# Ironic



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

point of view for a voluntarily celibate man, dontchyathink?

http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu...en-not-pets/Up6WXAVScGPvnW3x7HWPrO/story.html

Do as I say, not as I do, in full effect here...


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

It's not ironic.  For people who have not taken vows of celibacy, children are a blessing from God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> It's not ironic.  For people who have not taken vows of celibacy, children are a blessing from God.



What's the difference between his vow of celibacy and my choice to not have kids? 

Him being Pope precludes Jesus' views on being fruitful? Where is that one written down?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

Of course, I say that, but I have 2 kids from an ex, so I'm only counting my current marriage as being "unfruitful."

I personally think that this adherence to faith, as opposed to your own personal desires to not have kids, is one of the main reasons we have so many "unwanted" kids in this world.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What's the difference between his vow of celibacy and my choice to not have kids?



Do I really need to explain that?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Do I really need to explain that?



Yeah, because I honestly don't know where he gets his capacity to ignore Jesus' desires for men and women to be fruitful.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> It's not ironic.  For people who have not taken vows of celibacy, children are a blessing from God.


I would be more impressed if he talked about how to be a blessing to your children.
Orphanages overflowing, child abuse, poverty due to lazy parents, parents more concerned about themselves and on and on and on.
Lots of couples out there who SHOULDNT be parents.
Religion can be incredibly selfish.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, because I honestly don't know where he gets his capacity to ignore Jesus' desires for men and women to be fruitful.



First of all, celibacy means "no sex", not just "no children".

Second, Jesus was celibate and many who chose to follow him chose celibacy, also.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I would be more impressed if he talked about how to be a blessing to your children.
> Orphanages overflowing, child abuse, poverty due to lazy parents, parents more concerned about themselves and on and on and on.
> Lots of couples out there who SHOULDNT be parents.
> Religion can be incredibly selfish.



This is more my point. He's commanding, essentially, 1 billion people on an already overcrowded planet in most areas to have children that they themselves may not necessarily want, all in the spirit of Jesus' teachings. 

I'm ok with the golden rule, and all the other stuff but this kind of request is borderline reckless IMO.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> First of all, celibacy means "no sex", not just "no children".
> 
> Second, Jesus was celibate and many who chose to follow him chose celibacy, also.



Right, I get that. Thanks for the checkup. Where is it in the Bible that the Pope shall be celibate? Or that there shall be a Pope at all? 

Why is his decision to pursue the priesthood, and thus be celibate, more valid than mine to just not have more kids because I've had two and my current wife and I agree that we shouldn't?

I know these are impossible questions for you to answer, and therein lies another point of mine. 

His decision isn't mandated by Jesus, but by the Church created by man, unless you're telling me that Jesus founded the Catholic church...


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> This is more my point. He's commanding, essentially, 1 billion people on an already overcrowded planet in most areas to have children that they themselves may not necessarily want, all in the spirit of Jesus' teachings.
> 
> I'm ok with the golden rule, and all the other stuff but this kind of request is borderline reckless IMO.


A cynics point of view might be -
If Christians produce children a portion of those children will remain Christians which will make Christianity larger which produces more money which produces more power which produces more influence which produces.....

Maybe reckless, maybe calculated.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Where is it in the Bible that the Pope shall be celibate? Or that there shall be a Pope at all?



Ask a Catholic.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Why is his decision to pursue the priesthood, and thus be celibate, more valid than mine to just not have more kids because I've had two and my current wife and I agree that we shouldn't?



It's not more valid.  Neither is it less valid.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> His decision isn't mandated by Jesus, but by the Church created by man, unless you're telling me that Jesus founded the Catholic church...



Jesus did found the church.  He is the Groom, and the church is His bride.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 5, 2014)

Well, yea. You can't have your cash cow going extinct.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Ask a Catholic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was a Catholic. I'm lawyering you. I know the answer to the question, I'm seeing if YOU do since you're defending it. 

Precisely my point. He made a choice, and now he's using Jesus to remove other people's choice. It may not be ironic, but it is the textbook definition of hypocritical. 

He founded "the church" yes. Which was just people around the campfire sharing faith. Man invented the Church, which is a building, with pews and rites, and tithes. 

It's important to know the difference. Jesus' church was communal, open, and open-aired. Man's church is material and built on their own desires with no guidance, that I've ever been able to find, or hear tell of, from the Bible as to what a physical church should be.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

It's tangential to this topic, but do you know one thing that would make me happier than a pig in stink? 

If "a church" were to be reformed as just a bunch of people standing in a field around a campfire sharing their faith without the fashion show and pride in the building. 

