• Part 2: More Fun Than A Barrelful of Monkeys October 27 - 4:05 pm

As an ex-Catholic I learned about Purgatory disappearing after it was declared an invalid belief. I'm no saint. I will not make Heaven. I liked Purgatory because even if it is Hell-like you eventually pay for your sins and move on to Heaven. Without Purgatory there is only one other option. I decided if I'm going to Hell anyway I might as well not be concerned about when I can eat meat.

A guy eats one lousy cheeseburger during lent and gets in a car accident before he confesses gets eternal damnation instead of damnation-lite? Too strict for me. I'm out.

Why is Catholicism not under Christian Religions?

10-5-01 Anonymous
Your "cheeseburger" argument is no longer valid. The requirements for fasting and abstaining from meat during Lent were intended as a spiritual discipline. Instead, many Catholics (particularly American Catholics) turned it into a matter of mortal sin. Further, eating fish became an end in itself rather than part of the practice of abstainance. So in the past thirty years or so, the Church has dropped the idea that you go to hell for eating meat on Friday. Yet more recently, the Church has also (quietly) de-emphasized the mandatory nature of fasting and abstainance during Lent. You don't have to worry about going to hell for eating a cheeseburger on a Friday during Lent
BTW: No, the people who ate cheeseburgers on Fridays before they changed the rule aren't in hell (at least not for that J)

TimB,

Let me change the analogy. A guy tries homosexuality, decides it is not for him, and gets hit by a bus before he confesses. Since this is hypothetical, let's say is was three weeks before his next confession and three weeks since his last confession. (Aside to non-Catholics: A confession "cleans the soul" for two weeks prior and after. Two weeks is arbitrary and cuts down on this excrement, but doesn't eliminate it.) He dies and gets damnation. All his other papers were in order, but he had that one stain. A religion that treats him like Hitler or Stalin is a religion I can not belong too.

Anonymous: Actually, both of your analogies are valid, but they stem from the same problem. In rejecting Catholicism, you define it within the very traditionalistic approach in which you were probably raised. However, that approach is not the exclusive means for interpreting Church doctrine. Here is the explanation which has done the most good for me. Catholicism as a religion is a unitary structure hierarchically and theologically, but not
philosophically. The Church is simply too large and diverse an entity to entirely limit itself to one point of view. Rather, it embraces many
different philosophical approaches to the same doctrines. The approach that you learn and adopt depends heavily on which priests you talk to, and how you were educated and raised in the Church.

From the before the time of Augustine through the Middle Ages, the Church focused on a very rationalistic and legalistic approach to morality. Sin is a violation of God's laws; punishment for the most severe sin is eternal
damnation. It doesn't matter if you are the greatest sinner in the world, or has just slipped up one time. To avoid damnation, one must go through the Church (confession) to be restored to God's graces. (Incidentally, this approach works very well when the bulk of your population is not educated. In addition, it tends to promote social stability by mandating obedience with religious and political authority. In a time of social upheaval, this is not necessarily a bad thing.) Yet even during these times, there were others who interpreted Catholicism in light of God's love (such as Francis of Assisi).

Ironically, the intervention of the Protestant Reformation reacting against this more legalistic approach prompted the Church to rely on it even more. The Church had to define itself in contrast to the Protestant "heresies". As a large minority and somewhat isolated within the United States, American Catholics tended to focus on certain cultural manifestations of Church doctrine to distinguish themselves from the predominately Protestant culture. (There are other reasons for this too. In particular, American Catholics inherited a lot of baggage from our immigrant ancestors). By the early 20th Century, this approach had rystallized into a particularly strict and inflexible interpretation of Catholic doctrine. Yet again, there were always cross-currents against this approach.

Since the time of Vatican II, the Church (institutionally) has been slowly realizing that this legalistic focus actually undermines authentic faith in many cases. Your first example of "eating a cheeseburger on Friday during
Lent" is classic. Because the focus on Lenten abstinence and fasting had become fixed on a law (Thou shalt not eat meat on Friday, or else), the idea of promoting spiritual growth through self-sacrifice is lost. So the Church scaled back the scope of the fasting and abstinence requirements, and has tried to change the emphasis of the practice. (As an aside, there were non-religious reasons for the practice as well. In pre-industrial societies, you can only eat the foods which are in season. In the Northern Hemisphere's late winter and early spring (Lent), meat is not in season - that is the time for breeding animals. But fish is in season).

Similarly, there are other ways to approach the same doctrinal issues regarding sin. Actions are not sinful just because "God says so"; they are
sinful because they tend (more or less) to cut ourselves off from God and from our fellow human beings. God does not punish us for our sins. Rather, our sins separate us from God and from others. Since he11 is eternal
separation from God, we can only condemn ourselves to he11. (Hitler and Stalin would be by this standard, be consigned by he11 by their own choices. In life, they went to extremes in rejecting God and in try to make themselves into their own gods - at the espense of anyone and anything around them. As a result, they get to spend eternity alone at the center of their own universes)

Moreover, because we are all part of the same Body of Christ, no sin is truly private. So in order to be reconciled with God and with other, we must be reconciled through the Church (confession, or now "the sacrament of reconciliation"). However, what matters is the desire to be reconciled with God and with others. The sacrament is simply the means to that grace (Someone once told me that it is easy just to pray to God and say you're sorry. You have to be really sorry to go tell someone face to face).

So, returning to your second analogy: Lets say a person engages in a homosexual act (You can't really experiment with homosexuality. A person is
either homosexual or they are not. And the Church only holds that the acts are sinful, homosexuality itself is not. Anyway...) Afterward, he decides that this is not for him and he regrets it. However, he gets hit by a bus
two weeks later before he can go to confession. Is he in hell?

The answer under this approach is, "I don't know, because that's God's judgment". The Church has decided that homosexual acts are seriously sinful because they damage the individual's relationship with God and with our fellow human beings (You can debate this doctrine, but let's go with it
for now). The sacrament of reconciliation is the primary means of returning to the grace of God. But remember, the sacraments and the Church laws exist for our benefit, not for God's. A person is not condemned for a single mortal sin. Rather, the sin cuts a person off from God. But God knows our hearts and our thoughts better than we know them ourselves. Furthermore, since sin involves cutting oneself off from God and from others, a person who is truly sorry and who wants to be reconciled with God will not be turned away.

One other point - The Church has not actually abandoned the idea of purgatory, but it has simply changed the emphasis. (Also, if you read Dante's Purgatorio, you will note that the traditional view of Purgatory was never "he11 lite". Rather, Purgatory is the entry gate of heaven, where those who are saved are made perfect to spend eternity with God)

In closing, I am not trying to convert you. However, I want you to think about what you reject about Catholicism. If you cannot believe in the doctrine, so be it. Faith is a gift which cannot be forced on anyone. However, if you cannot accept the approach to that doctrine, I would suggest that you re-evaluate how you define Catholicism. Meaning comes in many forms, and what works for some people might not work for another.

BTW: It's been a long time since I've been to confession. I keep meaning to, but .... Maybe this is my way of trying to work up my nerve again.

Anonymous,

What exactly do you mean when you say that going to confession "'cleans the soul' for two weeks prior and after"? That makes it sound as if Catholics believe you can only ask forgiveness for things you did two weeks ago or less, or that for two weeks after confessing, they don't need to worry about sinning. I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant, but please clarify.

