Christian Theology Thread

[Terraius]

And kudos to you, brother. Honestly. Look I use to be a practicing Catholic, I went to mass and confession weekly. But I have stopped and I don't feel sad or empty, but happy. Not because I'm free, but because being a follower of God wasn't my thing. I like waking up on my Sundays, golfing, smoking a cigar, reading the NY Times while drinking a cocktail.

I don't got anything against those who have religion, I've just lost my admiration for it. Maybe one day I'll go back. I had an ex who was practicing and got me back to mass for a bit.

Thanks a billion, but I must advise.. dont leave him, ever, ever. It is better for you to answer for not honoring the sacred day rather then having to answer for your false compassion or your lack of faith or love. Read a few chapters of the bible a day. Even if you dont go to mass, keep that connection. Dont let it be severed, because thats when you enter the iffy zone of whether you will be able to repent at the time of judgment or your sins have become to great to repent for. Dont let yourself into that situation. Its not like hes asking for a lamb sacrifice everyday.. just make it a habit to spend 15 minutes a day reaffirming that bond. I dont want to see years of mass and faith and communion go to waste and you give up Jesus all together! :*(

My grandfather was a deacon but has since stopped going to church completely and become a hermit.. but he always keeps his connection through the bible, prayer, etc.

[Kalynosis]

Thanks a billion, but I must advise.. dont leave him, ever, ever. It is better for you to answer for not honoring the sacred day rather then having to answer for your false compassion or your lack of faith or love. Read a few chapters of the bible a day. Even if you dont go to mass, keep that connection. Dont let it be severed, because thats when you enter the iffy zone of whether you will be able to repent at the time of judgment or your sins have become to great to repent for. Dont let yourself into that situation. Its not like hes asking for a lamb sacrifice everyday.. just make it a habit to spend 15 minutes a day reaffirming that bond. I dont want to see years of mass and faith and communion go to waste and you give up Jesus all together! :*(

My grandfather was a deacon but has since stopped going to church completely and become a hermit.. but he always keeps his connection through the bible, prayer, etc.

What if he's a good person and isn't connect to God, or does that not exist to you?

[Sierra Lobo]

It's annoying, isn't it? To get grouped in with a bunch of animals and dog lovers? Drop your Bible and go to your local Gay/Straight Alliance and contribute. God will most definitely give you a medal when you're in Heaven.

Uh, no. Im not going to abandon my faith because some German Monk was upset that the current Pope was abusing his power a bit and was due to be removed from power by his own clergy to begin with. Let them answer for their own sins.

Catholicism believes that judgement be reserve to god alone. Christians are asked to follow Christ teachings which basically boiled down to:

A.You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might

B.You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
- be he sinner or not, gay or straight, faithful or unbeliever, white or colored, healthy or weak you have to respect them.

As for the judging of sins:

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged," said the Saviour of our souls; "condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned:" and the Apostle Saint Paul, "Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, Who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts

And I agree with you. Catholics believe everybody is tempted and may/will fall to sin. The pope being human can also sin. People always confuse papal infalliability with the concept of sin.

Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation.

In the event that he is not exercising that task, he is just human and thus can make mistakes and fall into sin. In the 2000 years of catholic history.... only 16 dogmas exists.

[Batuni]

My friend took me to a coming-out service at their (Disciples of Christ) church, are they heretics for not wanting less rights for gays?
Jesus did not preach discrimination, nor the Holiness Code of Leviticus.

As always, Protestants confused on doctrine. Allow me to educate thee!

a) Doctrine says that no man shall lay with a man as he does a woman.

In Leviticus, Pre-Christian, alongside stuff like mandatory circumcision, bias against the disabled, stoning children for insulting their parents, and other fun stuff.

b) The CC enforces this doctrine. We do not conduct same sex marriage.

So... why just this small part?
Also, so much for 'All-encompassing.'

c) HOWEVER, just because we don't recognize their marriage rights (which is irony because Marriage was for centuries an institution of faith, NOT of government) doesnt mean we are anti gay or gay bashing. They are human, we treat them with respect and dignity. Ive known gays who were in the process of reconciling themselves to be allowed sacraments so long as they abstained from sexual promiscuity.

