Catholics, are they Christian?

[PopeBenXVI]

I used to engage in much more in depth religious debate but I have recently came to a decision. Being the way the world is going and this country as well I am less concerned with exactly what Christian faith you are as long as you are a strict conservative on all moral and social issues. I don't know if you label yourself as a conservative or not but if you are you should love the Pope and what he stands up for as well as defend people like him. I love my protestant Brothers and sisters who stand up for Biblical principles and don't cave in to radical liberal agendas. In this sense.....we will all be one Church. I have no use for moderate Christians who sway with public opinion.

Hope that makes sense

[PLAYER57832]

I used to engage in much more in depth religious debate but I have recently came to a decision. Being the way the world is going and this country as well I am less concerned with exactly what Christian faith you are as long as you are a strict conservative on all moral and social issues. I don't know if you label yourself as a conservative or not but if you are you should love the Pope and what he stands up for as well as defend people like him. I love my protestant Brothers and sisters who stand up for Biblical principles and don't cave in to radical liberal agendas. In this sense.....we will all be one Church. I have no use for moderate Christians who sway with public opinion.

Hope that makes sense

Now you are getting into an entirely separate topic.... So I will refrain from answering, except to point out that saying moderate Christians are simply "swaying with public opinion" is very condescending and disrespectful. Disagreeing with you, or your church/the Pope does not mean they are an unthinking zombie, don't read the Bible, pray, etc. Nor does it any way mean we lack faith.

Further, a lot of the differances have more to do with how we judge others, rather than how we ourselves live. Christ told us "do not judge unless you will be judged". So, I might be against a particular behavior for my own self, my children, but not be in favor of a law that requires others to adhere to my personnal values. This is very much in line with Christ.

[PopeBenXVI]

When I say "sway with public opinion" I am referring to Christians who abandon Biblical principals to follow a popular opinion. This is not being Christ like but being "Self Like".

While we are not to judge the circumstances of ones sin (judging each other as you said) we can judge a sin itself as being intrinsically evil or not and must oppose it for that reason. When we love someone like our children we do not judge them on why they commit the sin but we also cannot allow them to merrily go down the trail to hell without saying anything or we can often be partly responsible for not at least trying to inform them of the graveness of their actions. Also, when laws of this country contradict natural law ie - Killing children in the womb, we judge that action itself as evil......not necessarily the woman who may have felt forced to have it done and is not awair of the nature of the action itself.

If you don't believe a countries laws ought to reflect a sound moral compass for it's people I am sorry for that. We are to live in the world but not be of the world. We are to transform the world. This my friend is Christ like as it is Scripture.

[PLAYER57832]

When I say "sway with public opinion" I am referring to Christians who abandon Biblical principals to follow a popular opinion. This is not being Christ like but being "Self Like".

While we are not to judge the circumstances of ones sin (judging each other as you said) we can judge a sin itself as being intrinsically evil or not and must oppose it for that reason. When we love someone like our children we do not judge them on why they commit the sin but we also cannot allow them to merrily go down the trail to hell without saying anything or we can often be partly responsible for not at least trying to inform them of the graveness of their actions. Also, when laws of this country contradict natural law ie - Killing children in the womb, we judge that action itself as evil......not necessarily the woman who may have felt forced to have it done and is not awair of the nature of the action itself.

If you don't believe a countries laws ought to reflect a sound moral compass for it's people I am sorry for that. We are to live in the world but not be of the world. We are to transform the world. This my friend is Christ like as it is Scripture.

Christ talked to people, he did not change laws. There was a reason for that. In fact, the ones he condemened were those within Judiasm .. the Sadduces and the Pharasees who were doing precisely what you proclaim.

When you look at the laws to enforce morality, you ignore the people who are involved. If they are not following morals then you need to teach them to do better. If you have taught better, they will do better. IF not ... it is up to God, not you or I to judge.

[Simon Viavant]

Player, just stop feeding the troll.