I think the way they decorate some of these churches, of all denominations, borders on idolatry with the stained glass, or the 30ft crucifix from Burlwood. Or the soundstage for their weekly concerts. 

Just my opinion, though.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I was a Catholic. I'm lawyering you. I know the answer to the question, I'm seeing if YOU do since you're defending it.
> 
> Precisely my point. He made a choice, and now he's using Jesus to remove other people's choice. It may not be ironic, but it is the textbook definition of hypocritical.
> 
> ...


Bingo. Man turned it into a "religion". Man turned religion into a business. A business that is profitable. 
Its a big factor in why I reject religion.
From what I remember that wasn't what Jesus was about.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I was a Catholic. I'm lawyering you. I know the answer to the question, I'm seeing if YOU do since you're defending it.



OK ...



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Where is it in the Bible that the Pope shall be celibate?



Christians are not required to be celibate, but there is Biblical precedent for those who desire it.  The Apostle Paul was celibate and said he wished all men could be the same. 




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Or that there shall be a Pope at all?



The passage used by Catholics is Matthew 16:17-19.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Precisely my point. He made a choice, and now he's using Jesus to remove other people's choice.



They can choose to ignore him.  Many Catholics do on these matters.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> He founded "the church" yes. Which was just people around the campfire sharing faith. Man invented the Church, which is a building, with pews and rites, and tithes.
> 
> It's important to know the difference. Jesus' church was communal, open, and open-aired. Man's church is material and built on their own desires with no guidance, that I've ever been able to find, or hear tell of, from the Bible as to what a physical church should be.



Short answer:  I disagree completely.  If you want a longer answer, start another thread.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

I'm removing the obvious capacity for cynicism about keeping the flock full so that the tithing plates remain full as well. 

Merely, I'm asking why is his vow of celibacy able to override my decision, not even a vow so I could change it tomorrow of my own volition, to have more kids? 

Centerpin thinks it doesn't have any more or less validity than mine does, and I'm inclined to agree with him, but I'm not standing on a balcony commanding anyone else to follow my decisions, so where does he get this authority???


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Bingo. Man turned it into a "religion". Man turned religion into a business. A business that is profitable.



There have definitely been some bad apples over the centuries, but they are the ones that get all the publicity.  For every mega church pastor who has his own plane, there are a thousand others pastoring tiny churches with equally tiny budgets.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> OK ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Matthew says that Jesus gave Peter the "keys" to his church, but Jesus' church didn't have keys since it was wherever he went. I'm sensing a metaphor here. 

You can disagree with my assertions about the Bible's definition of a church, but you also disagree with the Bible, unless you can tell me one building, from the Bible, that was complete with pews, and an altar, and a holy water bowl, and all the trappings of modern, shoot even medieval, churches. It doesn't exist. I know it doesn't, so now I'm curious as to why you so adamantly disagree. 

Jesus' church was on his back. He carried it with him into everyone's home he visited, every fireside chat he gave, and in every word he spoke. So how, then, do we get physical constructs that need money? 

It would seem to me, to keep closer in line with the practice of the teachings, that the faithful should welcome the shepherd and the flock into their homes and have the lessons there, rather than in a separate construct. Or maybe in a field, around a fire, unless you're telling me that this ISN'T how Jesus ministered to His faithful.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You can disagree with my assertions about the Bible's definition of a church, but you also disagree with the Bible, unless you can tell me one building, from the Bible, that was complete with pews, and an altar, and a holy water bowl, and all the trappings of modern, shoot even medieval, churches. It doesn't exist. I know it doesn't, so now I'm curious as to why you so adamantly disagree.



Did the Jews have a temple?  Did they have synagogues?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Did the Jews have a temple?  Did they have synagogues?



Are not Jews and Christians disparate religions?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Are not Jews and Christians disparate religions?



C'mon, man. 

The entire church for at least the first five to ten years were Jewish converts.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> C'mon, man.
> 
> The entire church for at least the first five to ten years were Jewish converts.



Converts, meaning something _different_ right?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

If I go from Catholicism to Baptism is that not something different in the same vein? They're similar, sure, but not quite the same thing...


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Converts, meaning something _different_ right?



Good grief.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Good grief.



If I convert to Judaism, today, can I still be agnostic, or Catholic, or do they require me to abandon my previous beliefs for their own? 

It IS a valid question, you just can't think of a way to skirt it just yet.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If I convert to Judaism, today, can I still be agnostic, or Catholic, or do they require me to abandon my previous beliefs for their own?
> 
> It IS a valid question, you just can't think of a way to skirt it just yet.