Actually not ironic.
Also, please define 'sexual promiscuity', I presume monogamous same-sex relationships are fine, then?
So why not marriage?

d) 'Less rights for gays' - Wrong, Gays do not have less rights. I do not know one Catholic who would not vote for their right to Same sex partnership with the exact legal benefits as marriage. However, we do not want them to get married, as marriage was, originally an institution of faith, and by saying its ok for them to get married, is infact violating the rights of religious organizations to dictate what the sacrament of marriage is as bestowed in their people. I dont want the government telling my Church who gets what sacraments. Jesus Christ already did that for us.

Yes, marriage may well have originated as an institution of faith (although I haven't seen any evidence for that).
Just not the Christian faith.
So what gives Christians the right to dictate who gets to marry whom?

e) Again, the Church condemns those who bash gays or target gays for violence, and we believe this to be a mortal sin to act out of such hatred and anger. This does not mean we do not condone their behavior tho. We are not here to judge, but to offer guidance. Our guidance is just as the doctrine says: A man and a woman are to be bound in the sacrament of marriage to eachother and to Jesus (Because marriage in the Church is a sacrament in which two are brought closer get Jesus through love for another and God) and only a man and a woman.

WHO EVER APPROVES OF HARMING GAYS, EITHER PHYSICALLY, MENTALLY, ETC, ARE NOT CHRISTIANS BY PRACTICE.

It is our job to help these people and to love them as Jesus would expect us to, not strike out at them.

My emphasis, along with yours, adds up to all kinds of tragic funny.

[Sierra Lobo]

I see...and this is where it gets creepy. The dead shall walk the earth for a thousand years converting those Pagans and Heretics to Christ. Satan is bound during this time; but will be loosed after this to run a muck with his undead after this time. Then the big war...

Pretty much. Thats the point where those who may have been nonbelievers but not complete dicks their entire lives can get the chance to redeem themselves. If not, then they can cook over the fire with Lucifer. Hur hur.

thats is correct, the 1000 years will herald the final judgement. This is the period given to all non-believers, and everyone still has the will to either accept or decline.

[Terraius]

Note where I said 'infinite density', not 'infinite size'. Something can be of nigh-infinite density and be the rough 'size' of the Sun; which most black holes are.

Nigh-infinite, Yes, but not infinite indefinite, as would be required for the big bang to happen.

Unfortunately, nowhere in the big bang theory does it state anything about what happened before the primordial singularity. All it says is that at the beginning of time (T=0), the universe was an infinitely dense singularity, which rapidly expanded and cooled outward. Besides which, we can't really say what happened before the big bang occurred, as our understanding of the physics is nowhere near complete enough yet. There are theories and models, but we can't do much to be able to prove them yet.

What good is using a theory as basis against religion if it only entails after the fact of what happened, now before or how the causes came together to produce the effect? This is my counter argument to yours.

Unfortunately, no. The congolmeration of string theories are what is known as a hypothesis for the 'theory of everything', which would reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which work very well in their own particular scales, but are massively contradictory when attempted to be used together, into a working universal model of physics. It doesn't deal with the big bang or the creation of the universe, just the mechanics behind it.

Again, I am talking the mechanics behind it, the cause, not the actual effect. I understand contradictions run rampant, just more reasons why eliminating an architect from the equation is irrational.

Well, the biggest and most 'crystal clear' model of the universe we currently have is the Millennium Simulation, a view of the very, very large-scale universe. The filaments you see are actually galaxy superclusters, strewn over trillions of light years of space and time. As we zoom farther and farther out, you can see that the overall density of the galaxy clusters stays relatively the same, with clusters forming around common centres of gravity at relatively random points in space, with no real structure other than the large clusters, filaments and voids strewn throughout at random.

