Yes, indeed.  Though, to be honest, I'm not seein' the love. ;)  Would you stop him from being beaten in the street?  Sure, if you say so, I can believe it.  But that's a pretty low bar for calling it love, in my eyes.  I often hear christians say the "hate the sin, love the sinner," but what I see them do looks no different to me than hating the sinner.  They know they're supposed to love everyone, but then they call people hateful names, do things with the intent of hurting people's feelings, and try to drive people away.  Not saying you do all those things, but others who say "hate the sin, love the sinner" do, and I'm always left waiting to see the "love the sinner" half of it.

I'm feeling that a bit (to a much lesser extent) here when you talk about the pope, catholics, priests, etc.  I'm seeing the "hate the sin" part, but I'm not picking up on the "love the sinner," bit.  And of the two, I think Jesus would say the later is the more important.

Also, for what it's worth, I think arguments are far more convincing to people when they can see that you care about them.  Arguments that seem like they come from anger tend to force people away.

Agree with Tycho on that last post.

There's a really good saying that I heard once. The idea of it is this....

Preach the gospel at all times, and sometimes use words.

I have repeatedly said my argument was with the teachings.  Hostility doesn't equal hate.  Pointing out someone's sinful nature isn't hate.  Pointing out someone's following a person of sinful nature isn't hate.

I'm an unbaptised Christian, I have flaws of my own but I'll flip a few tables if I see the work of God being perverted.  You want me to hold someones hand and coddle them into believe what I say, well I don't belong to a cult that love bombs people.  I'd rather just put it all out there.  I am motivated to tell what I believe, and back it up with scripture.  If they don't know the scripture than I'll guide them through it.

I learned in school that people don't wanna be coddled and babied.  I learned in sales that you have to point out the flaws in the person currently owned system to motivate change.

Karisara, Why do people have to pay money to put people on the list for General Intercession?

Keep in mind AN that you aren't here in a 'sales' role. Nobody is here in the market for a new theology, and the forms of psychological manipulation taught as a part of sales (creating cognitive dissonance that can be resolved when they agre to purchase your product) isn't welcome here.
And yes, I have had sales training as well, and if you have ever been in a multi-level marketing plan you should also be aware that approaching life from a sales perspective will lose you friends and cause your familly to stop talking to you, because it is a manipulative and distastefull way to approach a relationship.
Which brings me back to whether you are here to find friends and conversation or fishing for converts.

Converting people to non-demoninationalism? That's rather novel in my experience.

Certainly I do agree that some people are not appreciating the way it comes across.

But as for not welcome? I think having diversity actually increases the various knowledge that can be learned. Simply put, I don't think unwelcome is really the word meant here. As the goal should be to have people of different opinions come to chat and present different viewpoints.


I think I would have to say that American has already stated his viewpoint that informing people of the truth is his priority. Over all, I have to say that does seem more important than making friends. Basically, the view I'm getting is you'd really have to hate someone if you were willing to let them go to hell without warning them you're on the path to hell.

Not saying you didn't already know, or that you would have to agree with American he is presenting the truth, however, It's a reasonable explanation for presenting something that is not always welcome.

Which is more loving, to be friends with someone going to hell, or to risk anger and persecution in order to let you know the danger ahead of you?

Penn Gillette said it really well here.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/...-to-not-proselytize/

I don't think American has said non denominationalism died on the cross for anyone.

Anyone think American doesn't look to Jesus as the sole and only source of His salvation?

I dont think Ive ever been requested money to be put on a Churchs list of general intercessions. Nor have I paid money to be married at a Church. However, its customary to request a donation from those who have money to give, to help support the basic functioning of the Church. Unlike say the LDS Church, RCC clergy are full-time and have no other source of bread for their supper than donations. Im sure if you went to a Church, asked for an intercession, and showed that you would donate, but have a good cause not to (such as not having money) they would waive the request.

I was responding to
which pretty well suggests that he is teying to upset people to persuade them to change their point of view. It is a technique that is taught is social psychology class and sales as a form of psychological manipulation.
which is *not* something you do when your motive is to have a discussion in which you expect to learn as well as educate, though soeone looking to engage in psychological manipulation would certainly *claim* they were only looking for conversation.
and my point is that such sales/manipulation/prosteletising is not what the forum is for.