We're talking about the building they're meeting in, for crying out loud.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> There have definitely been some bad apples over the centuries, but they are the ones that get all the publicity.  For every mega church pastor who has his own plane, there are a thousand others pastoring tiny churches with equally tiny budgets.





> there are a thousand others pastoring tiny churches with equally tiny budgets


Absolutely.
But
What was Jesus's budget? 
Did he get paid a salary?
Ride a thorough bred donkey?
Big budget or small man has turned religion into a business. Salaries, benefits, rent, profits, utilities, air conditioning, salesmen, a product....... a business.
And we wont even mention the Vatican.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> We're talking about the building they're meeting in, for crying out loud.



We weren't. This is a sideline to that OP. So, say, a temple to Apollo, is just as good for conversion to a church? 

No, you have to modify it, which means you also modify the belief. You can't have a Jewish temple today, and with no changes, a Catholic church tomorrow. They have some similarities, yes, but they are NOT the same religion. 

But back to the OP, can you tell me where the Pope's authority to command me to do anything, especially that which he doesn't even abide, comes from? Is it from the Bible, or from the Church? And why, given that he is celibate himself, should I take his command to bear children with any more weight than he takes it himself? 

If having kids, being fruitful, was part of Jesus' teachings, then why isn't it good enough for him, or why is he too good for it? I think there's been enough evidence that suppressed sexuality isn't always a good thing in the ministry, and the clergy popping out a few of their own would surely swell the ranks of the faithful. 

Or is it that they're afraid that their offspring might not walk the line? What if the Pope's son came to be an agnostic, or an atheist? 

So the disciples and Jesus were celibate, where is it COMMANDED that the church after Jesus be so? I don't know of a single passage in the Bible that commands this. So he seems to be, of human will, in violation of Jesus' desires, which is where I am and yet he has the gall to tell me to have more kids than the dogs I have now.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> We weren't.



You brought it up in post 20.  If you want to drop it, that's fine with me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> You brought it up in post 20.  If you want to drop it, that's fine with me.



I'm fine with it. I merely said we weren't, as in didn't start the thread, discussing it. We were then, and I'm fine continuing it. 

I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we went from outdoor ministry to mega churches, and where it's commanded to have ANY building dedicated to worship in the Bible, in addition to how Jews and Christians are really the same thing in your mind...


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But back to the OP, can you tell me where the Pope's authority to command me to do anything, especially that which he doesn't even abide, comes from? Is it from the Bible, or from the Church?



You're asking a non-Catholic to expound on Catholicism, so ... I'll do my best.

Based on Matthew 16, the pope is the head of the church a/k/a the "Vicar of Christ".  Needless to say, that gives him a lot of authority.  Regarding the OP, Christians have a choice to make:  marriage or celibacy.  For those that choose the sacrament of marriage, children are a blessing from God and should not be replaced with dogs and cats.  That's all the pope is saying.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we went from outdoor ministry to mega churches, and where it's commanded to have ANY building dedicated to worship in the Bible, in addition to how Jews and Christians are really the same thing in your mind...



First of all, there have been "mega churches" for a long time.  The Hagia Sophia was the mega church of it's day.

Second, as I already mentioned, they had a temple in the Bible and beaucoup synagogues.  It's only natural that a group that started out as 100% Jewish would carry over some traditions into the church.

Third, I never said Jews and Christians are the same.  I just said that the 3,000 who accepted Peter's message and were baptized in Acts 2 were all Jews, and the church remained "kosher" for a period of years (until Acts 10.)

Jews and Christians share a heritage (the OT), but they have a different take on Jesus.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> You're asking a non-Catholic to expound on Catholicism, so ... I'll do my best.
> 
> Based on Matthew 16, the pope is the head of the church a/k/a the "Vicar of Christ".  Needless to say, that gives him a lot of authority.  Regarding the OP, Christians have a choice to make:  marriage or celibacy.  For those that choose the sacrament of marriage, children are a blessing from God and should not be replaced with dogs and cats.  That's all the pope is saying.


Well he also threw in this -


> and marriages without children end with “the bitterness of loneliness.”


Cant forget that whole religious strongarm of fear and punishment if you don't do what your religion thinks is right. I mean of course its a fact that people without children die bitter and lonely. All of them. Every one. Well except for the ones that dropped dead after they got off a cruise ship holding a beverage with an umbrella in it


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> You're asking a non-Catholic to expound on Catholicism, so ... I'll do my best.
> 
> Based on Matthew 16, the pope is the head of the church a/k/a the "Vicar of Christ".  Needless to say, that gives him a lot of authority.  Regarding the OP, Christians have a choice to make:  marriage or celibacy.  For those that choose the sacrament of marriage, children are a blessing from God and should not be replaced with dogs and cats.  That's all the pope is saying.



