Here, let me help you with dereigistration PB---

And don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out! And all that that implies...

I banned you to save you the trouble of deregistering;

cheers-
phil

__________________


"In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend." --Alexander Hamilton

Brett.

It's true that sex played a large role in pagan religions (thanks to Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, this is now basically common knowledge), and I don't doubt that there are Catholic priests who engage in these sort of Satanic rituals. In fact, one of them recently made the news:

So this obviously does go on. But can you really trace some local priest's feeling up an attractive boy to some elaborate pagan form of worship? The average priests are NOT trained in this sort of thing (in fact, they have no idea of what goes on in the upper eschelons of the Vatican), and furthermore in most cases that I'm aware of there is no evidence that they were the result of anything other than sheer "horniness".

Now, when you force a bunch of men to become "celibate", and then surround them with people who either are struggling with the same sexual impulses (as in the cases of monasteries etc.) or with innocent people who believe these men to have divine authority, what will logically result? Sexual abuse, immorality, all that sort of thing. Do you really need to be part of a system such as the Roman Catholic Church to be capable of this, or do you simply need to be in the flesh?

This is doubtless true (Alberto, btw, was what got me into the whole "conspiracy" thing in the first place), but bear in mind a lot of people are in ministry for the wrong reason (i.e. are not truly saved), and that Satan doesn't need knowing agents of infiltration to corrupt something.

__________________
In Christ, and for the Gospel of the Kingdom,
Brett

OHHHHH - Okaaaaay! So marriage is kinda like dating then right!? Ohhh Iiii never new that!!

Why bother reciting vows man? What's the point if people just "fall in and out of love"?? Why even waste the time - or the money for that matter that it costs to GET the divorce! What's the point of marriage then?

And this homo thing you "think" is normal - LOL - I just think that is hysterical. What a blind fool you are.

But - see guys - none can come to the Father unless He calls them. So don't try to teach PB, you'll just be casting pearls before the swine. There's no point.


(Oh - lol -oops - forgot he was banned already! hehehe)

__________________
Jesus is the Way, the TRUTH, and The Life - the 9/11 truth WILL come out, He will not let the LIE stand! The word is getting out by leaps and bounds - let's stand together and be ready - because "the glass is about to overflow"!! ;)
-Kathy

Soldier of the Lord, doesn't growth and change couple with circumstances? Many people obviously recite their marriage vows with the mindset to stay married for the rest of their natural lives, however some opt for divorce because of abusive situations having arisen after, obviously unforseen at the time OF taking their vows. There is no way I would personally expect a spouse (whether male or female) to stay in a relationship where they are being beaten black and blue on a semi regular basis, nor even if there were the threat of it being an occurrence.(just one example when a divorce is viable) Circumstances MUST be taken into account when referring to divorce as individual circumstances rule out your blanket synopsis, Soldier of the Lord.

As to homosexuality. I find it offensive that so many people on this thread have been equating same sex LOVE with sexual acts only. Just as loving hetrosexual relationships rely on more than the "physical" what makes any of you assume it is not the same with homosexuals? Frankly the attitude I have seen regarding this topic have been nothing short of juvenile and truly show a lack of understanding, love and compassion for your fellow man, or woman, whatever the case may be. So much for loving your "fellow man"unconditionally?

Also, before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I am an hetrosexual woman, married and a mother of 2. I also spent 13 years as a Christian Counsellor, I am an Ordained Minister and also have a Doctorate in Psychology.

From what I have seen, being non-judgemental is a hurdle some on this thread are yet to clear.

Cmar,

As an ordained minister (and who know what that really means today?) you must have at least a casual knowledge of the Holy Bible.

Your doctrine of "non-judgemental" is simply self-serving and has nothing to do with the teachings of the Bible.
The only truly non-judgemental human is one who has been lobotomized.

__________________
A LIE BELIEVED BY EVERYBODY IS NOT THE TRUTH

Trueblue,

Frankly, I have more than a casual or passing knowledge as to the Bible. I have actually read it and researched every aspect of it in great detail, rather than simply "study" selected verses, plucked soley to confuse and pretty much brainwash the masses by the Rev. Preist or Minister in the pulpit.

Agreed to a point as to the non-judgemental aspect, however, it also comes down to allowing people to live for their own expectations and not for the "conditions" or expectations of others.