Hey silver, I pretty much disagree with your view on this.

Even if what you said were true, (though I suspect American's goal isn't to manipulate), I don't see how that makes this forum not for him.

Even people who aren't here to listen and have a conversation should be welcome. I do understand you feel manipulators shouldn't be welcome, I really see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to question or comment to anyone.

I'm not saying that *he* shouldn't be welcome, I am saying that the maniupulative approach suggested by his post - accurate or not - is not welcome.

You're saying that because he admitted he points out the flaws in a person's belief in order to show why there is a need for a change is not a welcome approach?


I'm still not convinced the format is unwelcome.

Seems a moot point anyway. The rules actually explain what the mods/gm are going to support as unwelcome.

More than that- because teh sales technique he is refering to is one of trying to induce psychological stress in a person by challenging their view of the world in a manner they find threatening in order to provide psychological leverage to persuade them that what you are selling (in this case a particular religious perspective) is somethng they need to buy/invest in/believe in. It is a technique also documented as being widely used by cult leaders in recruiting.
I'm not saying that I think AN is a cult leader, nor do I think he is being particularly successfull in causing people to accept his "I'm saying this as a friend you are going to Hell because of who you assosciate with" line of dissonance induction, just that the approach itself, especially when the person doing it is cynical enough to describe it as a sales ploy, is not one that I believe fits with the purpose of this forum.

Yea, at this point you're now debating your view of what you think is the basis for American's viewpoint.

I'm debating that differing view points are ok, even if they are not welcomed by any or all. I think diversity is worth it, and we should expect disagreement on the validity of certain styles of approach.


Again, while your belief is not invalid, it is not supported, and that is if it were even true, which I suspect it is not.

Regarding what is and isn't welcome here, the constitution says:


So as long as AmericanNightmare is engaging in meaningful conversation, it's okay for his goal to be to convert others to his beliefs.

Perhaps so, but it's not usually love, either.  To be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't challenge others' beliefs or try to change their mind.  My issue is more with the way in which you're doing it, not that you're doing it.


Really?  Surprised to hear that.  Any particular reason?


I'd say the disciples did.  I'm not asking you to hold anyone's hand or "coddle" them, but there's a great distance between that and the method you've been using so far.  Somewhere in the middle is more along the lines of what Jesus used (though I'd say he was far closer to the coddling end of things).  Jesus encouraged humility, kindness, compassion, meekness.  You've got plenty of passion, and that's great, but so far I'm not seeing much compassion.  I'm not picking up the feeling that you really care about the people you're talking at; you seem far more concerned with proving yourself right than with helping them.


And some people would rather just keep all their money than donate any to the poor.  Some people would rather not love their neighbor, let alone their enemy.  There's a lot of things we'd all "rather just" do than what Jesus tells us to, but that doesn't mean we should.


Not asking you to coddle or baby anyone, just suggesting that Jesus wanted you to show kindness, humility, and compassion, even to those who disagree with you.  It's not easy, and I can't claim to be all that good at it, but I do try.  It takes conscious effort, but I think people are more likely to listen to you if they don't feel under attack.

Again, my issue isn't that you're telling people they're wrong, it's the way in which you're going about it.  It's not what I would call friendly, let alone loving.  You come off as angry and hostile, rather than offering help or trying to open their mind.  It's not your message, but the delivery, that doesn't seem to match Jesus' message to me.

Put another way, you come off like one of the people waiting to stone the adulteress (ie, hating the sin), rather than like Jesus saying "let him without sin cast the first stone" (ie, loving the sinner).

I'm thinking this is becoming a new topic in and of itself- the sales of belief?

There is a couple of checks in my fiance's name that says otherwise.  I dunno if RCC preaches tithing but in any church who does thats how the clergy would be paid.  Asking for a "donation" of over a hundred dollars to have a dead person put on a list where all the priest does is say the name and the congregation just asked for blessings sounds like robbery.