And TimB, I'd welcome your input on the matter.

Matt:
In John 20:22-23, after the resurrection, Jesus tells the apostles "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them; If you hold them bound, they are held bound". This is generally considered to be the basis for the sacrament of confession (reconciliation). The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus gave this authority (to forgive sins) to the Church, which ordains priests to carry it out.
When you go to confession, you usually tell the priest how long it has been since your last confession, and then tell him your sins. Some people go in for the "laundry list", reciting every infraction, while others limit it to the major sins. In any event, to make a good confession, you must tell the priest all your sins which you remember, and then ask God for forgiveness. At the end of the ritual (usually lasting about five minutes), the priest gives you absolution for all of your sins (or as Anonymous said, "wipes the slate clean". Then the priest asks to to do a penance, such as say some prayers or do certain good works. The slate is clean until you start sinning again.

Matt,

I'm hardly an expert on the matter, but here it goes. If you sin on the second of the month and were planning on going to confession on the 13th but died before confessing, you are covered. If you confess on the 13th and repeat a sin (because the flesh is weak) on the 23rd and immediately regret it and die on the 24th, you are covered.

TimB,

I guess it depends too much on the priest. After being told in the confessional that my wife taking birth control was an unpardonable sin I left the Church never to return. I guess not having three children every two years separated me from God. I never left the Church. The Church left me.

Anonymous, that's like saying God left you and I believe that counts as a sacriledge (sp?).

TimB, I know I should have said this in my last post, but I didn't think of a way to phrase it then, but here goes....

Your explanation of Catholicism makes it sound ALOT like my idea of the protestant group with whom my father is a preacher. I find that rather interesting. Your description of Catholicism is not what most people see or experience in relation to it that are not Catholic themselves.

Jwb52z,

Did your post supposed to have a smiley? God does not = Church you no longer believe in. As for it possibly being sacrilege, so? I guess I'm going to He11 anyway so one more flame (or reason I'm separated from God) can join the party.

It wasn't supposed to have a smiley. The Church is something that God is the head of so they're linked.

Jwb52z My explanation was not intended as a full explanation of Catholicism, only to point out that the Catholic Church recognizes as legitimate a number of different approaches to the same doctrines. Clearly (as Anonymous can tell you) each approach has its own limitations, and will take you to different conclusions. In fact, this is the source of a number of arguments within the Church. Beyond a certain point, however, certain conclusions go outside the boundaries of Catholic doctrine. I wouldn't be surprised if various Protestant traditions also recognized that there are different approaches to their articles of faith, but again, the boundaries of the discussion may be different.

Anonymous: I have talked to a number of people who have left the Catholic Church after bad experiences. I never try to argue with them about it because, what am I supposed to say, "No, you really didn't have a bad experience?" Of course you did. And I have no tolerance for the blind stupidity of the priest who told you that your wife using birth control was "an unpardonable sin". Clergy who say things like that do unbelievable damage and drive people away. I understand your point when you say that the Church left you.

However, I have to return to my original point. You have defined Catholicism by narrow, legalistic approach which pushed you out of the Church. (And that attitude of your priest in the confessional isn't even a good repesentation of that approach. He had no business telling you that "sin" is unpardonable). There are other ways of viewing Catholic doctrine which recognize (to use your example) that married couples might have good reasons for now wanting to have three children every two years. Maybe the approach you are exposed to does depend too much on the priest who you talk to. But priests are people too. They can have their own hang-ups, and sometimes can hurt others intentionally or unintentionally. Are you really rejecting what the Church teaches, or the crabbed and insensitive attitude of that priest?

Finally, in leaving the Catholic Church, you still seem to define your own actions by Catholic dotrine. Thus, you assue that you are bound for he11 because "God is the head of the Church and in rejecting the Church you reject God". But why? If you no longer believe what the Catholic Church teaches, how can the Catholic Church have any control over the course of your salvation? But if you do still believe it, don't assume that the actions of one priest (or even a whole gang of priests and nuns) repesents the entire Church

TimB,

I didn't reject God. I rejected the Church (or from my view the church [I capitalize it out of politeness not my own belief.]) Anyone who tells me what heaven or he11 are like must want something or is a moron. (Unless you've come back from the dead how do you know?) I say I'm bound for he11 because in Catholicism as I know it I am. (It also keeps loonies form the international Nazarene church of God or whatever at bay.)

Jwb52z, perhaps my capitalization threw you off. I don't think the Catholic Church has God at its head anymore than the Buddhists, etc. (No, the devil is not at the head of the Catholic Church. I'll never be $tupid enough to be Pentecostal [or whoever Swaggerts ilk are.]) If God damns me because I ain't a Catholic anymore then maybe I don't want to go to Heaven (Purgatory would've been ok, but I don't like being on fire for eternity)

Anonymous: Sorry to keep beating a dead horse here (and if you are being sarcastic, I'm sorry I missed the tenor of your comment), but you seem to be proving my last point. If you have rejected the Catholic Church and its teachings, then why do you assume that you are bound for he11? That is only true if the Catholic Church is right.

As I said earlier, if you don't believe in what the Catholic Church teaches anymore, that isn't wrong (I know that it is hard to get away from, particularly if you had a Catholic school education). But if your faith is always defined by what you don't believe, then you will always feel like you are heading in the wrong direction. If you believe that you are heading for he11, sooner or later you will get there. The answer is to try to decide what you believe in, and then (if that's your thing) find a group of people who will support you in those beliefs.

I'm still waiting to be told why Catholicism isn't under Christian Faiths. (I guess Catholics be leive in a different Christ.)

Yeah, they believe in Mary.

Who do Methodists think was Jesus's mother?

It's not the believeing in Mary; it's praying to Mary that other christians have a problem with. Also the whole must confess to a preast to be forgiven. Being forgiven by a preist, instead of by god. And that whole "Mary stayed a virgen he whole life even after the birth of Jesus" thing. The bible doesn't mention anything about declairing people saints. All in all some fundamentalist protistents feel that the Cathlic church is too much about man-made laws and rules and not enough about God's laws. BTW I didn't say I believe in this, I'm just answering a question so don't shoot the messenger.

Um, I'm not shooting the messenger. I just want to clear up a common misconception. The priest does not forgive you. The priest might do whatever, but God does what's right. If you pull one over on the priest God doesn't forgive you, conversely if the priest is following a baseball game and says, "Yeah, yeah, that's unforgivable, son. NEXT!" God will forgive you. As for no protestants believing in saints, what of the song when the saints go marching in? (Gee, can you tell I don't know much about protestant stuff? I know some protestant groups think Peter (or somebody) was Jesus's half brother (by Mary and Joseph, not Mary and Yahweh [Kinda like Sybok],) but there are many flavors of protestant. Isn't one tutti-frutti (wait a minute, I'm not talking about ice cream that was a silly metaphor.) I mean doesn't one believe she had no children with Joseph?

I always thought the big thing was trsubstansiation (you know, is the wafer really Christ's body?). Hey Jwb52z, how do you feel about being a spiritual cannibal?

I am a protestant and I believe that all Christians are saints; there's not a special group of Christians that are saints.

Merry

Merry,

Are Hitler and Mussolini saints ? They believed in Christ. (I was going to add Stalin and Pol Pot, but they didn't accept Christ as their savior.)

