Christianity ruins families.

[BeBMan]

I don't see a strawman. explain.

I didn't post any specific 'claim' what exactly a different interpretation of Islam would mean en detail. I gave an example for existing different interpretations in a certain point (jihad) to show that this is possible without destroying Islam.

As for your belief what can or can't be interpreted out of the Quran, that is basically speculation based on theology. Which is fine if you see theology as the primary factor in modernization or specifically for things like the "separation of religion and state", something which I don't.

[rah]

And of course experience has not the last word. Theoretically I can meet two very nice crusaders, and base on my own experience that crusaders are nice guys.

I never said (at least I don't think so) that you should judge a group based on a small sample. I just said that you should realize that for most groups there are good ones and bad ones and you shouldn't generalize. Heck there were probably a few good Nazis. (I have never met one though)

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think you're wrong.
The RCC says that there's no faith without works. With in fact the protestants also say. But let's ask Ben: Ben, are catholics saved by faith or by works?

Your theological understanding is horrible (no personal offense). Protestants most definitely DO NOT say there is no faith without works. Sola fide means, literally, only faith. You are saved by the belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Works may come as a result, but salvation comes from faith. Catholics believe that salvation comes from faith and works (or obediance to God).

Anyway, the bottom line is that the biggest difference between protestants and catholics is the value of the tradition. The protestants do not accept the doctrines made by the church.

At the time of the Reformation, most certainly not. The Catholic Church was putting to death people who translated the Bible into other languages (hello Mr. Wycliff), while the Lutherans were translating them as quickly as they can to put them into the hands of the lay people.

[Robert]

The ONE thing you can say about the Catholics' views/teachings on contraception is that they are TOTALLY INCONSISTENT and just silly.

Their major point is that sex shouldn't be "just for fun"... and that it should be to bring children into the world... go forth and multiply and all that jazz... so no pills or condoms. OK, so far so good.
HOWEVER, they do allow the Rythm Method and teach it as part of "family planning". HUH!
If you are using this method, then YOU ARE HAVING SEX FOR FUN AND NOT CHILDREN! Sure, they claim it's so people can "plan" their families, but you can do the same with condoms and pills. Now granted, some catholics disagree with the Rythm Method being allowed... and at least they are being consistent in their faith.... BUT THE CHURCH ALLOWS IT, and actually teaches it. So they teach a method of unprotected sex, while banning a protected version which accomplishes the EXACT SAME THING.

That's indeed inconsistent. You should use it as an argument

And Robert... I'm simply using the points that Ben has used to prove how silly his arguments are.
His big claim is that the gay life style is unhealthy and that's why he disapproves... and why we shouldn't support a gay life style by allowing them to get married.

Then argue that.

Yet... he is on record for saying Abortion is killing babies... He's also on record as saying that mothers who have abortions also have more health problems than those that don't. Yet catholics lead the way on abortions in this country. He can try to use precentages all he wants, but the facts are simple and can NOT be disputed. Catholics have more abortions than any other religious group or non religious group in this country... KILLING MORE INNOCENT BABIES A YEAR THAN ANYBODY ELSE. So, using his own arguments/logic, he should be against catholics as well. And not just those that have abortions, BUT ALL CATHOLICS, since he is against ALL GAYS, not just those that do not practice safe sex.

Then point that out.
I read your posts but was not able to get this argument from it.

It's that simple... he's simply a hypocrit.

we all are in some way or another way.

There isn't a SINGLE LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT on why the Rythm Method is allowed and other forms of birth control are not. I tried finding a good argument, and really couldn't.

So the RC's views on contraception are inconsistent and loony tunes at best.

That's a good question to Ben: are you against contraception while you do accept the rythm method? If so, how's that possible?

Anyway, if his answer doesn't satisfy why do'nt you just shuckle and move on?

[Q Classic]

Ben: you're a hetero, deal with your own hetero problems. The Bible clearly says that we should not judge each other. God judges us. Your crusade against gays is therefore imho a violation of God's message to you.

That's your interpretation. Clearly not Ben's.

Then again, Ben is hewing to a Church that is welcoming and trying to fast track the conversion of the more conservative, bigoted sections of the Anglican church.

[Ming]

That's indeed inconsistent. You should use it as an argument

Uhhhh... I just did

Then argue that.

That's what I've been doing...

Then point that out.
I read your posts but was not able to get this argument from it.

Then read them again... because that's what I've been saying.

we all are in some way or another way.

