Originally Posted By Mr X ***That post is essentially saying because I belong to a church I condone and endorse bigotry*** Incorrect. You belong to a church WHICH condones and endorses bigotry, however. You can not deny that fact (whether you approve of it or not is another question...although if you donate into the general funds of the church you are certainly condoning what's been done tacitly through your financial support). Thing is though, DAR, there are plenty of churches out there which DON'T condone or endorse bigotry. Plenty of Christian churches, even. So the question is, if you truly disapprove of such things why not attend a church which more accurately reflects your true beliefs, morally speaking.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt These discussions always help reinforce why I gave up on Christianity.
Originally Posted By DAR Because(for lack of a better word) I have faith that people can still do good.
Originally Posted By Mr X Is that in answer to MY comment? So you'd rather stick with a group that goes against your own sense of morality in the (unfounded) hope that they will "do good", by which I assume you mean change their minds...instead of simply matching up your own sense of morality with a church that feels the same way you do about right and wrong? That makes no sense to me.
Originally Posted By Labuda "The misgivings for my church(Catholic) is that it's been ruined by their stances on gays, abortion, women in the church, priests being allowed to marry, I'm somewhat liberal on those stances." " But I also believe there are still good people with the in the Catholic faith. Which is why I still stick with it." Even though you disagree with them on some MAJOR issues? Do you go to confession every week and do penance for believing in a woman's right to choose? Or how about for using birth control? That's also a no-no for Catholics.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<...instead of simply matching up your own sense of morality with a church that feels the same way you do about right and wrong>> I don't think its really that simple. As you should know X, being Catholic is far more than just the religion part - it's almost a whole way of life. While I don't really practice anymore, and I have MAJOR issues with the Church, I can't imagine joining some other Christian church. It just wouldn't feel like "real" religion to me - if you get what I'm saying. I guess I'm saying I kind of understand the problem that people have with just "up and leaving" the Church. It's hard to leave a whole lifestyle and identity behind - even when what you once loved is no longer the same.
Originally Posted By Labuda Excellent point there, plpeters! I grew up Catholic and the one or two times I went to non-Catholic services, it just felt WEIRD. Now, I find myself a 37-year old who believes in God, but thinks that maybe Jesus was his son, maybe he wasn't, and wish there was a church that fit in with that belief... so, yeah, I believe in God, but I'm not a Christian necessarily. Thus, I'm a girl without a church.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***As you should know X, being Catholic is far more than just the religion part - it's almost a whole way of life*** I know that being CHRISTIAN is considered a way of life, I don't see how choosing one particular denomination over another would change that. And it seems to me that having a church whos views on morality match your own personal ones would be more important than anything else. And I CERTAINLY don't see the need to continue supporting unrepentant criminal activity (tacitly or otherwise), when other spiritual options are abundant if you're looking for such things.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I think the answer X is that Christianity teaches that your relationship with Jesus/God is a personal thing, and although certain denominations appear to support bad behavior it's never preached from the pulpit. No Catholic has ever endorsed pedophilia from the alter and it's clear that the Bible never endorsed such activity. So, it isn't always convincing to use such arguments with Christians because if the person you're talking to hasn't committed the sin why would he or she be guilty by association? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but this is the logic that people like Josh use to support their faith and their church.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***although certain denominations appear to support bad behavior it's never preached from the pulpit*** Sure it isn't Hans. And God Bless America, too. ***So, it isn't always convincing to use such arguments with Christians because if the person you're talking to hasn't committed the sin why would he or she be guilty by association?*** I don't claim guilt by association. What bothers me is when people financially assist the evildoers.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF The plot thickens... Floriday Attorney General Bill McCollum -- who is campaigning for governor -- paid the good Dr. Rekers $87K for testimony in the state's gay adoption ban "that called gay people mentally unstable and advised that the ban should be expanded to include Native Americans because, Rekers claimed, they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse." And it seems that the good doctor himself is an adoptive parent...