Well, I don't consider them Christians, so they are not. In fact, I happen to think a lot of people running around calling themselves Christians are in fact not.

And lots of people believe IN Christ, most agree a man called Jesus existed. However, there's a difference between believing IN Christ and giving one's life over to him.

People who have given their lives over to Christ try to follow his teachings. No, they're not perfect, but generally they try.

Merry

Anyone who bothered to study Hitler and Mussolini in any detail would know they neither professed in private to be Christians nor believed in God. Mussolini was a vehement athiest, and Hitler saw religion as a distraction from himself. He used it to ensure no one thought his party less Christian than the others, but paganised Christian festivals and smashed the churches after rising to power. For some reason leftist-liberals are keen to proclaim Hitler a liar on every issue except when he claimed to be a man of Christian faith. I wonder why. ^_^

Peter.

Peter: ***Anyone who bothered to study Hitler and Mussolini in any detail would know they neither professed in private to be Christians nor believed in God... For some reason leftist-liberals are keen to proclaim Hitler a liar on every issue except when he claimed to be a man of Christian faith. ***

In other words, people think Hitler was telling the truth in saying something he never said? Does anyone else find these two sentences paradoxical?

Anyway, whatever their beliefs later in life, both Hitler and Mussolini were baptized and raised as Catholics. William Berry misunderstood Merry's definition of a "Christian," which is why she clarified it afterwards (a point you conveniently neglect to acknowledge).

In other words, people think Hitler was telling the truth in saying something he never said? Does anyone else find these two sentences paradoxical?

Read what I said again, slowly. The key words are "in private".

Anyway, whatever their beliefs later in life, both Hitler and Mussolini were baptized and raised as Catholics.

Irrelevant. You will never honestly pin their evils on Christ or his followers. Even trying is a disagraceful disservice to those who did die fighting them or because of them.

William Berry misunderstood Merry's definition of a "Christian," which is why she clarified it afterwards (a point you conveniently neglect to acknowledge).

Well Christian isn't something you can have that different a definition on from another educated person. Anyway, my point was Hitler and Mussolini were not Christians in any sense of the word.

Peter.

Peter: ***Read what I said again, slowly***

I did. It's still a paradox.


Peter: ***You will never honestly pin their evils on Christ or his followers. Even trying is a disagraceful disservice to those who did die fighting them or because of them. ***

I have done no such thing. I have not even tried to do that. I am merely explaining why William Berry retorted the way he did.


Peter: ***Anyway, my point was Hitler and Mussolini were not Christians in any sense of the word. ***

I understood your point. You are simply too quick to judge, ridicule, and clump people together under a label to recognize that I even AGREE with the fact that they weren't Christian (either in public or in private).

But if they were baptized as Catholics, then at some point in their lives they *were* Christians. And (arguably) unless they were excommunicated by the Church, they were still "technically" Christian even though they neither called themselves that nor believed in Christian principles.

After all, aren't Catholics who get divorced still married in the eyes of the Church?

I did. It's still a paradox.

No, it is not. *sigh* let me explain:

"Anyone who bothered to study Hitler and Mussolini in any detail would know they neither professed in private to be Christians nor believed in God."

So we know that privately Mussolini and Hitler did not state they believed in God in private. They stated their contempt for the Christian religion in private. BUT IN PUBLIC, this wasn't what they said. Hitler frequently used God to justify what he was doing, and used propaganda "to ensure no one thought his party less Christian than the others".

Hitler made out he was a Christian in public, and some liberals are keen to believe him. Almost everything else he claimed they dismissed as lies. There is no paradox.

Peter.

Peter,

I try not to respond to you, but I am insulted. If it was accidental I demand an apology. If you meant it I challenge you to a duel of pig excrement at ten paces. What say you, sir. If you have honor you will respond.

Oh, since you seem to be unaware of the insults you deal out:
Peter: Well Christian isn't something you can have that different a definition on from another educated person.

I will gladly commit my education on the possible trajectories of pig dung against whatever passes for education on the wrong side of the pond today.

Oh, thanks, Mikey it is nice to know I had somebody watching my back. (Even if I think you are Peter's sane alter-ego[No, I don't really think that although...]).

Merry, Mikey was right. Thanks for the clarification of what you call Christian. As for Peter's rational comment about them not really being practicing Christians, I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have used Cardinal Richeleu (sp?) or Torquemada (sp?) and threw Hitler and Mussolini in with Stalin and Pol Pot. (In case your wondering, Merry, your response would hold and perhaps Peter would not go on his usual LIBERALS ARE EVIL AND $TUPID rant.)

Well, to go further, a Christian is one who has accepted Christ into his (her) heart and tries to follow his teachings. The act of Baptism is only a public profession of faith; it's not the act of becoming a Christian. That is, one is baptized to show that one is a Christian, not to become one.

That's where Baptists come from. Originally called Anabaptists, or Anti-Baptists, because they do not believe one has to be baptized to become Christian nor do we believe in the baptism of infants.

So, Merry, if I got this right, a Christian is automatically good person and a bad person is automatically a non-Christian no matter what they profess? It's a cool way to solve the "evil individual" problem, if I got you right.

However, it begs the question of why bother with the religious stuff. I am a good person (so I think)and Albert Switzer is a good person. We are both saints (with a small "s") by, what I think, is your definition. We are saints whether we go to a Anabaptist (or Baptist) church or not. In fact, Mr. Switzer is a flaming atheist. (For this arguments sake. I have no idea what religion Albert Switzer professed although I'm sure I'll know as soon as the next person posts.)
Even though he'd argue that he didn't give his life over to Christ, by leading a "good" life he obviously did. He never got a second baptism, but he makes it into Heaven.

I am a reasonable good person (or so I think) but spend my days persecuting Anabaptists on message boards with long posts like this. When I die Jesus tells me I was wrong. I've never taken a second baptism, but I accept Jesus and I'm in.

Or would Jesus say (to me or Al), "Sorry, you should've gone to an Anabaptist Church and been rebaptized. Its too late to fix the missing paperwork now, goodbye." Maybe that is a "Catholic Jesus" response. If the first examples are correct, however, why not watch the NFL instead of going to church?

(I know, Peter, only LIBERALS would pose such an uneducated PC question.)

I hate to be legalistic, but:

Brian Fitzgerald: it's praying to Mary that other christians have a problem with

Other Christians? But that assumes Catholics are also Christians.

I am not a religious expert, however, aren't there differences between Anglicans, Lutheran's, Pentecostals, Baptists, and whatever else I through ignorance forgot?

Is there some evil differance that makes Catholicism further apart than those? I ask again, why are Catholics not Christian? Those are not rhetorical questions. The same question would apply for Gnostics and Greek Orthodox.

