have no clue what your point is here. It's better to practice safe sex than not...

I'm arguing that the sample of ALL gay men show 25x the incidence of AIDS as the average person at lesat in the United states. This includes those who use condoms.

As a GROUP, not individuals. Just because Catholics lead the way in killing innocent babies doesn't mean that all catholics do it.

It would be nice if everyone who called themselves Catholic lived by what they professed, but sadly, that's not the case. Never justified this.

But that doesn't change the fact. Catholics are the leaders in killing babies.

You rank tolerance of greater worth than the life of a child. I'm pretty sure that's not in the catechism.

What BS... please pont out where I say anything like that. But it is a fact that you are the one being selective in following the teachings of the church since you aren't practicing the tolerance that Jesus taught mankind.

True. Many of them do. However, a larger sample use contraception and then have abortions.

So what... the issue was abortions and killing babies. And the Catholics are leading the US in doing so.

So given the sample of all gay men, you are saying that the 25x incidence indicates that they are all using condoms?

HUH? Again, I said no such thing. Are you saying that if all gays practiced safe sex that the incidence rate would remaing the same?

Even with condoms, they are far more likely to contract AIDS.

They are also far LESS likely to contact AIDs than those that don't.

Some don't, some do. You are arguing that with a condom their incidence would not be 25x. Fair enough. To show what the rate is with condoms, you'd have to estimate the condom usage. If it's at 50 percent, that means that 75 percent of the infections would come from not using condoms, while 25 percent of the infections would. This would mean that instead of 25x as likely, this would go down to about 8x as likely. Still far greter than it is for straight folks who do not use condoms.

Simply more "BEN MATH" here. Why don't you try to find some facts instead of just making stuff up.

Actually, if the total who aren't Christians are 34 million, and the total who are Catholics is 68 million, given rates of 33 and 22, that means there would only be a 33 percent difference between the two, despite the fact that there are twice as many Catholics.

And this assumes that the religious affliliations for those 15-40 are the same for the overall total. If we assume that those who are 15-40 are twice as likely to be non-religious, than the non religious actually have more abortions. If they are 75 percent more atheists in the 15-40 range, than in the general population this would be sufficient to make up the difference.

Again... nothing you have said changes the fact that Catholic's are the leading killers of innocent babies in America. You can continue to use "BEN MATH" to avoid the real issue. But Catholics kill more innocent babies a year than the population of Miami.

Now... are you trying to say that being gay is worse than killing innocent children?

[Berzerker]

1. Yes smoking is bad for you. It's a fact that I'm sure 99% of people can agree with. I smoked for almost 40 years and quit 2 years ago.

yay, I just passed 1 year myself

[Ming]

The Billings method does not, in and of itself divide sex from procreation. All it does is use cervical mucus to determine fertility. This can be used by the husband and wife to make it more or less likely to have a child, by timing ovulation or by refraining from sex during fertile periods.

You aren't dividing the unitive and procreative because you are refraining from sex.

TOTAL BS! The Billings method is just a more accurate version of the rhythm method. It does INDEED divide sex from procreation. By simple using the method to avoid having children, you have made the determination that you want to have sex without having children. They are dividing the unitive and procreative by direct action on their part. If they weren't dividing it, then you have no need to even consider using the Billings method.

Try again Ben...