[PopeBenXVI]

Christ talked to people, he did not change laws. There was a reason for that. In fact, the ones he condemened were those within Judiasm .. the Sadduces and the Pharasees who were doing precisely what you proclaim.

When you look at the laws to enforce morality, you ignore the people who are involved. If they are not following morals then you need to teach them to do better. If you have taught better, they will do better. IF not ... it is up to God, not you or I to judge.

No my friend, he did not condemn them for making laws he did so for making them and not following it themselves. He also told us to do what they say because they are in charge.

MAT 23:2-3 - "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice."

People ultimately will decide whether or not to follow laws but a country that honors God should have laws that reflect that. Simply "teaching them to do better" is only a first step.
We raise children with moral rules and that is not "ignoring them" because they need guidance. Even grown adults need guidance as you can see by our prison system being so full. You can raise someone to never go to a strip club but many times people go. If a law banned the existence of them then you could not open the phone book and find the closest place to go.

I understand you are practicing the Christian principle of loving they neighbor and that I do respect. The problem here is that Love does not mean giving people a license to do whatever they want and we should take every step necessary to help prevent our brothers and sisters from falling into sin whether they recognize it as sin or not. Sinful acts are always destructive even if the one committing them does not realize it. Laws can help prevent this sin further in addition to raising children correctly as you stated.

Not looking to argue with you player as I can see your heart means well and I do not question you are a Christian. Just saying that I see laws as very important to help people from sinning and I hope others do as well. I judge the sin not the individual.

[pimpdave]

Shut up you fraud. You stupid worthless figure head. You're just as depraved and fallen as the rest of us. Stop worshiping your false idols and DO SOMETHING. You have all kinds of money but do what with it?

[PopeBenXVI]

Sorry, I would type more but I am too busy helping to feed hundreds of thousands of starving people around the world, providing free healthcare to those same people and teaching much of Africa to read in our free schools. I will start doing something right after I am finnished with that.

[redhawk92]

i say yes

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry, I would type more but I am too busy helping to feed hundreds of thousands of starving people around the world, providing free healthcare to those same people and teaching much of Africa to read in our free schools. I will start doing something right after I am finnished with that.

Exodus 20: 16

[joecoolfrog]

Sorry, I would type more but I am too busy helping to feed hundreds of thousands of starving people around the world, providing free healthcare to those same people and teaching much of Africa to read in our free schools. I will start doing something right after I am finnished with that.

Dont forget the sterling work you are doing regarding HIV, a less pompous figure would put humanity before dogma but not you......

[PopeBenXVI]

If my child says they want to play in the middle of the street, do I still tell them no even if their is a good chance they may do it anyway or do I just give them a helmet and tell them they are protected now so go ahead?

[jonesthecurl]

Popes aren't supposed to reproduce.

[mpjh]

Have penis will -- well you know.

[iblaskov]

What are question? Hope U studied a history!? Acctually Catolic Christianity is first group of Christianity together with Pravoslav church when Roman empire devided beetwen Romans and Bisants at 1594. The Christiany religion devided into Catolicism and Protestants.

[mpjh]

They are not supposed to be member of the Nazi army, but Benedict.

[PLAYER57832]

If my child says they want to play in the middle of the street, do I still tell them no even if their is a good chance they may do it anyway or do I just give them a helmet and tell them they are protected now so go ahead?

Let's see ... I give my son a helmet, he gets hit by a car and the helmet provides maybe 1-2% chance of protection, if that.


I tell my son's friends who are sexually active (which my son, having been raised with my beliefs is not ... yet .. oh and I mean WITH parental permission, by-the-way) Or my son, should it come to that to use a condom wich will provide roughly 80% protection (included error for mis-use) against pregnancy and roughly 90% chance of protection against AIDS (again, allowing for misuse -- virtually 100% if item is used properly)

Great analogy!