Originally Posted By Mr X Native Americans? More blatant racism rears its' ugly head. When is it ever going to end!? <--crawls under blankets and waits for the monsters to go away
Originally Posted By ecdc Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm not telling anyone to leave their church. I get how familial churches are and how much bigger they are than theology. But let's go back to 2oony's analogy of America. I wouldn't tell anyone to leave their country. But I also understand and don't complain when other countries didn't like us when Bush was President. Just because I don't like Bush, it doesn't absolve me of responsibility as an American. So I worked to change it - limited as it was - in 2008, and now other countries already respect us more. But if I just sat around and said, "Well I have faith in Americans," but didn't work for change, and then sat around and whined when other countries still didn't like us, I don't think I'd have a leg to stand on. Belong to a church, but take some responsibility for your choices and don't whine and moan, especially if you're not working for change in your church, if someone criticizes you or your church for it. Frankly, wanting to be a part of a church that endorses bigotry but not wanting any responsibility and thinking your'e exempt from criticism, is pretty low and weak. If your church means that much to you, either stand up and change it or defend it. And again, if Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins are so wrong, let's hear why. Enough with the They're Meanies Who Aren't Respectful of Religion - How Dare They! argument.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Just because I don't like Bush, it doesn't absolve me of responsibility as an American. So I worked to change it - limited as it was - in 2008, and now other countries already respect us more. But if I just sat around and said, "Well I have faith in Americans," but didn't work for change, and then sat around and whined when other countries still didn't like us, I don't think I'd have a leg to stand on.*** I think that's a false analogy though (and I did continue to read your post about "working for change in your church" though I only copied the first part). That's something you can actually DO, as an American. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, you (the parishioner) mean absolutely NOTHING (and even less if you're a chick). You have no voice, you have no say. There is no "vote", it's an absolute monarchy. Even the higher ups have no say, if the Pope doesn't like what they have to say. NOBODY has a say, except for the Pope. That's the absolute truth of that particular church. AND they are a nation as well, not to mention a heavily subsidized political group world-wide when they feel like flexing their muscles. So, to me the only thing that counts for them is money, and that's the only thing that can hurt them, as well. To sit in their pews and worship is certainly a tacit endorsement of their practices (notice they have NOT recanted, and likely never will...since they are always right), but to contribute money to them is really beyond tacit approval and belongs in the realm of not only working against Bush (your example, ec), but rather helping to fund his efforts while out of the other side of your mouth condemning his actions. In any case, my point on your point is, only a fool would even attempt to "change" the Catholic Church...that would be the job of governments and world leaders (we're talking about a COUNTRY here, and about a billion followers to boot). On the other hand, willingly funding their criminal efforts is nothing short of sinful.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox For any Catholics reading this thread, who are reluctant to leave their church because other denominations' services don't "feel right" to them, I have one question: Have you ever gone to Episcopal services? Honestly, I cannot tell the difference between modern Catholic mass and Episcopal mass. There are one or two minor differences, but nothing glaringly obvious. The Episcopal or Anglican church was basically founded on Catholic doctrine with one exception: the Pope is not ruler of the church. King Henry VIII reserved that right for himself, when he started the church in order to get a divorce from Catherine of Aragon. But over the years, the Episcopal church has changed with the times, regarding women's rights, gay rights, parishioner rights, etc. The Catholic church is stuck in the Dark Ages. The Episcopal church still needs a bit more enlightening, but they're lightyears ahead of the Vatican on social issues and Christianity's place in the world. I would highly recommend that Catholics here on LP learn about the history of Matthew Fox and his switch from being a Catholic Dominican priest to an Episcopalian priest in the nineties. The Vatican excommunicated him for his creation spirituality teachings at Holy Names College in Oakland. I attended several lectures given by Fox at Holy Names before his excommunication, and always wondered why he lasted as long as he did in the Catholic church. He said he wanted to remain a Catholic and work for change from the inside. But once the Vatican pulled the rug out from under him, he knew that he couldn't remain a Catholic and switched to the Episcopal church to continue his teachings. For those who are interested, his critical comments on the current Pope, whom he knew well when he was a Cardinal, are available on Fox's web site: <a href="http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/theemperporhasnoclothes/" target="_blank">http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-...clothes/</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You have no voice, you have no say. There is no "vote", it's an absolute monarchy. > Yes and not. I'm not Catholic but I have a lot of Catholic friends. Change is possible, though sometimes glacially slow, if enough Catholics make their feelings known. Their teaching on gay people, for example, has changed over the years. It used to be not only considered a sin, but there was no speaking out against discrimination, etc. Now while they still officially insist it's "objectively disordered," they also take pains to say that gay people should not be discriminated against or attacked. A real Catholic stickler might jump through some hoops to claim that the teaching never changed, but let's get real - the emphasis is far different than it used to be. And the reason is clear: too many Catholics have made it clear that they had a problem with the church having a problem. Likewise, in America at least the church pretty much winks and nods at birth control, or couples living together before marriage. Not officially, of course. But in practice, yes. I don't think I know a Catholic couple my age or younger who DIDN'T live together before getting married; those who got married in the church got the pre-marriage counseling, and the priests were uniformly cool with acknowledging the reality. And they've had to, because they know people would leave in droves if they told them every week they were going to Hell for what they know very well most of them do. With the Catholic church's structure, change can be very slow indeed and may not even happen in practice in other parts of the world. But IN PRACTICE things do change, and I think the ability of priests to marry will be the next thing to happen, possibly in our lifetimes. Too many people have made it clear they think this is a good idea, and the doctrine writers can always find a way to say that nothing has changed, even when it has. So yes, I think change from within is possible, if maddeningly slow. At the same time, I think your point about financial support is well taken. If I were Catholic myself I'd have to think long and hard about that one. But I don't fault anyone who stays - guess we'll have to disagree about that one.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Have you ever gone to Episcopal services?>> I have a few times, and while it certainly is close, it's just not the same. Of course, for someone really serious about having a personal relationship with God, they might choose to leave the Catholic church and go with another one. Myself, I'm pretty much an agnostic at this point, so I'm not really all that interested in any churches any more. I was raised Catholic, and was a very commited member for many, many years, so that's why I understand how hard it can be to leave. Even to this day, the Church still has some hold on me even though I don't really believe most of its teachings anymore. <<So, to me the only thing that counts for them is money, and that's the only thing that can hurt them, as well.>> I honestly don't think it's as black-and-white a choice as you make out. The money that people give to their churches doesn't just go to defend these pedophiles - it's also used to pay to keep the local parishes running AND goes to all sorts of different charitable organizations around the world. Would you have funding for all those cut off? Would you want people to go hungry? Obviously, it's not an easy choice. Whose to say what is worse - maybe funding to defend a pedophile priest, or witholding all funds and maybe letting a child starve somewhere because of it. The world is full of shades or gray - and sometimes, in your rush to stop one evil, another happens elsewhere because of your actions.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt >>***although certain denominations appear to support bad behavior it's never preached from the pulpit*** Sure it isn't Hans.<< Well OK, I guess I shouldn't have said "never".