I'm not asking you to expound on Catholicism.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/history.htm

That didn't exist until about 1000 years later. Again, I knew that before I asked. 

So the whole Pope and Vicar of Christ thing didn't apply until then. 

Even more so, check this out http://www.bible.ca/cath-peter=pope.htm

Matt 16 just lays Peter as the steward of the church on earth, but there are many scriptures in the link directly above that show it was fiercely debated even at the last supper and more that show that any man who tries to assume such a role is a man of sin.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Well he also threw in this -
> 
> Cant forget that whole religious strongarm of fear and punishment if you don't do what your religion thinks is right. I mean of course its a fact that people without children die bitter and lonely. All of them. Every one. Well except for the ones that dropped dead after they got off a cruise ship holding a beverage with an umbrella in it



And don't forget the ones surrounded by pictures of other family, and friends, and their pets while recollecting the memories from them all...


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm not asking you to expound on Catholicism.
> 
> http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/history.htm
> 
> That didn't exist until about 1000 years later.



What didn't happen until a thousand years later?

OK, I see this in your link.

"For the first thousand years of Christian history, there were no "denominations" within the Christian church as there are today." 

I agree completely, but are you saying there was no pope in Rome for the first thousand years?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> What didn't happen until a thousand years later?



Denominational Christianity, and Catholicism. Up until the Great Schism there was only Christianity.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Denominational Christianity, and Catholicism. Up until the Great Schism there was only Christianity.



This is an incredibly simplistic and confused view of church history.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> This is an incredibly simplistic and confused view of church history.



Then clarify, please, because Catholics claim all the way back to Saint Pete, as could the Eastern Orthodox church, since they were one and the same up until the Schism. So who's right? 

I say they're both wrong, and that we're talking tomato tomahto. 

I thought religion was all about "simple truths." So simplistic explanations should abound.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Denominational Christianity, and Catholicism. Up until the Great Schism there was only Christianity.



OK, here's a thumbnail sketch.

After the death of the apostles, the church generally had it very bad and endured much persecution.  That changed when Constantine converted to Christianity in the 4th century.  He made Christianity the state religion.  He also founded Constantinople and made it the eastern capital of the Roman Empire.  (That's important.)

As time went on, east and west began to grow apart in many ways, not the least of which was theologically.  There were two key issues that caused problems:  

1) The _filioque_ (pronounced FILL-ee-oh-quay), a phrase added to the Nicene creed in the 5th century.  The west thought it was pretty cool.  The east, not so much.

2)  The papacy.  The pope asserted his authority over the east (as he believed he had every right to do.)  The east again was not crazy about this.  They were happy to refer to him as "first among equals" but not "first".

Things got worse and worse until the Great Schism when east and west split for good.  And then, 500 years later, Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door at Wittenburg.  

That really opened Pandora's box, and Protestantism was born.  Luther was joined by Calvin, Zwingli, the Anabaptists and a host of others.  

The End


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, here's a thumbnail sketch.
> 
> After the death of the apostles, the church generally had it very bad and endured much persecution.  That changed when Constantine converted to Christianity in the 4th century.  He made Christianity the state religion.  He also founded Constantinople and made it the eastern capital of the Roman Empire.  (That's important.)
> 
> ...



Point. Set. Match. 

You just said what I knew to be the case in the OP. 

His authority is derived from his understanding of his own authority, and nothing more.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Point. Set. Match.
> 
> You just said what I knew to be the case in the OP.
> 
> His authority is derived from his understanding of his own authority, and nothing more.



We could have saved a lot of time if you had just told me that's what you were looking for.  I would have happily conceded that in my first response.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> We could have saved a lot of time if you had just told me that's what you were looking for.  I would have happily conceded that in my first response.



I did ask that. I asked where he got his mandate. Himself, would have been the short answer if you were interested in that.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I did ask that. I asked where he got his mandate. Himself, would have been the short answer if you were interested in that.



No, he got his mandate from Matthew 16  -- which I said before.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And don't forget the ones surrounded by pictures of other family, and friends, and their pets while recollecting the memories from them all...


I don't understand how anyone, whether they believe in God or not, could look at a blanket statement like this -


> and marriages without children end with “the bitterness of loneliness.”


and not say "ya know that's just not true" and then not ask themselves "why is he lying to me"?
Baffling.