About a month ago, I responded to an anonymous poster who had become disillusioned with the Catholic Church. He took the position that the Church enforced a system of arbitrary doctrines which basically set up believers to fail. I answered that he was defining Catholicism within one narrow viewpoint which didn’t fully reflect the depth and bredth of the Catholic faith.
I wasn’t successful in convincing Anonymous. However, JWB found my explanation of Catholicism to sound a lot like his understanding of Protestantism. In addition, various posters raised questions about the Catholic doctrines regarding purgatory, the role of Mary, canonization of saints and the sacrament of reconciliation. These issues prompted me to think about what distinguishes Roman Catholicism from the various Protestant traditions. (I am not intending to leave out the Orthodox Christians. But at the same time I am less familiar with their faith tradition, and I know that I can’t lump them in with Protestants).
What distinguishes Roman Catholics from other Western Christian traditions does not necessarily involve doctrinal differences. The core articles of faith are not that different. Rather, it is a difference in the way we approach our faith.
My pastor recently recommended a book on this topic: Five Great Catholic Ideas by Edward William Clark (Crossroad Publishing Co., 1998). (It’s available on Amazon.com) Clark is a priest and is currently president/rector of St. John’s Seminary College and Associate Professor of Theology at St. John’s Major Seminary, both located in Camarillo, CA. In the introduction, Clark states that Catholicism is not a collection of unrelated doctrines discovered by revelation and handed down by the Church. Rather, “there are connections among these doctrines like threads in a tapestry, juxtaposed and woven together to create a total design that no one segment can fully express.” Clark posits five “foundational principles” which form the basis of Catholic theology:
1. We are saved in community
2. The Kingdom of Heaven begins on Earth
3. God respects our human freedom
4. Scriptual Interpretation is the work of the whole Church
5. Great ideas develop over time
While Clark concedes that these ideas are not exclusively Catholic, “they are more often associated with Catholicism than with other expressions of Christianity.” Furthermore, these principles are not defined doctrines or dogmas of the Church, but they shape the Catholic understanding of salvation, grace, sacramentality, revelation and tradition. And these principles have guided the development of doctrines such as devotion to Mary, transubstantiation, papal infallibility, sacramental penance and purgatory.
I have just started reading this book, and I thought that the ideas presented might be worthy of discussion on this board. The book is divided into five chapters, each covering a different principle. I will post a summary of each chapter as I complete them.

The RM Board Lives!
I would like to thank MarkN for taking over as moderator of the Religious Musings Board, and the Chief for letting the board remain. Although some people have abused the privilege, on the whole the Board has been a good forum for discussing our various perspectives on faith.
As mentioned above, I am in the process of reading Edward William Clark's Five Great Catholic Ideas. I feel that he has done a good job setting out certain guiding principles of Roman Catholic theology, and how they differ from other expressions of Western Christianity. It is difficult to further summarize the ideas which Clark has already summarized in his book. However, I hope that my summaries at least can set off the discussion in a constructive direction. [BTW: I will try to keep any direct quotes to a minimum. This is not only to prevent these posts from running too long, but also to avoid any copyright infringements and to stay within "fair use" guidelines". Also, while I will try to keep my personal comments to a minimum, at least in the summaries, I will note where my occasional observations begin.]
Chapter 1: We are Saved in Community
If you ask a Roman Catholic the classic evangelical question, "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?", you will probably get a blank look in return. It is not that Catholics don't have a deep individual commitment to Christ. It's just that they aren't used to thinking about it on those terms.
Clark begins by explaining that salvation means more than being saved from something. (ie; eternal damnation, sin, unhappiness, pain). Rather, it concerns what we are saved for. In this respect, salvation is directly connected to the idea of redemption. Redemption is the work of restoration, recovering the unity lost when human sin interfered with God's plan of creation. By becoming human, by living and by dying on the cross, and by rising from the dead and returning to the Father, Jesus Christ made possible the restoration of unity with God, with other human beings and with creation. Advancing the restoration of this unity (the Kingdom of God) is the common work of redemption.
Salvation is our personal incorporation into the benefits and experience of being redeemed by Christ. However, because the mission that flows from salvation is a common effort, salvation cannot be a purely private experience. Salvation is not a singular experience (such as Paul's on the road to Damascus), but is an ongoing process of being brought into and participating in the community of believers. Since "salvation means sharing in the work of redemption and finding wholeness and holiness in the divinized body of Christ, then we are not saved alone; we are saved in community."
[Aside- This view of salvation tends to run counter to the American emphasis toward individualism. As a result, it is sometimes said that in the U.S., even the Catholics are Protestants. It has also led the Church to be ambivalent toward (or even critical of) the classical liberal focus on individual rights.]
This view of salvation also has a number of implications for Catholic doctrine. First, it strongly affects how Catholics view the Church. The Church does not exist as a support group for the individual Christian. While the Church is structured as an institution, it is above all else, the People of God. Since salvation is the ongoing work of the community , it cannot occur without the Church.
[Aside - Clark spends several pages trying to explain that this does not mean anyone who is outside the Church cannot be saved. But he eventually concludes that the Church is involved in the salvation of everyone who is saved, even if they are not members of the Church].
Clark also explores several other doctrines from this perspective. For example, baptism is seen as something more than an expression of an individual's faith committment. Because incorporation into the community of faith is part of salvation, infants are baptised even though they cannot yet make any personal commitment to Christ. Likewise, the sacraments and the liturgies are not seen only as individual encounters with God's grace. Rather, individuals share in sacramental grace as mediators for the entire community. On the same note, sin cannot be seen as purely private failings, but actions which affect the entire community.
Finally, Clark notes that this view of salvation influences the Catholic view toward death. If we have lived our lives and found within the community of faith, we need not fear facing God's judgment alone. Rather, we are accompanied by all those who have gone before us.
Any thoughts on this?

Tim, on behalf of Phil and myself you're welcome. Have you read some of the older posts from about 2 or 3 years ago, when we had several fun, civil and very well written discussions, with hardly, if any, flaming? That's what I'm hoping to have RM be like once again.

Testing the PM password here.

Here's a question for any of the Catholics out there. I heard on the news this morning that the Pope wasn't able to fully celebrate mass yesterday, because he wasn't well. I know he's elderly and has various ailments. My question is: can the Pope retire, or is he the Pope until he dies? What if he's no longer able to function at his job? Would he still be the Pope, but just as a figurehead, while the cardinals do all the work?

I'm not sure, but I think it's like the US Suppreme Court: the appointment is for life, in that no one else can force him out, but that he can voluntarily step down if there are health concerns or other extenuating circumstances. I know that an archbishop can "retire" that way, and the Pope is the Archbishop of Rome, among other things. I think I remember this kind of discussion near the end of Paul VI's reign.

The Pope can step down if he wishes. There was one that did so a real long time ago. (I remember it from a footnote to Dante!

Berry: It's becuase he wasn't supposed to be there that day.

If you want to go way back in history, during the Papal Schism if the 14^th century there were three men all claiming to be Pope. The Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund, the only person other than the pope authorized to do so, called for a church council to resolve the issue. Then he gathered together an army and tracked them down each of the popes one by one, and brought them to the council. Each of them formally opened the council and then formally resigned. The new Pope elected at the council, was then considered by the entire church, to be the only legitimate pope. (Except for one holdout cardinal, who then elected his own Pope. The history of this "pope" explains why the tiny country of Andorra is ruled under the joint auspices of the French President and the Spanish archbishop.)

Hello,

I'm not sure about the official catholic dogma (because I'm protestant), but I've read a very good book by Peter DeRosa about the history of the popes, the catholic church and the dogmas (I'll have to look up the english title, in german its "gottes erste diener"). It shows how often the dogmas have been turned upon their head during history.