This whole post is an oxymoron. Such a large scale universe, supposedly caused by a massive explosion that expanded rapidly in all directions, sending things in every which way, causing for a supposedly massive unorganized wreck, yet, very obvious, noticeable order and organization amongst themselves is shown; a pattern of density, and of clusters, with common centers of gravity as you claim. You also claim that these 'filaments' have otherwise no real structure or containment and are merely voids strewn throughout random.

Im confused mainly because, if the Big bang theory is correct and the universe is constantly expanding, how there could be so called pockets of gravity could exist and support these pockets of superclusters, rather then completely destroy them as the expansion of the galaxy causes the gravity to shift or disperse with the shape of the galaxy.

Wouldnt the idea of a rapidly expanding universe contradict the idea that random pockets of gravity could settle and house seemingly billions of light years of space?

And how could you call the filaments superclusters if they are seemingly nothing more then void strewn chaos? If they are composed of clusters etc then they would by definition be structured and organized, and if they were not, then how could they be coming together in patterns in pockets of gravity, if, in fact, these superclusters are nothing more then void space? If it was void space then there wouldnt be much of nothing to connect to to form these pockets, and if there were even the slightest amount of cluster or material in these filaments, then by coming together in these pockets would cause them to naturally collide and assimilate to form organized structures, as gravity would act upon them to either come together, or separate.

Looking at the examples you give, zooming out more and more and comparing it side by side with other universal screenings, it only continues to reinforce my idea that the universe is ordered, organized, and structured very meticulously, either naturally or through divine means. (Which some would argue that both are one in the same.)

[Cimesk Perif]

Assuming there was an actual Jesus (and I'm not absolutely sure there was), from what I've read, he was hardly a "shallow rich kid."

Whch part is incorrect then ?
Rich ? His surogate father was an architect, a respected and well paid job. He was given additional riches by the 3 wise men. Poor he most certainly was not.
Shallow ? Nothing he taught was new - and he often acted like a spoilt child if he did not get his way. Though I admit this is more subjective than the previous one.

However, to me he was like Paris Hilton. Adored by many, but not by me.

I know this is from the begining of the thread, but the ignorance is astounding...

His "surogate" father, as you so quaintly put it, was a CARPENTER, wich was just an artisian position. Also, for the majority of his life he lived in Nazereth which was a small town, this shows about what standing he was at. His family was not wanting, but he was not well off at all.
And as far as Jesus acting like a spoiled child, I highly doubt it. From what accounts there were of him as a kid, he would have been an awsome child, except for the jeruselem thing, but that turnned out fine.

Not to mention, I am pretty sure that the bible isn't the only historical text that mentions Jesus.

Anyway, I am a christian, I am no particular denomination.

The problems I have with the church are many. (unnecessary rules and regulations impossed on sheeple (a term that was kinda coined by the bible =P) that are based on loose interpretations of verses, Attempts by religious heads to influence politics, TV Evangilists, The religious market, The fact that very few people who claim to be christians could quote more than one or two verses (with or without knowing exactly were they are), The fact that very few "modern Christians" even read the Bible, The fact that the sheeple of the church will simply take what they hear as absolute truth without even trying to find base in scripture or fact, that many things preachers preach arent based in the bible or are only based loosely.) Also the fact that church music was written a hundred years ago by people who had serious problems with their waking lives.
I dont like the fact that we stick kids off in another room while we preach to the "big kids" who apperantly have a better understanding of how God wants us to live than the kids do (Jesus didnt think so...).
I dont like the fact that there is so much rivalry between churches and denominations.
I dont like the fact that church is so oriented around the model citezens of society, hell, one of Jesus' best friends was a whore!
i dont like the fact that my list is this long.
I dont like that I cant walk into a church without feeling incredibly judged
I dont like that the people who call themselves followers of a guy that was loved by almost everyone he met (even some of his sworn enemies) are people that I would really not want to hang out with because they wouldnt want to hangout with me.
I dont like the fact that people feel the need to be someone that they arent on sundays when God is totally kool with who he made them to be and he loves us regardless of wether we choose to to say fuck or ouch when we stub our toes.
I dont like the fact that this list could be longer.

