I've read Sprint and Pender both don't like the Catholic faith.


I'm really confused at the minute and I fail to see why people seem to single them out so much.  :o

I have nothing against them. The confession box is cool.

i love catholics.

actually i am one lol, catholicism rules.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2007 at 9:17pm:

i love catholics. actually i am one lol, catholicism rules.

I thought you said you were re-baptized as an adult?

Im an ex-catholic. Now i belong to no religion.

i said i was baptised in the holy spirit, something a bit different, sprints friend was rebaptised i think.

i go to catholic mass every week. its good the be part of the church from the very beginning.

Quote:

i said i was baptised in the holy spirit,

AH bushmills. ;)

?

Classic Liberal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2007 at 9:26pm:

?

Perhaps Jamesons?

Good on you Pender. Excellent stuff.
Yes, she was water baptised. As an adult is different though I feel.
I have been water baptised as an adult, and in The Holy Ghost and Born Again.
Came to know Jesus fairly late in life, somewhat a "On the road to Damascus" experience.


Good on you for going to church every week.
I have not really got one I can call my spiritual home. Which is a pity.
Have been to a few catholic churches, not a problem, just not really my thing.

ahhhhhhh

lol lol
funny.

jamesons - NOW you are talking.

That is by FAR the best.  A nonblended triple blended irish one ...........

Okay... so you now have nothing against them?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2007 at 9:36pm:

jamesons - NOW you are talking. That is by FAR the best.  A nonblended triple blended irish one ...........

Beaut isnt it [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

What the heck are jamessons?

Jamesons is far superior to chivas regal.
It is seriously dangerously smooth.

It is an Irish Whisky, well, THE Irish Whisky

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 5^th, 2007 at 9:48pm:

What the heck are jamessons?

The best IRISH WHISKEY

Donald, yes I have things I disagree with the catholic faith on.
In the big picture though, not a big things.

My catholic friend and I work together well spiritually.
I asked for her help today and expect to get an answer via her. We have helped each other in the past.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2007 at 9:55pm:

Donald, yes I have things I disagree with the catholic faith on.

Fair enough. Like?




Quote:

In the big picture though, not a big things. My catholic friend and I work together well spiritually. I asked for her help today and expect to get an answer via her. We have helped each other in the past.

Well yeah... exactly.

donald,  
as with the anglicans, catholics seem to put "the church" in front of Jesus.  
More seems to be made of "The Pope", than of a personal relationship with Jesus.
I believe catholics have their own bible.
there are a few others, but those come to mind.

For my friend (TL) and I ,
I got a dinner invite to a muslims place. She is very concerned, I am unsure.
i asked her to pray about it for me. Some time ago I got give a VERY good phrase for her and I, at the time was just perfect, really helped us both.  
will look for what I was given then .
As if God gave a toss about what Church we went to.

catholics often get caught up in the wrong tings, but that is humanity. ideally the centre of everyones life would be jesus himself.

"I have commanded my holy ones;
      I have summoned my warriors to carry out my wrath—
      those who rejoice in my triumph. "

Isaiah 13:3

Was the quote.
Right before then she was unsure of her ... merits.  You know how the deceiver works.

I had spoken of our obedience being like in an army. I am the rejoicing happy clapper.
She is The Holy One. I'm just a foot soldier .
From that time when she got that message and prayed, was SUCH a lot better for me.

forgot to add,  about that term "warrior".
In the old testament, musicians used to lead out the war party.
I am a huge music lover.

The war is not of this earth, it is a spiritual one.
I have work to do in a church I visited too. Their music mix was dreadful, their teaching was great.
Who cares what "banner" it is under ?

i am patr of an eccumenical community, so i have not problems with banners eiether.

i am sick of everyone getting caught up over technicalities

The mob, and getting poor people in third world countries to keep popping out babies.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 5^th, 2007 at 9:15pm:

I'm really confused at the minute and I fail to see why people seem to single them out so much.  :o

what i don't like about the catholic church:

1. refusal to accept condoms, despite AIDS & other sexually transmitted diseases being spread around the world.

2. status of un-baptised babies, originally the Pope mentioned that babies that have not been baptised will go to hell because of "original sin". the Pope then changed his mind saying that the baby would not be in hell or heaven (i think they called it, being "in limbo"). then the Pope changed his mind once again saying the baby would enter heaven.

i mean for a religion, for them to constantly change their mind on the same topic is very unusual. it's not like there was new circumstances, evidence, revelations, etc or anything like that. they just kept changing their mind.

skeptic wrote on Jul 6^th, 2007 at 2:08pm:

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 5th, 2007 at 9:15pm: I'm really confused at the minute and I fail to see why people seem to single them out so much.  :o what i don't like about the catholic church: 1. refusal to accept condoms, despite AIDS & other sexually transmitted diseases being spread around the world. 2. status of un-baptised babies, originally the Pope mentioned that babies that have not been baptised will go to hell because of "original sin". the Pope then changed his mind saying that the baby would not be in hell or heaven (i think they called it, being "in limbo"). then the Pope changed his mind once again saying the baby would enter heaven. i mean for a religion, for them to constantly change their mind on the same topic is very unusual. it's not like there was new circumstances, evidence, revelations, etc or anything like that. they just kept changing their mind.

u have no idea what u r talking about.

limbo etc was never doctrinal it has always been a theory and this theory has been taught, the church admits it does not know what happens to babies for sure and always has.

and as for condoms, the catholic church supports the only 100% effective form of contraception :D why would it support something less effective. If every person had just one sexual partner aids would die in a generation.

Quote:

1. refusal to accept condoms, despite AIDS & other sexually transmitted diseases being spread around the world.

As far as the aids goes... yes... it's a problem... but catholics tend to be honourable enough to have one partner... unlike protestants who leap into bed with anyone they can get their hands on. (Just kidding, sprint)  :P

Over-population isn't a big a problem like people think it is. Look at Ireland. They aren't over-populated and they're Catholic through and through. Only 4 million. Hardly over-populating.

India and China make up about 2/3 of the worlds population alone... and they're athiests, hindus and Buddhists.

If you ask me, western nations can use a few more babies anyway. It will AT LEAST stop immigrants from coming.

As far as personal preferences go... I can't stand condoms.  :-[

Quote:

2. status of un-baptised babies, originally the Pope mentioned that babies that have not been baptised will go to hell because of "original sin". the Pope then changed his mind saying that the baby would not be in hell or heaven (i think they called it, being "in limbo"). then the Pope changed his mind once again saying the baby would enter heaven. i mean for a religion, for them to constantly change their mind on the same topic is very unusual. it's not like there was new circumstances, evidence, revelations, etc or anything like that. they just kept changing their mind.

Yeah... this bothers me also. In the big picture though it doesn't matter too much for me. But... if the bible says homosexuals should be discouraged... then that's what it means. No flexibility should be allowed if that's what it says.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 7^th, 2007 at 8:30pm:

Quote: 1. refusal to accept condoms, despite AIDS & other sexually transmitted diseases being spread around the world. As far as the aids goes... yes... it's a problem... but catholics tend to be honourable enough to have one partner... unlike protestants who leap into bed with anyone they can get their hands on. (Just kidding, sprint)  :P Over-population isn't a big a problem like people think it is. Look at Ireland. They aren't over-populated and they're Catholic through and through. Only 4 million. Hardly over-populating. India and China make up about 2/3 of the worlds population alone... and they're athiests, hindus and Buddhists. If you ask me, western nations can use a few more babies anyway. It will AT LEAST stop immigrants from coming. As far as personal preferences go... I can't stand condoms.  :-[quote]2. status of un-baptised babies, originally the Pope mentioned that babies that have not been baptised will go to hell because of "original sin". the Pope then changed his mind saying that the baby would not be in hell or heaven (i think they called it, being "in limbo"). then the Pope changed his mind once again saying the baby would enter heaven. i mean for a religion, for them to constantly change their mind on the same topic is very unusual. it's not like there was new circumstances, evidence, revelations, etc or anything like that. they just kept changing their mind.

Yeah... this bothers me also. In the big picture though it doesn't matter too much for me. But... if the bible says homosexuals should be discouraged... then that's what it means. No flexibility should be allowed if that's what it says.
[/quote]

the reality is catholics have never changed their teaching, that is babies should be baptized, the ideas of why this is a teaching have varied as humans try to discover why were were commanded to baptize.

as for gays, catholics have never changed on that, still outlawed, something that was wrong then is still wrong now.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jul 6^th, 2007 at 10:43pm:

limbo etc was never doctrinal it has always been a theory and this theory has been taught, the church admits it does not know what happens to babies for sure and always has.

the catholic church shouldn't speculate about what happens to un-baptised babies. if they don't know, then they should just state that.

but to come up with different rulings on the same topic when there is no new evidence is silly since it gives the impression that the catholic church keeps changing their rules.

Religion shouldn't change at all since it's supposed to be God's teachings.


Quote:

and as for condoms, the catholic church supports the only 100% effective form of contraception :D why would it support something less effective. If every person had just one sexual partner aids would die in a generation.

the catholic church advocates abstinence or being with one sexual partner.

Great in theory, but in practice it doesn't work.

Abstinence is a bad idea, since everyone has sexual urges. Also, now it's very rare to find someone who has had just one sexual partner.

So condoms are an effective form of contraception, that would stop the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases and it is also pratical as well.

it used to be less rare, society encourages the sexual attitude everyone "has"