----------



## BowtechDan (Jun 5, 2014)

Those religious catholic nuts need to worry about their dang self.  They are nothing but a bunch of molesters.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 6, 2014)

BowtechDan said:


> Those religious catholic nuts need to worry about their dang self.  They are nothing but a bunch of molesters.



Wow!


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 6, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> No, he got his mandate from Matthew 16  -- which I said before.



I don't see the word vicar, or pope, or papal anywhere in that. 

I see where Peter was decreed as the rock of the church, and even held as a leader, supposedly, by Jesus but even that was under debate the night of the last supper, so even disciples were uncertain of his validity.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 6, 2014)

BowtechDan said:


> Those religious catholic nuts need to worry about their dang self.  They are nothing but a bunch of molesters.



Stereotype much?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 6, 2014)

BowtechDan said:


> Those religious catholic nuts need to worry about their dang self.  They are nothing but a bunch of molesters.


Aw c'mon Dan.
Im pretty sure molestation has occurred across every religion and non religion.
However you can definitely make the claim that some in the Catholic hierarchy made great efforts to ignore, trivialize and hide the occurrences.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 6, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't see the word vicar, or pope, or papal anywhere in that.
> 
> I see where Peter was decreed as the rock of the church, and even held as a leader, supposedly, by Jesus but even that was under debate the night of the last supper, so even disciples were uncertain of his validity.



I'm just telling you what you already know:  the passage that it's based on.  Like any written document, the Bible is open to interpretation.  If you don't like the RC interpretation, take it up with your former bishop.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 9, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Aw c'mon Dan.
> Im pretty sure molestation has occurred across every religion and non religion.
> However you can definitely make the claim that some in the Catholic hierarchy made great efforts to ignore, trivialize and hide the occurrences.



Well, which are known for forcing their clergy to abandon/suppress their sexuality entirely? 

Catholics are the only ones I know of, and it's not entirely surprising to me to find out that it was expressed in an unhealthy manner as a result, for some people. 

Still, that's not all Catholics, and one of the prime focuses of any organization, religious or not, is to protect their image. They made a calculated decision to squelch it rather than own up to it and excommunicate those involved, and rip open the wounds inflicted upon the victims even more. There's no upside to the victim there, but the responsibility to future potential victims should have shown them the path, but they are human after all, and to err is nature. 



centerpin fan said:


> I'm just telling you what you already know:  the passage that it's based on.  Like any written document, the Bible is open to interpretation.  If you don't like the RC interpretation, take it up with your former bishop.



Thank you, I have and their answers were lacking, too. 

There's no mandate for a Catholic church, just Christ's church, and we have perverted his church to an almost unfathomable extent. 

We went from lessons in faithful homes and open air venues, to mega churches that get their own preferential treatment as to traffic patterns on Sunday mornings. 

My understanding of the Bible was that Jesus could not have cared less as to the size of his flock or the extravagance of the venue, so long as the lessons were the centerpiece, and he didn't need hip Christian rock songs to convey it, or lengthy sermons conducted amongst fashion shows to the feigning faithful who only practice their religion one day a week. 

Now we have where Biblical law isn't really law, so we can ignore the required stoning of certain people, eye for an eye punishments, homosexuality as a mortal sin, and it's ok for the church to "highly recommend" that 10% of your income should be given to them, at least, for what they do for you (infinitive you, here).

I don't recall Jesus "asking" for anything other than your presence, repentance, and fealty to God.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Well, which are known for forcing their clergy to abandon/suppress their sexuality entirely?
> 
> Catholics are the only ones I know of, and it's not entirely surprising to me to find out that it was expressed in an unhealthy manner as a result, for some people.
> 
> Still, that's not all Catholics, and one of the prime focuses of any organization, religious or not, is to protect their image. They made a calculated decision to squelch it rather than own up to it and excommunicate those involved, and rip open the wounds inflicted upon the victims even more. There's no upside to the victim there, but the responsibility to future potential victims should have shown them the path, but they are human after all, and to err is nature.


I agree.
Well I don't agree with this -


> and to err is nature


An intentional, ongoing, coordinated cover up among multiple people is not an error.
Its an intentional, ongoing, coordinated cover up. Done on purpose.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My understanding of the Bible was that Jesus could not have cared less as to the size of his flock or the extravagance of the venue, so long as the lessons were the centerpiece, and he didn't need hip Christian rock songs to convey it, or lengthy sermons conducted amongst fashion shows to the feigning faithful who only practice their religion one day a week....
> 
> I don't recall Jesus "asking" for anything other than your presence, repentance, and fealty to God.