[Terraius]

Papal infallibility =/= Papal sinfulness. Infallibility pertains to doctrine and practice, and since we believe Christ to have given Peter and successors this right, we embrace it. Doesnt mean he cant sin, it means he has been given the authority to dictate how doctrine is interpreted and practiced.

In Leviticus, Pre-Christian, alongside stuff like mandatory circumcision, bias against the disabled, stoning children for insulting their parents, and other fun stuff.

Unless Christ directly or indirectly spoke out against it in his reformed teachings then we follow it. If anything he enforced it when he said that marriage is that of a husband and wife coming together in their love in which he has bestowed upon the world, effectively bringing them closer to god.

So... why just this small part?
Also, so much for 'All-encompassing.'

Because, we dont. We do not conduct same sex marriage. I dont think thats so hard to get. If you dont like it then dont become a Catholic.

Actually not ironic.
Also, please define 'sexual promiscuity', I presume monogamous same-sex relationships are fine, then?
So why not marriage?

Sexual promiscuity as spoken in biblical terms to be any act of sex outside of a lawful matrimony.

Yes, marriage may well have originated as an institution of faith (although I haven't seen any evidence for that).
Just not the Christian faith.
So what gives Christians the right to dictate who gets to marry whom?

Marriage is a sacred rite in many religions. I didnt say it was only ours to keep. The Government has no right to tell any religion how marriage should be dictated to the lay people of any religion. And theres plenty of evidence, google history of marriage and see. It started out as a bond in many religions and eventually became standardized amongst them, varying from each religion but still the same principle being there.

My emphasis, along with yours, adds up to all kinds of tragic funny.

Do please elaborate, Im dieing to hear how your about to rationalize that by not approving of their lifestyle or ideology means that we are automatically gay bashing and anti gay and advocates of violence. I need a good laugh.

[Terraius]

The problems I have with the church are many. (unnecessary rules and regulations impossed on sheeple (a term that was kinda coined by the bible =P) that are based on loose interpretations of verses, Attempts by religious heads to influence politics, TV Evangilists, The religious market, The fact that very few people who claim to be christians could quote more than one or two verses (with or without knowing exactly were they are), The fact that very few "modern Christians" even read the Bible, The fact that the sheeple of the church will simply take what they hear as absolute truth without even trying to find base in scripture or fact, that many things preachers preach arent based in the bible or are only based loosely.) Also the fact that church music was written a hundred years ago by people who had serious problems with their waking lives.
I dont like the fact that we stick kids off in another room while we preach to the "big kids" who apperantly have a better understanding of how God wants us to live than the kids do (Jesus didnt think so...).
I dont like the fact that there is so much rivalry between churches and denominations.
I dont like the fact that church is so oriented around the model citezens of society, hell, one of Jesus' best friends was a whore!
i dont like the fact that my list is this long.
I dont like that I cant walk into a church without feeling incredibly judged
I dont like that the people who call themselves followers of a guy that was loved by almost everyone he met (even some of his sworn enemies) are people that I would really not want to hang out with because they wouldnt want to hangout with me.
I dont like the fact that people feel the need to be someone that they arent on sundays when God is totally kool with who he made them to be and he loves us regardless of wether we choose to to say fuck or ouch when we stub our toes.
I dont like the fact that this list could be longer.

You say 'against the church' but your list more reflects grievances against Protestant mainstream religion.

[Cimesk Perif]

The problems I have with the church are many. (unnecessary rules and regulations impossed on sheeple (a term that was kinda coined by the bible =P) that are based on loose interpretations of verses, Attempts by religious heads to influence politics, TV Evangilists, The religious market, The fact that very few people who claim to be christians could quote more than one or two verses (with or without knowing exactly were they are), The fact that very few "modern Christians" even read the Bible, The fact that the sheeple of the church will simply take what they hear as absolute truth without even trying to find base in scripture or fact, that many things preachers preach arent based in the bible or are only based loosely.) Also the fact that church music was written a hundred years ago by people who had serious problems with their waking lives.
I dont like the fact that we stick kids off in another room while we preach to the "big kids" who apperantly have a better understanding of how God wants us to live than the kids do (Jesus didnt think so...).
I dont like the fact that there is so much rivalry between churches and denominations.
I dont like the fact that church is so oriented around the model citezens of society, hell, one of Jesus' best friends was a whore!
i dont like the fact that my list is this long.
I dont like that I cant walk into a church without feeling incredibly judged
I dont like that the people who call themselves followers of a guy that was loved by almost everyone he met (even some of his sworn enemies) are people that I would really not want to hang out with because they wouldnt want to hangout with me.
I dont like the fact that people feel the need to be someone that they arent on sundays when God is totally kool with who he made them to be and he loves us regardless of wether we choose to to say fuck or ouch when we stub our toes.
I dont like the fact that this list could be longer.