I dunno what RCC church you go to but here the clergy lives at the churches.  They are fed by various members of the congregation.  There is no need for clery to need money.



I was raised in a split house, Baptist/Presbyterian.  It was against my fathers beliefs to have an infant baptised even though all my older siblings had gotten it done.  By the time I was eight and ready to be baptised in a Baptist church my parents had really split and I was full time Presbyterian.  My church didn't believe in baptising children or adults who didn't understand the meaning and by the time I did I didn't like the fact that I had to do a rigourous process for something they should gladly do to anyone who wants it.  That is when I broke away from my family church and looked for what I believed was right.  I still never found a church who would baptise a non-member and now I'm going to be stuck going to a Catholic church so my fiance can have her peace.

I'm still looking to be but I do no believe it is required for salvation.



The compassion is me trying to help people truely find Jesus.  You might not like the way I approach things, but it is the Texas way (and there's a reason why it's the grestest state).  I wasn't taught to force my ideas into people, nor was I taught live and let live.  With the devil around every corner to try and turn you it's my job as a Christian to help others who are interested in Christ to understand the message, if they have something to teach me I'd gladly listen and possibly use it later on.  Should I be like the Catholic or Mormon church and say salvation is only through my way?  Should I sit by and watch as Man made doctrines turn people away from God's word?  No, I simply can't.  If you don't like the way my approach is with a fellow Christian that I'm sorry, I'm not here to convert.. I'm only here to guide.



That is completely right.  I kinda wish I'd have said it.  To sit by and say nothing to people who are allowing themselves to be slowly taken from God is something I will not do.  I might ruffle feathers, but at least I warned.

That's all actually very interesting.  Out of curiosity, how do you square your belief that the RCC is a tool of satan with the fact that you'll be attending one and getting married in one, etc?  Have you told your fiance that you think the RCC leadership are satanists?  Have you said to her the things you've said here about it?  If not, I really strongly suggest you have that conversation before you get married!  Not the kind of thing that someone wants to find out a few months after the ceremony!


No one's asking you to sit by and say nothing (or at least I'm not).  On the other hand, if all you accomplish is ruffled feathers and a clear conscious on your part, I think you've missed the point.  Just because doing nothing isn't an option, you shouldn't assume that absolutely anything you do is better. ;)

Did you have a reason not to donate? The Bible says you should donate at least 10% of your income to the Church, and I believe it's common tradition (and good manners) to pay for services rendered, even if not requested. If your girlfriend for some reason could not or did not wish to donate, and could justify it, I assume she would have been excused.




In that case, I recommend you not do it. Have you asked your girlfriend why she did it? It's not required. I'm guessing she found some value from spending the money.



I don't know if your clergy are members of an order or diocesan, because it makes a difference. If they're members of an order, the money pays for training new priests, paying for the upkeep of houses, charity services, etc. Diocesan priests have to support themselves, just like you and I. They need to do their own shopping and (usually) cooking, pay for their housing, electricity, water, clothes and so on, plus they commonly get some additional income for personal spending, like going to the movies or things like that. Either way, supporting a person and his charities isn't free. I've also never heard of a congregation going to the priest's house to cook for him. That sounds very inefficient.

Different religions have differing concepts of what percentage of income should be donated to teh religion and/or charity, and generaly it falls in line with that same religion's concepts of karma or justice (in Judeao-Christianity you will reap 10x what you sow, and should tithe 1/10 what you reap). Personally I suspect the numbers are an artifact of the regional growing conditions of where the religion orriginated.

On the marriage isue keep in mind that $100 is getting more than just teh priest- it is also getting you your location. Try finding another appropriate wedding venue for under $100 then come talk to me about how corrupt the church is for asking for that donation. Especially one of equivelent level/quality of decor. (I think we have all agreed that the Catholic church has built some very impressive architucture)

Catching up... I'll try to limit this to questions regarding Catholicism, rather than more general Christian questions (but I'll label them appropriately, so we can pursue them elsewhere).



Notice the second part, "in a more general sense". Praying to Mary falls into the general category, Mary being in the realm of the divine, and contacting her may assist us in our relationship with God (similar to how contacting your minister may help you in your relationship with God).



