WATCH: Ted Cruz tells Iowa group that gays are waging ‘jihad’ against Christians

Of potential ancillary interest here, given the direction of the conversation:

St. Louis Archbishop Says He Didn’t Know It Was Illegal For Priests To Have Sex With Kids

“I’m not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not,” said St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson, who is part of a lawsuit accusing more than 100 priests and church employees of sex abuse. “I understand today it’s a crime.”

Read and draw your own conclusions.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Says the guy who has completely ignored every post directed to you from me that is on topic in this thread only to respond to the one post not directed at you from me that was a bit off topic. Good job proving my point.


I told you in my very first post with you months ago that I was not interested in any dialogue with you.

I observed for some time before joining and posting that your behavior has a pattern to it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yea... I was raised Catholic. I know more about that religion than any other denomination, and I think it is by far the worst one of the lot.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck


...and the changes in doctrine? Sins become 'meh' at the drop of a funny hat?

Well put your money where your mouth is.

Give us an example where the Church as proclaimed sins are now "meh."

Give us one, or as many as you like.

Is that supposed to be challenging?

Okay, here you go

The Catholic Church doctrine on the ordination of women, as expressed in the current canon law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that: "Only a baptized man (In Latin, vir) validly receives sacred ordination."[139] Insofar as priestly and episcopal ordination are concerned, the Church teaches that this requirement is a matter of divine law, and thus doctrinal.[140] The requirement that only males can receive ordination to the diaconate has not been promulgated as doctrinal by the Church's magisterium, though it is clearly at least a requirement according to canon law.[141][142]

According to Zagano, “While in modern times ordination has been restricted to men, this has not always been the case. Women were ordained deacons up until the fifth century in the West and up to the 11th century in the East.”[143]

The meaning of ordination during the Medieval Era was not what it is today. “Clergy came from and were assigned to a particular function within a particular community. Ordination in fact entailed and demanded appointment to a particular role in a particular church. Only in the twelfth century would ordination become an appointment for spiritual service not tied to any particular community.”[144]

During that period, women and men held the same power within their own orders. “Women’s orders appear along with the orders of men in many early medieval documents.”[145] Not only popes but also bishops included women among the ordained. Bishop Gilbert of Limerick included in his De usu ecclesiae (On the Practice of the Church) the injunction, ‘The bishop ordains abbots, abbesses, priests, and the six other grades.’ ”[146] One story written in the second half of the twelfth century describes the role of female clerics. A learned holy woman was in the Church reading from a book, the life of a virgin, in front of the altar to other religious women. A man came in and saw this going on. He stated, “She was a good cleric.”[147]

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
They do things, they know will garner this reaction and then paint surprise on their face when it happens, and use it as proof that everybody is trying to destroy their freedom.

Ah, but don't forget, Republicans and Christians think they live by separate rules, that the Constitution and the right to freedom of opinion is exclusively for them!

It baffles me how Americans don't see the utter hypocrisy in these groups of people. They rant about the rights of LGBT people, scream about their rights and freedoms needing protecting, while attacking the rights and freedoms of other groups of people. To make it even more bizarre, they claim it's freedom of religion and freedom of speech to attack LGBT people, then claim it's all a "liberal conspiracy" or "gay mafia", when people use their rights to fight back.

These people genuinely seem to believe that freedoms and rights should be exclusively for them, they should be permitted to attack and abuse other people, remove rights from other people, while ranting about their own freedom to do so.

The most embarrassing lunacy from the American right wing is their nonsense about it being "intolerant" to be intolerant of their intolerance.

Seriously, these people dumber than a box of rocks.

Aren't you being hypocritical?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... your posts are confused by blind belief and apparent overwhelming arrogance.

You are not the only authority on Christianity and neither is your Church.

/shrug

Blather on.

I am not confused by blind belief, I am guided by belief.

I totally get that a great many see the Church as an arrogant authority. You certainly are not the first.

I absolutely make no claim that I am any authority.

I do support the Church's unique claim that it is the authority.

a reply to: Seamrog

Exactly. Only bad arguers shut out people they can't deal with. Can't improve your abilities if you don't challenge them.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... your posts are confused by blind belief and apparent overwhelming arrogance.

You are not the only authority on Christianity and neither is your Church.

/shrug

Blather on.

I am not confused by blind belief, I am guided by belief.

I totally get that a great many see the Church as an arrogant authority. You certainly are not the first.

I absolutely make no claim that I am any authority.

I do support the Church's unique claim that it is the authority.

In rough order of your responses:

PotatO - PotaTOE

You do enjoy putting words in people's mouths.

Bluntly, you're lying. You've claimed superior abilities throughout the discussion.

Fine, others do not. Idea: Quote RCC authority for yourself then, not universally.

He is a troll plain and simple. He is not interested in discussion or debate. He deliberately ignore our posts. Quit wasting your time with him.

originally posted by: Seamrog
Well put your money where your mouth is.
Give us an example where the Church as proclaimed sins are now "meh."
Give us one, or as many as you like.

Well, you got me on the meat thing! You were right with regard to this.

Meat on Fridays
Most Catholics think that Vatican II did away with the requirement of not eating meat on any Friday of the year. Most think it is now just Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent that we cannot eat meat.

This is what the new Code of Canon Law brought out in 1983 says about the matter:
Canon 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Canon Law still requires that Catholics not eat meat on Fridays!

Of course, most Episcopal Conferences have determined that, instead of abstaining from meat, Catholics may perform an act of penance of their choosing. But, do you ever remember to abstain from a particular food or do some other penance on Fridays? And, at any rate, the main rule is still to abstain from meat on Fridays, the performance of another penance instead is an optional alternative.