As Ben would say... it's a matter of degrees

That's a good question to Ben: are you against contraception while you do accept the rythm method? If so, how's that possible?

Because he will either cut and paste something from a catholic site and claim that's his answer, and claim he won the argument, even though it doesn't answer the question.

Anyway, if his answer doesn't satisfy why do'nt you just shuckle and move on?

I will "shuckle and move on" when he stops his anti gay crap. If he is going to continue to "post his opinions" on gays, I will have no problem pointing out all the flaws in the RCC, which is the basis for his hate and bigotry. He doesn't really understand what Jesus was teaching us... or he would live and let live.

I frankly don't see the "thrill" of a gay life style. Women turn me on, and men don't. But that doesn't mean that I have to cram my beliefs and opinions down everybody else's throats. People should be allowed to make their own choices when it comes to marriage/loving relationship. And unlike Ben, I won't equate being gay to animal sex. and try to claim that they are similar, that if we allow one, we should allow the other. I'm a firm believer that what consenting adults want to do with each other is fine by me. It's their lives, NOT MINE. Who am I to tell everybody that they have to "be like me"...

[Robert]

Your theological understanding is horrible (no personal offense). Protestants most definitely DO NOT say there is no faith without works. Sola fide means, literally, only faith. You are saved by the belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Works may come as a result, but salvation comes from faith. Catholics believe that salvation comes from faith and works (or obediance to God).

catholics stress that there's no faith without works. Which every protestant agrees with. So theoretically there's a difference. Factually there's not. I of course know that there is an official theological difference, but it's very small. It has more to do with accents. I have talked with many catholic professors and protestant professors about this. It's not coming from nowhere.

wikipedia:

The Roman Catholic view tends to exclude sola fide as grounds for justification, holding instead that grace, which implies good works, is also necessary for salvation, Matthew 25:31-46; that is, by God's grace through faith (also a favour given by him, Matthew 16:17), Ephesians 2:8-10, and the Christian's response to it in God's grace Galatians 5:6, as faith perfected by good works, James 2:22.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_by_faith#Roman_Catholic_view

This in fact says the same.
Sola fide (faith)
sola gratia (grace)
and most important: "and the Christian's response to it in God's grace Galatians 5:6, as faith perfected by good works"

Anyway, there are differences, but there are differences as big about this topic between different protestant groups. My point is that this is not a big difference between protestantism and rcc. (it was in Luther's time, but the rcc has reformed since then)

At the time of the Reformation, most certainly not. The Catholic Church was putting to death people who translated the Bible into other languages (hello Mr. Wycliff), while the Lutherans were translating them as quickly as they can to put them into the hands of the lay people.

still tradition or no tradition is the big difference between rcc and protestantism.
that's where very debate will always end between protestants and catholics. It's not something I make up. Of course there are many differences. But there are also many differences between different protestant groups that are bigger then these.

My point is that the core difference is the value of the (rcc) tradition.

[Imran Siddiqui]

catholics stress that there's no faith without works. Which every protestant agrees with.

I'm a Protestant and I've never heard that from another Protestant. Protestants believe people are saved from the instant they accept Jesus.

My point is that this is not a big difference between protestantism and rcc. (it was in Luther's time, but the rcc has reformed since then)

So you are saying that Protestants hold fast their tradition?

My point is that the core difference is the value of the (rcc) tradition.

And my point is that you have failed to prove that.

[Q Classic]

I haven't broken my habit of sucking fags. Something about the habit of lighting them up and then taking a long drag...

[Nikolai]

I'm a Protestant and I've never heard that from another Protestant. Protestants believe people are saved from the instant they accept Jesus.

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.

Ephesians 2.8ff:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

James 1.19ff:

19My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. 21Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.

26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

John the baptist said in his ministry to prepare the Jews for Christ, Luke 3.7ff:

7John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

10"What should we do then?" the crowd asked.

11John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."

12Tax collectors also came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what should we do?"

13"Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told

them. 14Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?"
He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely—be content with your pay."

Paul says to the Romans, chapter 3, verse 28:

28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

But the Bible has to be read as one voice, and here James 2.14ff kicks into play:

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

[Robert]

Uhhhh... I just did



That's what I've been doing...



Then read them again... because that's what I've been saying.

you were talking about how the catholic religion murdered most babies in the US! Let's say that you got carried a bit away
And worst of all: in those posts you didn't mention those (sane) arguments again.