This falls into the former category - prayer specifically with God.

I will give you, these definitions are terribly written, from a strictly technical point-of-view. I wouldn't mind talking with the author about why he chose to word it this way which.

However, if we move to the second paragraph, it helps a little:


And later:



We can ask people to mediate, consult or intercede.




I did not say she is not divine. What I did was avoided using the word 'divine' because I suspect your definition is different than what the RCC uses. So I defined the role very specifically - she is not a god or goddess. She is in heaven, and has a close relationship with God. She participates in the heavenly congress. The RCC considers that 'divine'. You may not. I answered your question, and did not disagree with the encyclopedia.




You ask other people to pray for you. You can do this in person, on the phone, by e-mail, etc.
However, dead people don't generally answer the phone or e-mail. So if you wish to ask for them to pray for you, you must get in contact with them. The RCC believes prayer is the method to do this. Simply quietly, in your mind, ask this person who is important to you to pray on your behalf to God. That's all it is.

You do not NEED Mary or the saints to intercede for you. But you also don't need to go to Church every Sunday or join a bible study to be saved either. There is a difference between having the minimal relationship with Christ necessary for salvation and having the strongest relationship that is possible, though. Praying to the saints is just hanging out with Jesus's friends in a way. Not required, but it builds that relationship (and it may have positive personal ramifications for you, as I already described).




This is definitely a broader question than just Catholicism, but I'll touch on it briefly: Yes.

The things that Jesus preaches to us are not traits held in monopoly by Christians. Charity, love, obedience, honesty, faith, these are all things Jesus calls on us to obtain in our following his path. Fiddler on the Roof is a fantastic example of having faith even when it is difficult, and having an active relationship with God. Tycho has a degree of patience, understanding and concern which seems very unusual in this world, and I feel that, as a Christian, I should, at minimum, be meeting his standards in those traits (I'm not) before I can consider myself successful in following Jesus's example.

Of course, I don't go to either for lessons on Christian theology, but Christianity is more than a belief system - it's a way of living. Yes, if I find an atheist or a Jew or a Muslim who is living more Christ-like in some area than I am, I will take that opportunity to see Jesus's face in that person, to learn my lessons, and hopefully be better for it.




I really don't see this response holding much water. You seem to be saying that using your English translation, 4,000 years later, is better than what they could have because there are seven languages involved somewhere in the middle. That's a stretch. Then you seem to be saying that even if they DID know the commandments properly, they disobeyed God because they're just sinners - even though Moses was leading the back, after having just cursed a bunch of people to death and God said he'd give them all boils. Your answer lacks internal consistency.




These are all general Christianity questions. I'll bump up the appropriate forum for you and we can continue that discussion there.



But the true word is still available, thanks to Catholic scholars and monks. If the original canon were lost from  the 8th to 15th century while in the sole charge of the RCC, you would have a point, but that didn't happen. As we find new historical sources, we find that the differences between what the Catholic Church painstakingly maintained and what was likely the original, pre-translation text, are minimal and almost always limited to translation errors, not intentional modifications of the text.



So before you're upset that the RCC took a hardline "our way or the Hell way" stance. Now you're upset that the RCC is trying to promote peace and discussion. You can't have it both ways.



This is an interesting question, and I would encourage a separate debate on the value of authority in the Christian Church. However, let's focus on the facts. the RCC was responsible for an almost exclusively illiterate and uneducated flock for somewhere between half and all of a millenium. During that time most people lacked the rational tools to derive meanings from obscure Latin and Hebrew texts (and even in the native language it would have been difficult). So the RCC, whenever possible, maintained a stable of trained, educated theologians and debaters to discuss the texts, their meanings, and their application on any modern issue that might come along, and would pass these understandings down to the common folk.

