Re: revealed words of god
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:As far as I'm concerned, all of history's claims to have received the revealed word of god should be examined for evidence of schitzofrenia or some plant substance that could be chomped and chewed or smoked.
BBB
osso--
I was responding to this post.
I think most churches contend that God has revealed Himself to them in some way. Unless she's going to church to diagnose them with shitzophrenia, I don't think she'll be attending.
I'm still confused, poor baby me. Who is "she"? Chrissie?
I'm pretty sure Lash was referrin' to BBB there, Osso, the context bein' BBB's epiphany as to the purported revealed word of god.
Thats the way I read it, anyhow.
OK, thicker than usual today.
I'm still arguing re doctrines and dogma and majesterium, wish fishin' would check in. But, ne'er mind the words, I agree with the concepts you outline.
Re sin, thunder, sure, go for it. I am years past interest in the concept myself.
Ok, but that is basically what the topic is about.
thunder_runner32 wrote:Noddy 24, does your church follow the will of God, or the will of man?
I would like to pose the same question to you thunder.
Wunner what happened to Chrissee - hope she's OK. Ain't seen her around the past couple days.
Thunder's question is likely quite unpopular here, but on topic.
I guess some of us --even those of us who don't feel any negative judgement against gay church-goers, or Catholics who don't like their churches' doctrine --don't understand why they blame church leaders for upholding the foundations of their churches.
Personally, I would expend energy toward fighting for the right for anyone to attend any church --and would welcome anyone to worship with me...
...Although Fbaezer gave a thoughtful explanation of why some people feel a need to associate with a certain church, I think rather than trying to force the Catholic church to erase many of their foundational beliefs to accomodate people with OTHER beliefs--people should form a church they can associate with wholeheartedly.
There's an applicable non-Biblical scripture that refers to that which is preached at most churches as "the philosophies of man... mingled with scripture." I always remember that.
Quote:the philosophies of man... mingled with scripture.
So, basically twisting the word of God to whatever we want it to say.
The Catholic church has been accepting gays for years..they call them priests.
No, those (few) sickos have used their power and ranking to molest children. The church cannot accept or reject something it doesn't know about.
thunder_runner32 wrote:No, those (few) sickos have used their power and ranking to molest children. The church cannot accept or reject something it doesn't know about.
Don't ask don't tell right? :wink:
Ewww...don't wink at me! You're trying to seduce me now!!
J/k
No, they should ask, and the priest should be forced to tell.
No I'm not. I'm a methodist. I only believe in beating the baptists to the cafetertia.
I would hope - and fully expect - one of the major ramifications of Benedict XVI's Papacy will be a far more proactive, open, and proscriptive stance regardin' moral lapse on the part of clergy.
Such does appear to be a primary focus of the new Pope. He faces an entrenched bureauocracy itself not blameless for the establishment of the conditions which precipitated the scandal, and I wish him well in his efforts. It won't be an easy thing to do, from many aspects. If The Church is to have a future, it is somethin' that urgently needs done.
BPB--
You should get paid for a couple of those responses.
Try a night at the Improv. I think you've missed your calling.
<heh>
Yeah, I know, that's kind of why I put ....J/k