I do have to say too as to your comment s from april 26th and 28th respectively. Other than biblical texts there is no historical proof as to Jesus, as the claimed writings of Josephus, Pliny. Tacitus.. et al have been shown through time to be mere interpolations added in some cases centuries later by the likes of Constantine and Euseibus. Too Nazareth did not exist at the time of jesus's purported life nor centuries there after as it was not included in Queen Helena's pilgrimage circa 320CE(ish..from memory here) of the Holy Towns and then again not mentioned in any way until around 700CE. Also, the Roman Catholic Church is fundmentally responsible for each and every text in the Bible, including Jesus' assumed "Messiah" status.

So, that being the case, could you please back up your comments of:"It's not a leap of faith for anyone to beleive Jesus existed, it's a matter of historical record.
It's one thing to say you don't believe Jesus is the son of God, but quite another to say He never exsted.
the events of history attest to the truth, study it!"

with these claimed historical facts/record you claim are available to back up your assertion?

Thank you and I do look forward to it.

Cmar,
As to the idea of non-judgmental, I think we might agree on this. Most of the time when this term is used, it means acceptance of others ideas (I'm OK, You're OK) and that's OK as long as their ideas are not forced on others. My comment still stands, though, we all have to make judgments (choices) constantly.

Aside from the disputed historical accuracy, the Bible presents a picture of the human race that is apparently at odds with what most people would like to believe. Belief based on personal whim is nothing more than fantasy.

__________________
A LIE BELIEVED BY EVERYBODY IS NOT THE TRUTH

It appears we seems to have common ground on two points at least. The above and also the idiocy of the "no PLANES" theory! lol

Yes we do have to make judgement calls constantly, but the judgement calls under normal circumstances should be only on what concerns our day to day life. Frankly, if two men or women are in love, living their lives and making each other happy, then that is a positive. I don't cast my mind to what they may or may not be doing in the privacy of their own homes, just as I doubt what I do would have ANY personal impact on their lives either.

trueblue wrote:You are right and that is why I walked away from Christianity as it truly does come down to personal 'whim" and faith based on that whim. I have no issue with you living that whim, Trueblue and if it works for you, so be it, however personally I wouldn't for example, buy a house based soley on what was written in a RE catalogue with no proof of it actually being there and that is just money. However the RE agent also would not resort to the threat of banish me to a lake of fire if I didn't.
Ahh... choice without conditions attached -Life -is wonderful Trueblue. I recommend it, but too would not threaten to banish you to a lake of fire if you didn't take up the recommendation.

Cmar, you claim;

I am familiar with this belief, but have found no evidence for it. To the contrary, the best evidence shows that the books of the New Testament were written long before the formation of the Catholic religion. Many of the scholars who agree with me are agnostics or atheists, and are saying this because it's true, not because they want to believe it.

__________________
A LIE BELIEVED BY EVERYBODY IS NOT THE TRUTH

No, catholicism was around from at least 107AD, where Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. (catholic means universal in Koine Greek) Yes I realise that "jesus" and his contemporaries are alleged to have written and spoken in Aramaic, however there is no physical evidence to support that. (unless of course you have seen it and wish to furnish me with examples) FYI, those calling themselves "unitarians" are the original CATHOLICS.

Now, considering the oldest NT "work" EVER found is John (known as Papyri - manuscript P52) supposedly dated approx ca 125AD, makes it several years AFTER the origins of catholicism. this BTW is not dated based on c14 dating, but instead by paleographers, dealing alone with the alleged style of handwriting of the time. If you want me to go onto the C14 dating, I am more than happy to do that, but I doubt you will be happy with the end result.

All other NT entries were not "scribed" until 200AD or after and then there were significant "re-workings", bringing forth the NT as YOU know it today. Too, jesus' alleged "divinity" was not 'confirmed' until it was decided to be, now known as the Niccean Creed approx 325AD. There were other's on the table for consideration as well.

Perhaps you should read up (if you already haven't) Codex Sinaiticus and also the Codex Vaticanus and anything to do with the aforementioned. If you want them, I am happy to provide links, however I too don't like to be seen as "leading" hence prefer in cases such as theoristic exploration, leave it up to the "searcher" to sus out their own sources.


The irony I find in most self professed christians is, that they try to remove themselves from religion per se, however their "belief" in jc would not exist in the first place without the RELIGION of "christianity", no matter in which guise it presents itself; ie catholicism, protestant, baptist..et al....., You all following jesus's alleged teachings from a BOOK and nothing more and the book you follow was put together BY the catholic faith, in SOME form. There is no other evidence to support jesus ever existed as a walking, talking human being. The idea OF "him" is a wonderful myth though, Trueblue and if that floats your boat, then by all means, run with it!. I would be interested to know though, what "life-low" lead you to your "faith"?

PS. I DO love the irony of your sigline by the way....lol