It's very interesting to note that the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (the United States' Episcopal Conference) is currently debating whether to rescind the determination and require all Catholics to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year. The Bishops are considering that a return to meatless Fridays for all Catholics would be of benefit because:
It is an expression of one's Catholicity; and
In reparation for the grave sin of abortion.
catholic-pages.com

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... your posts are confused by blind belief and apparent overwhelming arrogance.

You are not the only authority on Christianity and neither is your Church.

/shrug

Blather on.

I am not confused by blind belief, I am guided by belief.

I totally get that a great many see the Church as an arrogant authority. You certainly are not the first.

I absolutely make no claim that I am any authority.

I do support the Church's unique claim that it is the authority.

Said every Jihadist ever about Islam.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Seamrog

You are factually, and remarkably incorrect. I'll leave it at that.

There you go again. Claiming that nobody here understands the history and Christian theology and doctrine.

You shut down the discussion by claiming that.

Why don't you go away if you dont like this?

I'm largely ignoring you because there is not substance in what you're posting - you're being a mosquito. I directly responded to you a page or two ago and you glossed over it entirely. So be it.

Regarding the early Church - the poster is ENTIRELY incorrect.

There are volumes of works by the early Church Fathers - we have the manuscripts - they are there and they describe the history. You can find them as easily as I can find them for you, but that is not what you're after here.

Please stop misrepresenting what I said. We don't have documents from this period, we have fragments, translations, accounts of other oral accounts and letters that have probably been selectively edited. There is little if anything from the period prior to Paul of Tarsus. We have the four canonical gospels but there are problems with these in that they probably started off as oral accounts and we have no idea whatsoever when exactly they were written.

As Christianity started off as a Jewish sect but didn't start growing apart from Judaism until after the total destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (not to mention the likely violent death of the Christian leadership in the city) the role of Paul of Tarsus is extremely interesting. Not to mention extremely suspect.

originally posted by: DeadFoot


Said every Jihadist ever about Islam.

This brings it full circle...


I am not willing to behead you for your lack of faith.

I am not willing to force you to convert to my faith.

I am not supportive of forcing you to accept my lifestyle.

The homosexualists are supportive of forcing me to accept theirs.

Thanks for playing.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: DeadFoot


Said every Jihadist ever about Islam.

This brings it full circle...


I am not willing to behead you for your lack of faith.

I am not willing to force you to convert to my faith.

I am not supportive of forcing you to accept my lifestyle.

The homosexualists are supportive of forcing me to accept theirs.

Thanks for playing.

See? Right here he is being a troll. Quit wasting your time with him.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Bluntly, you're lying. You've claimed superior abilities throughout the discussion.

Nope. I maintain that I have a better understanding of Christian faith than everyone who participated in this thread.


Look at this from [SNIP]...he claims we don't have recorded history of the early Church from the early Church Fathers. He is dead wrong.


Sorry that bothers you.

Mod Note: Community Announcement re: Decorum

a reply to: Seamrog

Nope. I maintain that I have a better understanding of Christian faith than everyone who participated in this thread.

Ok next Mr. Jerry Falwell why don't you share us your vast understanding, knowledge and wisdom O Troll?

Angryblablabla

LOL definately a troll. Otherwise I would call you names that wouldn't be within T&C.

originally posted by: Seamrog
originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck


Perhaps you can wrap your head around this - even the most liberal theologians admit that the idea of Jesus Christ openly discussing or entertaining anything homosexual is preposterous - it was widely understood and accepted as abomination, and was not even remotely tolerated.

Alas...Are you aware that there are scholars and theologians that make a fair case for Jesus being gay? Their was no precedent or requirement of celibacy and if he did not have sexuality then he was not human. The bible is full of many passages that strongly support a "Special Relationship" between him and John.

Just sayin...

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Bluntly, you're lying. You've claimed superior abilities throughout the discussion.

Nope. I maintain that I have a better understanding of Christian faith than everyone who participated in this thread.


Look at this from Angryblablabla...he claims we don't have recorded history of the early Church from the early Church Fathers. He is dead wrong.


Sorry that bothers you.

'Angryblablabla' eh? Classy. Not.

Your rudeness aside, the fact remains that you are 100% wrong - we have no original sources for that time. This is a fact that no-one disputes. The documents from this time are all translations of earlier oral accounts or letters. The earliest physical fragments are from the Second Century AD. There is absolutely nothing we can point to as being original.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

'Angryblablabla' eh? Classy. Not.

When I was forming my reply, I had no idea what your user name was other than "Angry" something.

There is absolutely nothing we can point to as being original.

You are wrong.

a reply to: Seamrog

Jesus says Gays are born that way...which follows, a product of God's creation...I imagine many a Homophobic Evangelical arriving at Heavens door and shocked at being denied entry...psst cuz you spent your life hating and berating Gods beloved children.

Jesus identifies three classes of men who should not marry women.

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

..

Taking his categories in reverse order,

first, there are those who have made themselves “eunuchs” for the kingdom of heaven, i.e., those who foreswear marriage to better serve God.

Second, he mentions those who have been “made eunuchs by others,” an apparent reference to castrated males.

But Jesus mentions a third category — eunuchs who were born that way. Some might argue that Jesus was referring to males born without testicles, but this would be extremely rare. Moreover, this interpretation ignores how the term “born eunuchs” was used in other literature of the time.

In the ancient world, including ancient Jewish culture (as reflected in the Talmud), “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men),

www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org...