I agree, and that's why I go where I go.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 9, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Bingo. Man turned it into a "religion". Man turned religion into a business. A business that is profitable.
> Its a big factor in why I reject religion.
> From what I remember that wasn't what Jesus was about.



This is very true. It took me years to look beyond religion to discover what it meant for me to walk with Christ.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Right, I get that. Thanks for the checkup. Where is it in the Bible that the Pope shall be celibate? Or that there shall be a Pope at all?
> 
> Why is his decision to pursue the priesthood, and thus be celibate, more valid than mine to just not have more kids because I've had two and my current wife and I agree that we shouldn't?
> 
> ...



This is a very important post. I agree with it. However, I have never believed the Catholics got it right. They have elevated the Church to the center of the religion even to the point where one may only get salvation by receiving the 7 sacraments (provided by the Church of course), while Jesus said that No man comes to the Father but by me. The deification of Mary is also one of the major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, and a critical one. I am pretty sure the Catholic Bible is different then the Protestant one. They add 7 extra old testament books. What tangled web that has been weaved.

PS, sorry for chiming in late.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 9, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> This is a very important post. I agree with it. However, I have never believed the Catholics got it right. They have elevated the Church to the center of the religion even to the point where one may only get salvation by receiving the 7 sacraments (provided by the Church of course), while Jesus said that No man comes to the Father but by me. The deification of Mary is also one of the major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, and a critical one. I am pretty sure the Catholic Bible is different then the Protestant one. They add 7 extra old testament books. What tangled web that has been weaved.
> 
> PS, sorry for chiming in late.





> I am pretty sure the Catholic Bible is different then the Protestant one. They add 7 extra old testament books. What tangled web that has been weaved.


Yes and parts of another (Daniel).
But it should be noted -


> 1 The Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches all recognize the same 27 books that make up the New
> Testament. Note that the KJV Bible had the apocryphal books in the back of the Old Testament until the early 19th century. They have since been omitted, but KJV Bibles with the apocryphal (deutercanonical) books can still be purchased – although they are hard to find.





> What tangled web that has been weaved


Indeed.
I believe that if the devil actually does exist, religion is his greatest accomplishment. Nothing has even come close to achieving the separation of those who believe in God. 
The ol' divide and conquer.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 10, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I agree.
> Well I don't agree with this -
> 
> An intentional, ongoing, coordinated cover up among multiple people is not an error.
> Its an intentional, ongoing, coordinated cover up. Done on purpose.



I agree about the repetitive errors as being larger than an honest error, but there was no qualification on error size in the statement about erring, forgiveness, and divinity. 

Even a prolonged error can be ascribed to human nature and reasoning. Like I said, they may have felt that handling it that way was better for the victims, I would disagree, but I'm also not the one in the mitre. 



centerpin fan said:


> I agree, and that's why I go where I go.



It would seem, if I were to practice still, that we would be pretty close in our worship habits. 



ted_BSR said:


> This is a very important post. I agree with it. However, I have never believed the Catholics got it right. They have elevated the Church to the center of the religion even to the point where one may only get salvation by receiving the 7 sacraments (provided by the Church of course), while Jesus said that No man comes to the Father but by me. The deification of Mary is also one of the major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, and a critical one. I am pretty sure the Catholic Bible is different then the Protestant one. They add 7 extra old testament books. What tangled web that has been weaved.
> 
> PS, sorry for chiming in late.



As a former Catholic I think it's important to clarify something based on my interactions with that faith. 

Catholics, in my experience, don't necessarily deify Mary. They may have in the past, but I can't speak to that. All I can speak to is that what I witnessed was the acknowledgement that Christ came to us through Mary via virgin birth. She bore not only one, but two, miracles unto the world and for that Catholics feel that she deserves credit and reverence. 

No worries about being late, thanks for chiming in. 

Your post also raises another very important question. You feel that the Catholics never got it "right." 

Who defines "right" in that instance? Serious question.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 10, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It would seem, if I were to practice still, that we would be pretty close in our worship habits.



I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 10, 2014)

And as far as the Catholics trying to hold power over "access" to Christ, it would appear that they have a mandate to do just that. 

Going back to the book of Matt, as centerpin referenced, Peter was given the keys to the church and appointed as head of the church, aka proxy, for Christ upon his death, it would seem. 

So, while it was perverted in history, like buying redemption and whatnot, it would seem that one would first need to seek the church, in order to participate with Peter's legacy, despite the Schisms, in order to be closer to Christ. That's just the logical side of me talking, since I, as I do with passed relatives, believe that one can have a personal relationship with someone after their passing with no intermediary personnel. My departed live on through me, by me living their lessons in my own life and remembering them in my heart, regardless of Heaven, Hades, or otherwise. 