One example of how rules are more important than compassion for the catholic church (and how moral theology can bend around on its back) was several years ago in the newspapers: A handicapped man in a wheelchair in latin america had fallen in love with his nurse and wanted to marry her (they were both catholic). The question went to one of the highest authorities, until IIRC the Pope himself said no. The answer was: the man can't make babies because of his illness. Making babies is one of the few reasons you may have sex in the marriage in the first place without it being a mortal sin, because its the reason for marriage. If you can't have sex in the marriage, then its nulliefied = not valid. So they could only live like brother and sister, not man and wife.

Hi constanze,

I'm allegedly sort of almost kinda Catholic. My parents had 4 children. I think (although I've never asked) that they may have had sex without producing children in the nine years prior to my birth.

If they did, was it a sin? Yeah, probably. Are they horrible people who will burn in hellfire and perdition because of it? It depends who you ask. He who is without sin may cast the first stone (or light the match for the hellfire).

Oh, I'm divorced. If I ever say the big lie again ("I do") I can't do it in a Catholic Church because technically I'd be bigamist. (Yes, I can argue there was never a real marriage, use Henry VIII way out, or just hire a hit man, etc. but that is besides the point.) Technically I'm in the same boat. I do not know of a Christian religion that would countenance serial monogamy like that. I would do what that man probably did. I would get a J.P. and bite my thumb at the lot of them confident that I'm not scum.

Would Catholicism or any other protestant group I can think of consider me to be living in sin? Yup, probably. Would I do it anyway? Rubicon's are crossed when you come to them.

No church has any right to tell you you're right or wrong with whom you want relations for one simple little reason: It ain't none of their business! Whether or not you choose to follow their rules is up to you, of course (I'm just speaking generally to anyone here), and if you want to bend those rules a bit here and there but to no great significant length (or even if you do) then go for it. No church is Big Brother, watching your every move, or knowing your every thought, so if you don't like the one church you're in then find another where the people are more tolerant and kinder and understanding of your views. Whether it's a church of the same or a different faith matters not. It all just depends on how you feel and what you know is best for yourself.

Would Catholicism or any other protestant group I can think of consider me to be living in sin?

I grew up in the methodist church and knew a few blended families (families where one partner, or both, was married before and had kids from that marrage) and several of them were very active in the church. I don't think that the preacher ever tried to say that their marrage equeled living in sin.

Entirely true as long as you think of a church as any other earthly organization (with the possible exception of Big Government with the military might to keep you under its rules), but the spiritual componant adds a wrinkle that complicates this analysis.

If we are talking about a single congregation or about a religion/denomination/dogma that was "foisted" upon you at birth, it is probably still true.

But if you chose this religion/denomination/dogma for yourself, either because of its spiritual benefits or because it's teachings ring true, then there has to be a very strong reason before you go willy nilly picking and choosing between it doctrines.

And while your actions, if they are hurting no one, are (legally) no more the business of the leaders of your church than they are any other neighbor's, one of the reasons for joining a church is to benefit from the advice of someone who can help you to better understand the religion that you've embraced.

That's not to say that you shouldn't think for yourself, nor that there might not come a time when you need to break from a particular religion/denomination/dogma, but there should be a better reason for it than just "I'm uncomfortable because I want to do something I know my religion/denomination/dogma considers to be wrong."

I've tried to keep the "God's laws" or "God's Word" aspects of religious doctrine out my discussion because they cannot be used as arguments for a doctrine to someone outside that doctrine, but for someone who has embraced the doctrine, that adds a third and more powerful level of complication.

I agree with TomM.

MarkN, you are right that there is no legal penalty to prevent someone changing their faith whenever they like for even the most trivial of reasons. But anyone who would join a new religion or denomination just to be able to commit more sins was never a true believer in the first place.

I think to say that what matters is "how you feel" or that preachers don't have "any right to tell you you're right or wrong" misses the point. A religion is true or false regardless of "how you feel" about it. The only rational reason to have religious faith is if you believe it is true, in which case you should take its guidance very seriously.

Sorry MarkN but a church can say what it wants. You decide wether to believe it.

If a church (or an individual) tells me I must believe the sky is green it can do so. Deciding whether I believe the sky is green or not is my decision.

TomM,

Even if you choose the religion when you are 25 you are a different person by 35. (Divorced guys know that people change. Feel free to learn from my experience.)

Dwimble,

A nit. If one joins a new religion those acts will not be sins in the new religion.

Oh, there is no need to change religions (in Christianity) anyway. Christianity (which includes Catholicism, BTW) is founded on forgiveness. Any sins can be washed away by HIM unless you think they are more powerful than HIM. The origonal question was about a church. No matter what anyone claims, no humans have a direct line to HIM. A church, any church, is composed by humans and has their imperfections. Guidance schmidance, the priest (or pastor) is a human. All be it one who thinks of God a lot.(Like a lawyer thinking about court decisions more than a lay person.)

"Believe" the sky is green? I get the point you are making, but that doesn't make sense.

I know that it won't be sinful to do x in the new religion, but if you only joined for that reason, then you are effectively choosing your faith based on your own lifestyle and sins, and nothing to do with its truth or value. Instead of adapting your life to the way God wants, you are choosing the religion that best describes your life, anyway. That is not a religious attitude. That is more like humanism.

Dwimble,

It was a quick example. It seems OK to me. What am I missing? What doesn't make sense about it? (No, I'm not being defensive; don't hold back if you are affraid I might take insult. [I'm hard to insult.] Not everything I type is golden. If you tell me the error I can learn from it.)

Well I think it is a bit much to say that you could "believe" the total opposite of the evidence in front of you. I can understand Creationists not checking the fossil records, but not refusing to turn their head 45 degrees towards the sky.

Even if you choose the religion when you are 25 you are a different person by 35. (Divorced guys know that people change. Feel free to learn from my experience.) Berry

That's not to say that you shouldn't think for yourself, nor that there might not come a time when you need to break from a particular religion/denomination/dogma, but there should be a better reason for it than just "I'm uncomfortable because I want to do something I know my religion/denomination/dogma considers to be wrong." TomM

I did allow for legitimate change of heart/conviction. And even in claiming a better reason might be needed, I used the word "should" rather than the word "must."

Oh, there is no need to change religions (in Christianity) anyway. Christianity (which includes Catholicism, BTW) is founded on forgiveness. Any sins can be washed away by HIM unless you think they are more powerful than HIM.

Unless you are a Universalist (Everyone will be saved, regardless of either their faith or their deeds [including, for example, an unrepentant atheistic axe-murderer] there are some conditions on the forgiveness. You usually need to be repentant and to sincerely want HIM to help you follow HIM more closely. Whether you or HIM-in-you effects the change and lives the improved life is the matter of the works/faith debate, but there should be an improvement, not just repeting the same sins.

And to close with a nit: albeit is one word with a single "l," though it is pronounced like you wrote it, as though it were the three separate words.

We are going off of Catholicism here, but if I understand you right if I have a legitimate change of heart then the conversion is "valid" (my word, not yours). If however it is based solely on because I want to do something I know my religion/denomination/dogma considers to be wrong it is not. I can’t think of anything that will cause the legitimate change of heart besides my experience. (Note: even if God caused me to convert like Paul it would be in my experience.)


Dwimble,

The example is actually good and parallel then. That Kooky church wants me to have faith that the sky is really green despite what my eyes see. To paraphrase George Carlin, a regular church asks me to have faith an invisible guy in the sky wants me to act a certain way but leaves me free to not act that way and if I do I'll be on fire for eternity because he loves me. (Of course Carlin is looking at from an atheist point of view (like MarkN who I was originally responding to), but it is funny.)