This was a tremendous responsibility, and really, more than any human organization should reasonably be responsible for. But they took it on. Certainly there are some cases where they were wrong, and perhaps even some where they were wrong because of malicious intent. But for the most part the relationship between what the RCC teaches is necessary for salvation and Christian living matches very, very closely to what you already accept is the 'true' path to salvation and Christian living. It seems like if we're talking about global conspiracies, that whole 500-1,000 years would have been a swell time to shake stuff up and create some behaviors which are clearly going to lead to damnation. If faith in Jesus is really all you need for salvation, the test for 'is the RCC led by the devil' would clearly be 'is it investing time and energy in getting people to confess and hold faith in Jesus'. If the answer is yes, well, it would seem pretty conclusively to show the Church is not led by the devil.



That's it? The RCC has a theological difference with you on a handful of points. They agree on the primacy of Jesus Christ, the necessity of faith, the avoidance of a thousand different sins. Yet because they disagree with you on the interpretation of two lines in the Old Testament, they are clearly doing the devil's work.

I don't think that meets any burden of proof.




Yes, Catholic Charities does not provide funding to organizations who support what the RCC sees as immoral behavior (homosexual marriage and abortions being the two biggies). Of course, if that were reversed, you would complain that the RCC is being led by the devil because it's paying for homosexual marriages and abortions, but let's avoid that.

Catholic Charities does not limit its charities to only Catholics. It does not require individuals convert religions to receive aid. That is very important. The RCC has the power to sit down with poor people in Africa and say 'sorry, you get no food until you convert'. But they don't.



The Council of Trent was aimed at organizations with incorrect information. However, this ties back into 3, so you are simultaneously damning the RCC for doing, and for not doing, in the very same post. This is simply hypocritical. I'm beginning to suspect you don't know your own position.



Excommunication is leaving the community - literally. ex-communication. Yes, you cannot leave the RCC without also leaving the RCC.



Let me repeat what I said:



Your response does not even address the question. It is irrelevant.





Mary was sinless because God (her savior) made her so at the moment of conception. I don't know the details of the whole 'did Mary need to be saved a second time at death to go to Heaven?' question. I don't know that it's really an issue essential to one's faith. We do believe that God took her up, bodily, into heaven, so she has already 'gotten' the perfect body she would otherwise get at the second coming.



Unfortunately, the many canons of the RCC are... substantial, to say the least. Hundreds of thousands of pages of history there, most of which is regarding internal matters not relevant to modern practice. I've read the bible (skipped a lot of the books of law, though). I've read my Catechism. I've gone to plenty of bible studies. However, I'm not a history major, and as much as my father encourages me, I really have 0 interest in the lives of early saints or medieval popes. With few exceptions though, such things are irrelevant to the modern worshipper.

My understanding as a non-Catholic is this:

A fundamental Catholic belief is that the Eucharist is transmuted into the physical body of Christ when ingested.

Now, while I don't personally believe that to be the case, I understand it is completely a matter of faith (and something that cannot be proven).  So I have no problems with a Catholic having faith in that.

However, here's where I have a problem.  What is the source of this belief?  In other words, any belief in such an important transformation needs scriptural authority...or is it just a time honored belief that was established through the RCC?  Is there a prophet or person who claims authority for God in making such a pronouncement?  Since the Eucharist was not performed until after the Bible, I can't imagine a biblical source for it...though symbolically, of course, it refers to Jesus at the Last Supper.  But not literally; where is the source for the literal transformation?

In reply to Heath (msg #543):

A lot of articles come from tradition rather than proscription, especially for a religion as old as Catholicism.  And sometimes tradition dictates which forms of proscription are canon and which are not.

That's why I'm asking for the source of authority.  Katisara might know.

For many issues or interpretations, it's probably not a big deal, but for the religion to actively pronounce for many hundreds of years that a wafer will "literally" turn into the body of Christ...how do we know it wasn't just some priest somewhere in, oh, say 242 A.D. who just said, "Sure, that sounds like it'll be a good interpretation," and then it just caught on without any real authority (i.e., someone professing to speak from God) for that.

EDIT: And the other reason I think it is a really big deal is because this is the method by which sins are supposedly forgiven.  In other words, this practice without any real scriptural authority (that I'm aware of, other than symbolically) is what keeps people in or out of hell.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:31, Wed 16 Mar 2011.