That's what I call "the stream" and every life makes ripples upon it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 10, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I was thinking the same thing.



Back when I was still on the fence about abandoning my faith entirely and becoming wholly agnostic, my church was a mountain trail at sunrise, or a lake at sunrise, or wherever the beauty of nature struck me and communicated with me. 

Probably because I was an Eagle Scout, but I digress.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I agree about the repetitive errors as being larger than an honest error, but there was no qualification on error size in the statement about erring, forgiveness, and divinity.
> 
> Even a prolonged error can be ascribed to human nature and reasoning. Like I said, they may have felt that handling it that way was better for the victims, I would disagree, but I'm also not the one in the mitre.
> 
> ...





> Like I said, they may have felt that handling it that way was better for the victims


From every bit of information I can gather, what was best for the victims was never given a thought. Don't know if you have seen it but HBO did an explosive documentary on the subject called  "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God," which included actual victims and what they went through and how they were dismissed.


> Catholics, in my experience, don't necessarily deify Mary


Also as a former Catholic I would say thats accurate.


> The Catholic Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the holiest human being that ever walked the earth, after Our Lord


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 10, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> From every bit of information I can gather, what was best for the victims was never given a thought. Don't know if you have seen it but HBO did an explosive documentary on the subject called  "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God," which included actual victims and what they went through and how they were dismissed.
> 
> Also as a former Catholic I would say thats accurate.



No, I didn't see that. 

I've witnessed people going through stuff like that. My sister was sexually assaulted as a teenager at her place of work, and my ex wife's sister was murdered. 

In both cases, neither _really_ benefit from having it protracted into a drawn out legal case, forced to relive it through testimony, and in the end, one was found guilty and the other let go, both never got closure from it. 

It's impossible for anyone to say in any situation like that what is best for anyone, unless they're speaking in the first person and that's still a guess up until it happens. 

Like I said, I do feel that they should have gone the way of excommunicating and prosecuting those involved, if for no other reason than attempting to prevent creating further victims, but the current victims may, or may not, have benefit from it, and it's a roll of the dice in every single case, IMO.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 10, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I agree about the repetitive errors as being larger than an honest error, but there was no qualification on error size in the statement about erring, forgiveness, and divinity.
> 
> Even a prolonged error can be ascribed to human nature and reasoning. Like I said, they may have felt that handling it that way was better for the victims, I would disagree, but I'm also not the one in the mitre.
> 
> ...



I am pretty sure that God defines "right".


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> I am pretty sure that God defines "right".



I hope he doesn't lead by example.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 11, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> I am pretty sure that God defines "right".



Ok, fair answer. How is that communicated clearly?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ok, fair answer. How is that communicated clearly?



The "users manual".


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 7, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> The "users manual".



Most user's manuals aren't written by users, though.


----------



## Israel (Sep 7, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Most user's manuals aren't written by users, though.


Once...perhaps...all the Jobs' and Wozniak's and Gates's (quick, someone remind me about that apostrophe rule) were just that, though. Users.
Maybe our ability to "bear" instruction is directly proportionate to our recognition of desperation in it?
Once I couldn't care less how this computer operated, leave all the manuals and boring details to another, all the help buttons and basic stuff I just assumed was always "someone else's issue"
And then...the "blue screen of death"...woke me up.
Till then, not needing to know what happens to make this thing work...and work "rightly" was as a birthright.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 15, 2014)

Israel said:


> Once...perhaps...all the Jobs' and Wozniak's and Gates's (quick, someone remind me about that apostrophe rule) were just that, though. Users.
> Maybe our ability to "bear" instruction is directly proportionate to our recognition of desperation in it?
> Once I couldn't care less how this computer operated, leave all the manuals and boring details to another, all the help buttons and basic stuff I just assumed was always "someone else's issue"
> And then...the "blue screen of death"...woke me up.
> Till then, not needing to know what happens to make this thing work...and work "rightly" was as a birthright.



Those guys are a bunch of tiers about users. Superusers, maybe, at first, but well above that of the average Joe. More importantly, it's possible to objectively quantify their expertise. There's no such check with the other "User's Manual."


----------



## Israel (Sep 18, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Those guys are a bunch of tiers about users. Superusers, maybe, at first, but well above that of the average Joe. More importantly, it's possible to objectively quantify their expertise. There's no such check with the other "User's Manual."



Oh, but for me, there have been many.
One that quickly (ha ha) comes to mind is this one:

In your patience possess ye your souls...

