The Silliest Aspect of Catholicism

Originally posted by kirksey957
Precisely. No wishy-washy separate but equal nonsense.

Who said anything about "equal"?

Clearly, when two churches/ecclesial communities have doctrinal differences, at most one of them can be right.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Well, Christ wasn't a "Christian" in the modern, wishy-washy sense of the term.

EDIT: Reverend, how do you interpret passages such as Jesus's exchange with the Samaritan woman and the rich young man?

That's a lot to ask for, but will start with the rich young ruler. I have already gotten into trouble for my interpretation of this passage some time ago. I think there are many layers to the story. One one level you see a man whose priorities are such that they keep him from the kingdom. Perhaps another way to say it is that he has attachments that interfere with his having direction. On another level, I find him to be quite an irritating personality because he asked a question, was given an answer and it wasn't good enough. I think of him as a "yes, but" person. He is a perfectionist and I tend to see Jesus' response to him "Go and sell all that you have....." as a "let's cut to the chase and cut the BS" statement.

OK that's a start. I"ll get back to the Samaritan woman later.

Originally posted by kirksey957
That's a lot to ask for, but will start with the rich young ruler. I have already gotten into trouble for my interpretation of this passage some time ago. I think there are many layers to the story. One one level you see a man whose priorities are such that they keep him from the kingdom. Perhaps another way to say it is that he has attachments that ...[text shortened]... he BS" statement.

OK that's a start. I"ll get back to the Samaritan woman later.

It's a good enough start. Do you think Jesus was any less loving because he let the young man walk away? Because he wouldn't be the least flexible about that whole poverty thing?

Originally posted by Conrau K
That at least is your perception. But it is important for you and other atheists, and others who reject Catholic dogma, to appreciate that this issue is one of truth for Catholics, and it is wrong to try to impose a feminist ideology on the Church out of a lack of respect for these Catholics' concerns.

I've had Communion. It wasn't blood and flesh. It's not possible to transform crackers into human flesh.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's a good enough start. Do you think Jesus was any less loving because he let the young man walk away? Because he wouldn't be the least flexible about that whole poverty thing?

One of the most loving things you can do for anyone is not deprive them of a chance to learn from their mistakes.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I've had Communion. It wasn't blood and flesh. It's not possible to transform crackers into human flesh.

What's so great about ritualised cannibalism anyway?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What do you think it is?

1) Papal infallibility
2) Immaculate conception
3) Denying women access to the priesthood
4) Vow of celibacy
5) Purgatory
6) Taxonomy of sins
7) Impermissibility of contraception
8) Denial of Holy Communion to those deemed unworthy because of their stance in relation to the Church

is that what u learned from ur religion? to be hatred and critical to other religion?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Who said anything about "equal"?

Clearly, when two churches/ecclesial communities have doctrinal differences, at most one of them can be right.

That “at most” stands out like a sore thumb, though. It is possible that each of them has a bit of the truth—or the truth expressed a bit better than the others—and none of them has it completely right.

Also, as a practical matter (if not a metaphysical one), one may express the truth in a way that resonates to some people, but not others. Transmigration of souls and the resurrection of the body may not be able to both be correct (well, they could be, if you took them as linear—like more than one reincarnation before one attains nirvana), but they both speak to the same fundamental point: the question of an individual after-life of some kind. On the other hand, at a more basic level, there either is an individual after-life, or there isn’t. I say no, you say yes—only one of us can be right.

There are people all across the intellectual, “spiritual,” “mystical” scale who have investigated such questions diligently and honestly, and come up with different conclusions.

I suspect that there are people who “get” the one( e.g., transmigration), but not the other. As a matter of fact, I’m sure of it, having met such people of good integrity. How much of this has to do with our different innate predilections, as opposed to cultural habituation (not only in what we think, but how), I don’t know.

On questions of objective truth, metaphysical skepticism and epistemological skepticism are two different things.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It does. With the Great Commission, Christ Himself opened the life of the Church to all nations -- including the Chinese.

That is irrelevant to the question I am asking.

The Pope's argument claims that women cannot be priests because Christ had no women disciples.

I am asking why, if that argument is coherent, can there be Chinese priests.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I think Jesus would prefer Protestants and Catholics remaining separate but friendly to a false show of unity. C.f. Jn 6, Mt 18.

That's not what I'm asking. Why are you avoiding answering my questions?

Would Jesus prefer that Protestants not take Communion at all?

Originally posted by xlacir
is that what u learned from ur religion? to be hatred and critical to other religion?

Dude, are you retarded?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Dude, are you retarded?

Rebuttal.

Rhetorical question.

Originally posted by nook7
Rebuttal.

Rhetorical question.

"is that what u learned from ur religion? to be hatred and critical to other religion?"

How can an utterance like that offer the possibility of rebuttal?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That's correct. The teaching about the immorality of contraception (or, more precisely, the teaching on the integrity of the sexual act with respect to its unitive and procreative functions) is part of the constant Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

So wait a second. Is it or is it not infallible doctrine?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
"is that what u learned from ur religion? to be hatred and critical to other religion?"

How can an utterance like that offer the possibility of rebuttal?

The rebuttal was too your question. All available evidence shows that the person to whom your post was directed is a complete ignormaus.

So the rebuttal is in regard to an obvious rhetorical question.

l was sure the only question allowed in his forum as the ones that cant be answered....(discounting faith based bulls*it)