Because he will either cut and paste something from a catholic site and claim that's his answer, and claim he won the argument, even though it doesn't answer the question.

We'll see!

I will "shuckle and move on" when he stops his anti gay crap. If he is going to continue to "post his opinions" on gays, I will have no problem pointing out all the flaws in the RCC, which is the basis for his hate and bigotry. He doesn't really understand what Jesus was teaching us... or he would live and let live.

Your posts would have more impact if you would do it without being carried too much away, posting big bold letters on how rcc is responsible for killing most babies

I frankly don't see the "thrill" of a gay life style. Women turn me on, and men don't. But that doesn't mean that I have to cram my beliefs and opinions down everybody else's throats.

Well, to be honest, Ben is not doing that. He's posting his opinion on a bulletin board where you can even put him on ignore. It's not as if he's yelling his opinion every day in your front garden. Let's keep things a bit in perspective. Ben is a very democratic person who does not go against the law, and his opinion is expressed in a civil western way, no violation, no force. Let's hope that Osama Bin Laden will take Ben as an example asap!

People should be allowed to make their own choices when it comes to marriage/loving relationship. And unlike Ben, I won't equate being gay to animal sex. and try to claim that they are similar, that if we allow one, we should allow the other.

Gay sex and animal sex have nothing to do with each other.
What is true though is that we do accept it that the government does ban certain things. We can discuss what the government bans. Best example is perhaps polygamy. Our government bans it.

And no, we should never allow one thing becuase we allow the other thing. EVery thing should be considered in itself. Otherwise Ben should accept gay marriage because hetero marriage is accepted.

I'm a firm believer that what consenting adults want to do with each other is fine by me. It's their lives, NOT MINE. Who am I to tell everybody that they have to "be like me"...

THere's a difference between the government accepting and allowing gay sex (or any form of sex) for the reasons you state above.
It's of course debatable if the government should facilitate it (gay marriage).

But I think that any government should give gay couples the same rights as hetero couples. If they should apply the marriage label to that is a different issue. I'm against the "everything is the same" doctrine. I also think that an employer should be allowed to not hire a christian b/c he thinks it would ruin the atmosphere on the work floor. (but for the record: I do not oppose gay marriage)

[Asher]

Not sure what people are talking about now, but this thread apparently was pretty epic.

[Robert]

I'm a Protestant and I've never heard that from another Protestant. Protestants believe people are saved from the instant they accept Jesus.

You're really easily turned into modus.
Every protestant will agree that being a christian must have consequences for your life. That's what James says, and of course Jesus himself. ("You're my friends if you do what I say")

But I believe that you're right doing what we dutch call (literal translation ): comma ****ing.
disagreeing about the way I formulate things.

So you are saying that Protestants hold fast their tradition?

Well, protestants of course invented all kinds of traditions themselves, holding some of them in the same value as rcc does with theirs

And my point is that you have failed to prove that.

the fact that sola scriptura is one of the 3 major solas says enough, especially b/c it's the only one that RCC's 100% disagree with.

[Ben Kenobi]

And I still have no clue what your question has to do with the point that was being made... as usual, you just make up a BS question that has nothing to do with a point you can't dispute.

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.

But you have catholics who aren't going along with the teachings... and they are still catholics.
You want to condemn all gays because some have non safe sex

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.

Yeah... we would expect the relgion that outlaws abortions to have the most... HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
One thing that is a fact... Catholics are KILLING MORE INNOCENT BABIES THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION.
You can't change that fact or make it go away... or even justify 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.

Then why don't you believe in tolerence... another church teaching... oh, that's right, you are also being selective in which teachings you follow.

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

Yet another link that doesn't address the real issue. Many catholics don't use birth control, but then have abortions. FACT.

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

Safe sex... and the problem goes away for gays... so what's your point again?

So given the sample of all gay men, you are saying that the 25x incidence indicates that they are all using condoms? If this were the case, then your argument is wrong. Even with condoms, they are far more likely to contract AIDS.

If gays followed advice to have safe sex, the problem goes away. The problem is, some don't.
The same is true for catholics... if they followed the teachings, the problem goes away... but many don't. So, they are the same.

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.

If that's what you think, then we need to do something about the religion that KILLS THE MOST innocent babies. We all have to agree that by degree, catholics kill far more than anybody else by a long shot.

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.

[Robert]

complains about moderation actions have/will be moved to the off topic moderation (sticky) topic.