I found out that hitting the "I can't wait any longer" button does everything to the system the above instruction would save against.

I've also had some experience with the "fear not" instruction vis a vis the "I can't stand not knowing how bad this could be" button.

But, I'm no superuser.
Just a user.
Trial and error, but only because errors are covered supremely by the help desk.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 18, 2014)

Israel said:


> Trial and error, but only because errors are covered supremely by the help desk.



How do you get them to answer the phone? 

My calls always rang invalid.


----------



## Israel (Sep 18, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How do you get them to answer the phone?
> 
> My calls always rang invalid.


Knock, keep knocking, seek, keep seeking, ask, keep asking.
Only you know what value it is to you to know there's someone there to pick up.
For me, nothing else mattered. At least that's how it appears from here. 
I will say that in the intervening time between call and first answer, I have seen much that I thought mattered, but doesn't.
Thankfully, I wasn't purposed to see that "all at once" so to speak, grace always was there to exceed what would, or might, lead to despair.
Still.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 18, 2014)

Israel said:


> Knock, keep knocking, seek, keep seeking, ask, keep asking.
> Only you know what value it is to you to know there's someone there to pick up.
> For me, nothing else mattered. At least that's how it appears from here.
> I will say that in the intervening time between call and first answer, I have seen much that I thought mattered, but doesn't.
> ...



Well, here's the thing about all of that. In the darkest moment of my life I was not carried, as footprints would have suggested. In fact, I can't even know that I was listened to. 

Who carried me through that? I did, and my friends did. Could they have been sent from Him; there's no way to know for certain. 

Occam's razor, though, suggests that God was not there for me and that I did pick myself up and carry through that part of my life. It was reconfirmed in the moments that I am told I was dead. I experienced nothing but a gap in time. Perhaps that wasn't enough to pierce the veil, but again Occam suggests that there is instead nothing over there.


----------



## Israel (Sep 19, 2014)

Brother, I am sure you been through some trials, and I wouldn't diminish them.
You say friends also helped in bringing you through, and I see that's a good thing to recognize and acknowledge.

If I am speaking to you of anything but a friend, I too have, and have discovered, or speaking in such a way as representing him as anything other than friend, I am not dealing faithfully.

Friends are precious things. 
That "give and take" between them especially in matters of life and death, or better put, of life OR death, can be all the difference in outcomes. 

A friend, for me now, is one not ashamed of me in my weakness and plain frailty, and one not afraid to be close when the very things I may be experiencing easily speak to him of his own frailty and could be a very unpleasant reminder. I think we all know those who fall away "when the going gets tough"...when we come to a place where our own trial in something in which they believe they can offer nothing to soothe or help is a sort of revelation of their own limits, and they withdraw, either in presence or in sentiment.

I know this, because I have done this...in the not knowing.

But, when being on the other end of the stick, so to speak, when facing things that either threatened to crush or overwhelm, I came to understand my own desires and needs in that place, not so much even a cry for someone to repair what by then appeared a fixed inevitability to me, just a need to see someone willing, again so to speak, to sit in this dust with me.

Past seeking the false comforts of words like "don't worry, this will be OK", or "you'll get through this" and the like when you know very well you don't want to even consider how, even if in somehow the getting through, you'd be left anything but the being of no more than a talking cinder, a bit of crushed dust so mangled as to be useless for anything.

I have had cold yet efficient nurses, and been one, just doing my duties. But to discover one willing to clasp you to their breast, and willing to look for all the world as helpless as oneself able to render nothing more than just "being with"...in those times, I have found of far greater benefit than what others may tout as their abilities to "fix" anything.

I guess I am speaking of those who refuse to stop at the edge of the fire of the trial, but instead, step into it with you, willing it seems, to be either lost or saved with you, but refusing, at any cost, to be found "not" with you.

Many laugh and scorn Jesus offering what we, when in our own strength, see as something some small and needless to our being.

But, I have, and am learning, of the greatest value to my soul is not in the grasping at the many things I might seek to add to my own strength, but the knowing of the one who not only said, but became in the truth of his words, the one who would never leave nor forsake.

You may believe I understand how foolish these things may sound to those convinced they have already gathered enough sticks to keep their fire burning through the night. But, having seen just how dark and cold a night can become, even in the seeming lenghthening and hardening of itself beyond all other previous nights experienced, I have come to value the one who already knows, and is not ashamed of me when my little fire has dwindled to no warmth at all.

Beyond words is the taking of my hand in those night terrors, and by that, the dispelling of them.


----------