::No church has any right to tell you you're right or wrong with whom you want relations for one simple little reason: It ain't none of their business!:: MarkN

If Sexuality were not seen as a moral issue, you'd be right.

::Would Catholicism or any other protestant group I can think of consider me to be living in sin?:: Blue Berry

Most of the religions I know that are protestant would, unless you married again due to no fault adultery or your spouse died.

::I've tried to keep the "God's laws" or "God's Word" aspects of religious doctrine out my discussion because they cannot be used as arguments for a doctrine to someone outside that doctrine, but for someone who has embraced the doctrine, that adds a third and more powerful level of complication.:: TomM

How in the world do you plan to have it ok to take God out of religion to save souls?

::Christianity (which includes Catholicism, BTW):: Blue Berry

That would be an interesting debate topic. I don't generally want to get involved with debates though.

::::

How in the world do you plan to have it ok to take God out of religion to save souls? jwb

I don't understand your question. I did not "take God out of religion" in any concievable sense. All I did was defer the mention of "God's law" to a single sentence at the end of my discussion because I know that as an argument, non-religious readers would tend to ignore it or downplay its importance. Instead, I chose to concentrate on issues the would pay attention to.

Tom, I simply didn't understand the way you meant what you said.

MarkN, you are right that there is no legal penalty to prevent someone changing their faith whenever they like for even the most trivial of reasons. But anyone who would join a new religion or denomination just to be able to commit more sins was never a true believer in the first place.
Dwimble, I never said anything about legal penalties or joining a new religion with the intent of commiting more sins. I just meant that whatever religion you're part of (whether born into or joined later in life) doesn't have the right to tell you that you have to follow their rules and run your life, although doubtless they'd be rather insistant about it. Sure, you decide to follow those rules yourself, and that's fine, but if you, for whatever reason, decide to circumvent a rule or two here or there it's your business and not the church's, as long as no one's being harmed by it. And yes, why be part of a church if you're not gonna follow their rules? But sometimes rules are made to be broken, depending on the circumstances, and then to what extent.

Sorry MarkN but a church can say what it wants. You decide whether to believe it.
I never said it couldn't, Berry. But yes, you do decide whether or not to follow what it says, and by how much, not merely believing or not what it says.

If a church (or an individual) tells me I must believe the sky is green it can do so. Deciding whether I believe the sky is green or not is my decision.
No one individual or church has the right to tell you what you must believe, but yes, you do have the choice of believing any or all of it (but again if you're not gonna believe fully in their ways then why be a part of them?).

::No church has any right to tell you you're right or wrong with whom you want relations for one simple little reason: It ain't none of their business!:: MarkN

If Sexuality were not seen as a moral issue, you'd be right.
No, J. I'm still right. No matter what church you belong to your sexlife is still none of its business, morality notwithstanding.

If Sexuality were not seen as a moral issue, you'd be right.

One's sex life is none of the church's business.

Oh, is it? So the church can just barge in on two people-- in a loving, commited, monogamous relationship--during...er.."relations," or any other time, simply because of their orientation????!!!!

By this logic, the church therefore can rightfully barge in on heterosexual couples during relations, and dictate to them. Do you want your church doing this to you? Your family?

Yeah. It's different persecuting someone, rather than persecuted, isn't it? Hope this sheds a little light.

Mark,

You're arguing morality from the agnostic PoV. Morality is based on religious beliefs, whether as an individual or as a whole. Christianity, as a whole, frowns upon homosexuality, for example. Christians see sexuality as a moral issue, and by THAT thinking, then yes, it IS their business.

As I see it, you don't have a leg to stand on in that issue, because you're not Christian. You don't follow their code of morality to a letter. That's fine, that's your choice.

J, however, does (don't ask me to what extent, because I don't know). In his view, his sex life is the business of his church. If he wants to let the church in on his sex life issues, that's HIS business.

So it's not a question of who's right and who's wrong. It's a matter of how the morality is viewed by the individual, and by the religion as a whole.

Go find your happy medium.

MarkN, CC, I am having trouble understanding your point here. You would be right if the person joined a church while knowing God did not exist. In that circumstance, they could certainly ignore the church because they don't believe it is right in what it believes. But who would join a church while believing that the central deity did not exist? Why become a Catholic unless you believe Catholicism is true?

So it's not a question of who's right and who's wrong.

Yes, it is. If God exists, then the church leaders are right. If He doesn't exist, then MarkN is right.

::No, J. I'm still right. No matter what church you belong to your sexlife is still none of its business, morality notwithstanding.:: MarkN

Sexlife, you're right, except in cases of being slut or adultery. I was talking about sexuality itself. That is different. BTW, Thank You My Dear Miss M for trying to talk to your husband.

Uh...huh? J, I'm not married yet.............and it's not to Mark2. Unless something's changed I'm unaware of?

Dwimble, I'll have to argue that. Everyone views the Christian deity differently (if at all). Maybe the Church is only partially right, and Mark2 is only partially right. Maybe they're both wrong. Maybe they're both right.

Find your happy medium, and woe to those who upset it.

If the church demands that its members stay loyal to one another and keep sex within marriage, then its members' sex life is the church's business. If you want to be a Christian, you have to commit yourself to one person: give up prostitution, homosexuality, lying etc. Living the Christian life is a huge part of being a Christian.

Everyone views the Christian deity differently (if at all). Maybe the Church is only partially right, and Mark2 is only partially right. Maybe they're both wrong. Maybe they're both right.

Well Christianity and atheism are totally contradictory views: they can't both be right. God's existance is also a question where only one can be right. There is no real happy medium. The views are totally opposed.

I guess my life is a happy medium in one sense. I try to live a Christian life without being in any way sure that God exists. I could never be a humanist, for example.

But ultimately, the central question is a question of right and wrong.

So the church can just barge in on two people-- in a loving, commited, monogamous relationship--during...er.."relations," or any other time, simply because of their orientation????!!!!

By this logic, the church therefore can rightfully barge in on heterosexual couples during relations, and dictate to them. Do you want your church doing this to you? Your family?

Once upon a time the puritens believed that sex was to be only for procreation and if you enjoyed it you were sinning. Even today the cathlic church believes that birth control, masterbation & oral sex are sins. The rational is that if you orgasm without the chance of producing a baby you are commiting a sin, no matter if it is your humband/wife who you are with at the time. Now the more "liberal" churches believe that birth control & oral sex are OK as long as you are married, I was once told that sex was to be enjoyed, but sex is "God's gift to married couples."

CC,

The right to shake your fist ends at the other guy's nose. If we lived in a theocracy, I'd agree with you about the government not having that right. Fortunately we do not live in Iran or eleventh century Europe. I know of no religious organization in the United States that can barge in on you and your partner without your consent. Anything between consenting adults is between consenting adults. If afterwards a Priest or Pastor tells you how awful your sin was and hellfire awaits you, so? Unless you want to abridge his right to free speech, can't he say that?

MarkN,

Yes they can. They are a church.

MJ,

Albert Schwitzer was an atheist but moral. Morality does not have to come from religious beliefs. (Yeah, I know, I'm probably picking on poor word choice.)

