Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Oh, and I would suggest to anyone who is confused or curious as to what the RCC teaches to consult the Catechism. >>> Ha! That's kind of like someone say "I would suggest that any who is confused or curious as to what a Christian church teaches to consult the Bible." Just to take one example, you have many Protestant churches saying that God commands them to practice the death penalty wherever possible, and at the same time the RCC saying that they completely oppose it, when both are using essentially the same Bible. Now, since the RCC catechism is subject to revision, perhaps it's more consistent with itself than the Bible is, but there's still a wide range of conclusions depending on how one teaches and interprets it.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Ha! That's kind of like someone say "I would suggest that any who is confused or curious as to what a Christian church teaches to consult the Bible.">> Well, the Catechism was written with the intent of clarifying what the church teaches. The section regarding ecclesiastic communities outside the RCC was pretty clear IMO. I don't see how one could interpret that section to define Protestant Churches as "non-churches". <<Just to take one example, you have many Protestant churches saying that God commands them to practice the death penalty wherever possible, and at the same time the RCC saying that they completely oppose it, when both are using essentially the same Bible.>> Correct. Protestants and Catholics interpret the Bible differently. The Catechism documents the Catholic interpretation of both the oral and written tradition (the Bible). It also documents that Catholics do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura. Anyway, what else would you use to document the teachings of the RCC? Perhaps some Jack Chick comics?
Originally Posted By fkurucz << but there's still a wide range of conclusions depending on how one teaches and interprets it>> Care to document any sections in the Catechism that are vague and can lead to a "wide range of conclusions"?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<<<Personally, I'm down with it myself (I always hedge), >>> X,sometimes you post something that brings me to tears of laughter.*** ;p
Originally Posted By DAR <<Still and all, it doesn't sound like they're doing it to the dead with the permission of the dead.>> I don't think the dead have ever given permission for anything.
Originally Posted By Mr X What are you talking about, Dar? I thought you believed in Jesus. Didn't he give doubting Thomas permission to poke around his holes or something? Well, technically you're right though. I suppose at that time Jesus would be better classified as un-dead. Creepy.
Originally Posted By PetesDraggin utahjosh said: "We believe in loving one another. We look at Prop 8 differently, but we still try to love everyone." What I get out of this statement is our differing definitions of the word 'love'. To me, to love someone means to accept them for who they are. From your statement, to love someone means to care enough to want to change that person into something else.
Originally Posted By Mr X Josh is full of crap, haven't you noticed that yet Pete? He "claims" to love everyone and all that, BUT at the same time he mocks the good people who tell him they used to respect his church a lot but are bothered by recent events, saying with a big mocking smile "we enjoy being martyrs". He's a hypocrite who is full of himself. You didn't notice? So Christian of him, don't you think?
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Frankly, I don't need josh's love or respect. I don't love or respect him. I don't need his approval for whatever I do with my life just as he doesn't need mine. It's not really about that in the long run. It's about he and his church not actively acting against me by passing laws that discriminate against me. It's about him thinking I am less than his equal. I couldn't give a damn about his "love". That kind of "love" is dangerous and hurts more than it helps.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Mx X, you do not know me. You change your whole outlook on me and my whole life from my support of one proposition.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Sarcasm [on] Jesus says "Screw You!" to all other faiths: `I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except by me.' I can't believe someone who claims to love others would force everyone to follow HIM to be saved. Why doesn't he just let everyone be saved? Why should that have to go through HIM? Isn't that arrogant? sarcasm [off]
Originally Posted By jdub Post 70: "You change your whole outlook on me and my whole life from my support of one proposition." Wellll, your slavish support to this 'one proposition' does tell people a lot about you and your so-called 'love' and 'acceptance.' Post 71: H u H ?
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka It still makes no sense according to the OT, and you know it. More diversion away from the disgusting practice (one of MANY) of trying to steal souls away from their God. Sickening.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf I am a former Mormon and an outspoken critic of the Mormon faith. And yet, I am having a hard time understanding the outrage here. Mormons take the names (and names only)of deceased people (no matter who they are, how they died, what they believed, etc.) and perform posthumous baptisms (among other rituals) for them. Once they've done it, they move on to the next name. I agree that it's creepy and cultish, but being afraid of the consequences to me is akin to believing in voodoo. Honestly, who cares what they do? Do any of us really believe their rituals carry any weight to the afterlife? I sure don't. But I suppose I am in the minority here.
Originally Posted By jdub <a href="http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/" target="_blank">http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/</a>
Originally Posted By PetesDraggin "I couldn't give a damn about his "love". That kind of "love" is dangerous and hurts more than it helps." That's kind of my point. I think that type of love is dangerous, too. It's a condescending love, telling people that they aren't good enough so they need to change. But hey, we care enough about you and we 'love' you, but we have to 'fix' you.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Eighth, I don't really think what they're doing actually counts for anything but it says a hell of a lot about them as people and about their religion. To some people, things like baptisms really do have consequences and they have the ultimate right to not have this happen to them. I suggest we start doing some cult ceremonies of our own against Mormons. If they can do it and it supposedly means something, stands to reason that whatever we do should help too. Of course, I think, ultimately, their final judgments will be harsh for doing this so just let Karma/God/Whatever figure it out. That will be the ultimate justice, better than anything we can mete out.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <But hey, we care enough about you and we 'love' you, but we have to 'fix' you.> Kind of like Jesus talked about. He told people to "sin no more" all the time, but still loved them. Why wouldn't he just accept them for who they were, and not demand anything from them?
Originally Posted By PetesDraggin "Kind of like Jesus talked about." But Josh, you're not Jesus. According to your beliefs, Jesus is one of our final judges and it's his duty to do judge people according to their actions. He told everyone else to love everyone. He didn't tell you to change everyone. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, or something like that. Once you stop sinning, then you're free to judge whomever you like.