[PopeBenXVI]

You did not answer the question

[PLAYER57832]

You did not answer the question

Can we vote on that?

or to put it another way, something that gives maybe 2% chance of protection is not comparable to something that gives 75% protection, even when mis-used and near (not precisely, but close) 98% protection when used correctly. Besides, that is strictly a last line of defense.

I DO require my children, and even neighbor kids when in my care, to wear helmets while biking or riding any wheeled toy... and I ALSO teach them how to obey the "rules of the road".

I do and have done the same with my sons.

[Napoleon Ier]

You did not answer the question

Can we vote on that?

Oh yes, because epistemology based on whatever it is the majority thinks is perfectly valid, unlike falsifiability criteria.

[amppax]

Catholics started the Christian church. If anything, Jehovas, Protestants, Mormons, etc. aren't Christian

The Roman Catholic Church was not the original Church as much as it was a part of the original Church. The first Christians were Orthodox Christians, and after the Great Schism there was a Western (Roman Catholic) Church and Eastern (Orthodox Christian) Church. Before that there was just the Christian Church. It's common for us, in the west, to think of the Roman Catholic Church as the original church because Rome was the seat of Christianity from which our Protestant churches came. There were other seats of Christianity (Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc.) with their own Orthodox Churches.

If you are going to make that argument, CA, then consider this. Jesus says to Peter " you are the rock, and on this rock I will build my Church" or something along those lines. Peter was the first bishop of Rome. If we take this statement to mean that Peter was the first head of the Church (and this is what most Christians I know do) then Peter's successor would logically also be the head of the Church. Therefore, while the Church did start in the east (in Jerusalem to be precise) The first head of the Church moved his seat of power to Rome, therefore the Roman Catholic Church can claim Apostolic Succession all the way back to Peter.

[PLAYER57832]

You did not answer the question

Can we vote on that?

Oh yes, because epistemology based on whatever it is the majority thinks is perfectly valid, unlike falsifiability criteria.

Merely in reference to whether I answered the question ... yes, in that case it is.

[PopeBenXVI]

You did not answer the question

Can we vote on that?

Oh yes, because epistemology based on whatever it is the majority thinks is perfectly valid, unlike falsifiability criteria.

Hahaha, Yes lets "vote on it" that always determines truth. Hahahahahaha. Good one.

[PLAYER57832]

You did not answer the question

Can we vote on that?

Oh yes, because epistemology based on whatever it is the majority thinks is perfectly valid, unlike falsifiability criteria.

Hahaha, Yes lets "vote on it" that always determines truth. Hahahahahaha. Good one.

Of course not, but whether a minor question was answered in a way most would understand or not ... yes, at times.

anyway, every hear of a "rhetorical question?"

[PLAYER57832]

If you are going to make that argument, CA, then consider this. Jesus says to Peter " you are the rock, and on this rock I will build my Church" or something along those lines. Peter was the first bishop of Rome. If we take this statement to mean that Peter was the first head of the Church (and this is what most Christians I know do) then Peter's successor would logically also be the head of the Church. Therefore, while the Church did start in the east (in Jerusalem to be precise) The first head of the Church moved his seat of power to Rome, therefore the Roman Catholic Church can claim Apostolic Succession all the way back to Peter.

This is Roman Catholic doctrine, but it is disputed by other churches, including the Greek Orthodox and the various Protestant churches, to name a few.

The time of division marks just that ... a division. The first WESTERN head moved to Rome, but the Byzantine church did not agree with this. (That might be part of why they split )

Most Protestant believe that passage to mean that Peter would be a foundation of the descendent church, not that this power was then passed on to successive people whom Roman Catholics refer to as Popes.

Similarly, a lot of Roman Catholics (not the truly educated, but a lot of members) believe that Latin is the "original" tongue of the church. That, too, is false. Latin at the time was the language of the common person. This is why the West is where translations sprang. The Greeks never believed in translating the Bible.