Dwimble,

Actually a whoremongerer and adulterer and all around sinner can still be a Christian. In fact, he can repent on Monday, and because the flesh is week sin again on Tuesday to repent on Wednesday. If you are Christian you probably believe in forgiveness and repentance. (I'm not saying the person in the example is a good Christian I'm just not consignig him to Hellfire.)

Jwb,

Chill on MJ, OK? Turn the other cheek.

MJ,

Chill on Jwb, OK? What Would The Goddess Do? (Don't answer that on a board about Catholicism [a Christian religion,BTW]. It was a rhetorical question.)

MarkN,

Yes they can. They are a church.
Benn, no, they can't. Just for the fact of being a church doesn't give them the right to tell you what to believe. Now, I suppose they could say, "To belong to this church you must believe as we do," in that respect (and maybe that's what you're saying; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong--as I'm sure you will, anyway ), but in the general sense no, they don't have that right. Hmm. Did I just contradict myself? Nah. Nope. Never. Not me. Nuh-uh. No way.

BTW, I corrected your italics formatting above (the without your consent line). You left out the "\" before the "i". No, no, that's ok, thanks aren't necessary, although 3 dozen thick, freshly baked Nestle Tollhouse cookies are greatly appreciated.

MarkN,

I'm me. Benn is him. I think you owe Benn an apology. Benn will still bake you the cookies, however.

::Uh...huh? J, I'm not married yet.............and it's not to Mark2. Unless something's changed I'm unaware of?:: My Dear Miss M

That's what I get for posting so late at night. I'm sorry.

D'oh! How did I make that mistake! I meant Berry! Well, that's what I get for posting so early in the morning. (Just noticed that's the same excuse Jwb used right after I wrote mine!)

"Benn will still bake you the cookies, however."

No, I won't. I rarely eat cookies in the first place. I never bake them. Even if I buy a roll of Pillsbury cookie dough, odds are I'll eat it raw. (That sounds...dirty.)

By the way, Mark, the ways to tell me & William apart is that I'm dumber and I do not post on RM or PM anymore. This being an exception because for some mondo bizarro reason my name got brought up.

Apparently the United Methodist Church is okay on divirce, because my pastor is divorced and remarried. We have been taught to believe that the congregation is more vital to the church than the pastor, being that he is just one person who is there for a short time. Would the whole congregation burn for eternity because we didn't change churches when we were assigned this pastor?

Margie, what do you mean "who is there for a short time."? Did anyone ever ask this man why he had the divorce in the first place?

Margie, please correct me if I'm wrong,

We have been taught to believe that the congregation is more vital to the church than the pastor, being that he is just one person who is there for a short time. margie

Margie, what do you mean "who is there for a short time."?

Jwb, What I think margie is saying is that a pastor's tenure at any given church is fairly short compared with the general congregation. Often a sizable numbers of congregants (parishoners) are members of a particular church their entire life, and can witness four, five, or more pastors during that time.

::Jwb, What I think margie is saying is that a pastor's tenure at any given church is fairly short compared with the general congregation. Often a sizable numbers of congregants (parishoners) are members of a particular church their entire life, and can witness four, five, or more pastors during that time.:: TomM

Maybe it is because it is Catholicism, but why would a preacher's length of time at a church be different than another member?

Why would a preacher's length of time at a church be different than another member? Jwb52z

Not necessarily his length of time in the Church (the religion) or even in the church (the specific congregation - if for example he returned to his childhood congregation after his ordination) but his tenure as pastor is of necessity shorter than the lifetime of many of his flock. So the continuity of the church depends more on the entire congregation than on the participation of any one man, even the pastor (one might say especially the pastor.) The nature and focus of the entire church does not change when one pastor moves on (dies, retires, relocares) and another comes in, though he can steer some change over the course of his tenure.

BTW since the focus of this thread has shifted from Catholicism to Methodism, I suggest we move to the Protestantism topic. I have already posted one response there. (one where ?I actually agree with you!! <wink, wink>)

::his tenure as pastor is of necessity shorter than the lifetime of many of his flock.:: TomM

Why in the world would that be "of necessity"?

::though he can steer some change over the course of his tenure.:: TomM

That could be dangerous with the wrong man.

>Why in the world would that be "of necessity"? That could be dangerous with the wrong man. <

The same could be said about the Catholic Church, where one man is in charge for as long as he wants, without a board to monitor his actions. (I don't know exactly what the corporate structure of the Catholic churches are, so I may be a little off in this.)

::The same could be said about the Catholic Church, where one man is in charge for as long as he wants, without a board to monitor his actions. (I don't know exactly what the corporate structure of the Catholic churches are, so I may be a little off in this.):: margie

I guess I just don't understand a religion with a hierarchy that is so bound together with no autonomy. As for your mention of the word "corporate," how can religion be a business and be right?

"Corporate" simply means "of the body," so when margie wrote "Corporate structure" she was only saying the same thing as "organization of the Church" (even Paul refererred to the Church as a body with many members) [Businesses became "corporations" through the comparison of their organization to older organizations such as the Church.]

However I agree that if the focus of a church moves away from God and onto its own internal power bases it is no longer as effective as it could be.

::"Corporate" simply means "of the body," so when margie wrote "Corporate structure" she was only saying the same thing as "organization of the Church" (even Paul refererred to the Church as a body with many members) [Businesses became "corporations" through the comparison of their organization to older organizations such as the Church.]:: TomM

I had never heard that word used with a non business meaning.

I figured that. No problem. Like I said, I do agree with your objection itself.

I always thought the big thing was trsubstansiation (you know, is the wafer really Christ's body?). Hey Jwb52z, how do you feel about being a spiritual cannibal?

That is a real problem. Paul stated that Jesus offered his perfect sacrifice "once for all time." To imply that it needs to be "renewed" over and over again implies that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough to cover our sins.

Also, Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 11:23 that the observance of the Lord's Evening Meal was to be done "in remembrance" of Jesus. The idea is that we gather together to remember and appreciate what Jesus did for us, not to recreate it.

If you still don't believe me, the Church teaches that the wine becomes Jesus' blood. This would conflict with the Biblical prohibition against consuming blood found at Acts 14:19. This prohibiton is found in a letter from the 'older men' at the Jerusalem congregation to the Gentile Christians. The letter states that "the holy spirit" gave them this knowledge. But Jesus instituted the Memorial celebration; since both statements are correct, logically then, transubstantiation cannot be correct,

MarkN:No church has any right to tell you you're right or wrong with whom you want relations for one simple little reason: It ain't none of their business!

I don't understand this viewpoint. Take the Bible for instance: it clearly states what behavior is acceptable or not. It clearly outlines the consequences of disobedience. How can it be said that it's not the business of religion to decide what we do?

Because man created religion and wrote all of the religious texts, not any diety, all as a way of controlling people thru mental manipulation (fear of sinning in this or that way, going to hell after death, etc, etc). Therefore, it's nobody's right to tell anyone else what they should be doing with their lives. If you and I were in the same church you'd have no more right telling me how to run my life than I would yours. Now, if you want to follow all the rules of the church, then that's your choice, all fine and dandy. If I were to stray, or bend a rule or two, a bit here or there but not in any way that's hurting anyone else then it's no one else's right to know my business. Just because you're part of an organization doesn't mean they've got the right to stick their noses in your affairs.

I'll agree with you that there are of course accepted behaviors and some that aren't, and yes, the bible covers some of them, but IMO a person doesn't need a religion or religious text telling them how to run their life. I know some people feel they do, and I wouldn't deny them that, but I'm just saying that I don't think any one really does need outside help, or should, at least. Of course, that depends on the individual; I can't speak for everybody.

MarkN,

Because man created religion and wrote all of the religious texts, not any diety, -- MarkN

That is an outside view of the religion, not a view of the beleivers in that religion. It is like me bringing something totally irrelvant to an agnostic viewpoint, i.e. "That's wrong because the BIBLE tells me so." I'm using something outside the "religion" to describe it. (Yeah, I know I called agnosticism a religion, but do you really want to read four paragraphs descibing it instead?)

Are Catholics Christians? If not, why not?

Saints? Do not protestant religions believe people go to heaven?

Mary? "Hail Mary, full of grace. Blessed art thou and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen" (I expect a better Catholic to nit pick that for me.) Mary, whom we assume is in heaven, asks Jesus to help that poor sinner who is trying his or her best. Jesus, like all good sons, listens to his mother, be it turning water into wine or saving a soul. Where is that is not Christian?

Its central belief is in Christ. Why is not Christian?

Yes, do not be afraid to throw stones. In 2000 years there is already more structural damage than you can do.

I don't think anyone denied Catholics are Christians. Any fair-minded person knows that.

MarkN, by definition, a Christian believes the Bible is the word of God, so they accept the church's authority.

Or looking at it another way, if someone joins a tennis club, uses the courts and derives all the benefits, it *is* the club's business whether you pay the membership fee.

You are committing the logical fallacy of assuming that which you hope to prove in your initial premises. You assume that God does not exist and you conclude from that that his word is false. But your assumptions could be wrong: if God does exist, then his word does apply to everyone. All you are really saying is that you think religion is false. Thankfully, unlike in China or Soviet Russia, people are able to disagree with you and believe otherwise.

Berry-

First you have to ask where the dividing line is between Christianity and cults using Christin imagery. It is not clear-cut at all, but there are certain traits that orthodox Christanity sees in most cults. The more of these traits a particular sect has, the more clearly it can be identified as a cult.

Some Christian groups (especially in the more fundamental and/or evangelical wings of Protestantism) tend to apply this test very broadly and interpret the results very narrowly. They tend to view any denomination not their own as suspicious, and include not only "obvious" sects like the Branch Davidians, and "borderline" sects like Jehovah's Witnesses and the LDS (the Mormons), but even mainstream Christian denominations like Seventh Say Adventists and Catholics in their list of cultists [Note to Matt Duke, if you're still out there, and to any other LDS members or JWs: "borderline" here is meant from a position deep within mainstream Protestantism, and is not a personal opinion.]

Some of the points where Catholicism "fails" the "cult test" are:

A single earthly leader who claims infallibility

And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Matt 23:9

Interceesory prayer to Mary and the Saints

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus 1 Tim 2:5

The perception that Catholicism places Church history and documents above the Bible as the source of learning God's Will

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book Rev 22:18-19

MarkN, by definition, a Christian believes the Bible is the word of G-d, so they accept the church's authority.

I thought that by definition, a Christian believes that Jesus was the messiah and the Son of G-d. I don't think that there's anything that requires that they believe the Bible is the inerrant word of G-d.

MarkN: Because man created religion and wrote all of the religious texts, not any diety , all as a way of controlling people thru mental manipulation (fear of sinning in this or that way, going to hell after death, etc, etc). Therefore, it's nobody's right to tell anyone else what they should be doing with their lives.

Ah. Well, there I think that you--to be frank--are somewhat wrong. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of Almighty God. In that case, any religion which completely follows the Bible has the DUTY to ensure that all members in its fold meet God's requirements.

ScottN, I didn't say inerrant, and I certainly don't take that view. But still, a Christian who ignores the moral teachings of Moses and Christ is not being honest in his convictions. A Christian may fail in attempting not to sin, but to deny that one is sinning is not consistent with religious faith.

You are committing the logical fallacy of assuming that which you hope to prove in your initial premises.
I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm only stating my opinion.

You assume that God does not exist and you conclude from that that his word is false.
Dwimble, I assume nothing of the sort. However, you're just as much assuming that God does exists. The thing about agnosticism is that the burden of proof of whether or not God exists doesn't fall on us. We're basically on the fence on that issue. To us it's like a tennis match, with us on the sidelines looking back and forth at the theist belief on one end and the athiestic belief on the other. You'd have no more luck proving his existance than an atheist could disproving it. Now, before anyone misreads the intent of my meaning I'm not saying that my views are above anyone else's or that I'm better than you for my beliefs vs. yours because I'm not. I have my views, you have yours, and neither one's better than the other (yes, I honestly mean that). I've said before that theists may have the right idea to believe in a diety, but that their particular belief may not be what the actual truth is, and we won't know what that actual truth is until we die, regardless of what one chooses to belief while alive. Agnostics won't affirm or deny any diety's existance without empirical evidence either way first. And, Berry, I'm not quite speaking as someone who's never been to church because I've gone many a time in my younger days.

But your assumptions could be wrong...
Again, I wasn't assuming anything.

All you are really saying is that you think religion is false.
Well, yeah, but remember that's just my opinion. Your milage may vary.

I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of Almighty God.
And I won't deny your right, or anyone else's, to believe that. More power to ya. But in my humble agnostic viewpoint it's not that it is inspired by the word of God himself but that it's inspired by the belief in him. There's a major difference.

In that case, any religion which completely follows the Bible has the DUTY to ensure that all members in its fold meet God's requirements.
Assuming that God exists, who's to say what his requirements really are? Sure, one has one's own opinions but that doesn't mean that what they believe makes it the truth. Besides, with so many different religions don't you think that it's rather selfish for anyone to assume that theirs is the one and only true belief or the one and only true god and that all others are false just because they choose to believe that that's the case?

Mark, I really can't see how your belief is different than I described. "The Church has no business in our private lives because its doctrines are not true because God does not exist." The trouble is when it gets to "How do you know God doesn't exist?" you have no answer. It is guesswork, not fact.

Not to interrupt...

But...how, Dwimble, how do you know that God does exist?

That's also guesswork and not fact.

Thank you, MJ. My point exactly.

Dwimble, I never said that God doesn't exist, because again, it's not up to me to prove if he does or not. Look, I'm openminded as to whether or not any dieties exist, but I'm not gonna just blindly believe this, that or the other thing without knowing that what I believe in has any truth to it first. If you want to, fine, that's your business, but it ain't for me. Now, if you want to persist in thinking that I'm an atheist then let it be in that I don't believe in your particular god because he's your particular god and not mine, or anyone else's.

Basically, everyone with a theistic belief shares the same basic idea but no two people have the exact same thought of God (or whatever name they give him), although they'll all more or less come pretty darn close, I'm sure. I'm just saying that it's the old "My god is better than your god" argument. You have your own personal views on God, religion, etc, which is fine, but again just because you believe what you choose to doesn't mean that that's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that those with differing religious or nonreligious views are any less valid or just plain wrong. I find that agnosticism works for me far better than religion ever did, or could, because I prefer to deal with reality and not fantasy. But again, of course, that's just my humble opinion.

Part 2 is now open.