You say 'against the church' but your list more reflects grievances against Protestant mainstream religion.

Well yeah, I thats what I meant, not like catholics, cause I really dont care about catholisism. To me catholisism is "mainstream protestant religion" with a bit more rules and guidelines. Oh, and purtegory (or however its spelled). and the whole thing with praying to saints because Gods too good for you or something...
I dont know, in my mind I generally lump them together (kicking and screaming) into a pile and call it the church. I havent been exposed to Catholisism that much (besides a genarric understanding of some of the major differances) but I have been exposed to just about every type of "protestant mainstream" church you can think of thanks to my ever-unstable and yet remarkably steady mother. (figure that one out...)

[Avenio]

Nigh-infinite, Yes, but not infinite indefinite, as would be required for the big bang to happen.

Close enough to infinite that it's within the margin of error. And yes; there is only a finite amount of 'stuff' inside a black hole, as I said, roughly about the size of the Sun.

What good is using a theory as basis against religion if it only entails after the fact of what happened, now before or how the causes came together to produce the effect? This is my counter argument to yours.

I haven't used it to debate religion, really. I can't speak for anyone else, but to me, it really only works as an argument against literalist creationists, like the kind who believe in the Noachian flood and the creation of the universe in seven days. I mean no offense by this, but the vast majority of the usage of the big bang in the creationism vs. naturalism debate that I have seen have been by the creationists, not be the naturalists.

Again, I am talking the mechanics behind it, the cause, not the actual effect. I understand contradictions run rampant, just more reasons why eliminating an architect from the equation is irrational.

I wouldn't really go far as to say that, really. The two theories were both used to describe different phenomena; general relativity is great at dealing with things at the macro level; like time, gravity and light, while quantum mechanics works with extremely small and fast particles and effects.

This whole post is an oxymoron. Such a large scale universe, supposedly caused by a massive explosion that expanded rapidly in all directions, sending things in every which way, causing for a supposedly massive unorganized wreck, yet, very obvious, noticeable order and organization amongst themselves is shown; a pattern of density, and of clusters, with common centers of gravity as you claim. You also claim that these 'filaments' have otherwise no real structure or containment and are merely voids strewn throughout random.

It is pretty random; few of the filaments and voids match up with each other, the proportions are wildly different, and beyond the fact that there are lumpy filaments and voids, there is no real 'order' about anything in those images.

Im confused mainly because, if the Big bang theory is correct and the universe is constantly expanding, how there could be so called pockets of gravity could exist and support these pockets of superclusters, rather then completely destroy them as the expansion of the galaxy causes the gravity to shift or disperse with the shape of the galaxy.

Sorry about that, I used a bit of vague language there. A less descriptive, but more accurate term for them would be 'lumps' of heavier concentrations of matter that began when the first stars lit up, and began swirling about and accreting more material around them.

Wouldnt the idea of a rapidly expanding universe contradict the idea that random pockets of gravity could settle and house seemingly billions of light years of space?

No, not really. The expansion of the universe doesn't act like most other forces, like motion, it's literally the fabric of the universe expanding outward and slowly everything drifts apart. A good analogy that I heard was that it would be like existing as a 2-dimensional paper stickman on an expanding balloon, watching all of the other points on the balloon drifting away but experiencing no real motion, in the Newtonian sense of the word.

And how could you call the filaments superclusters if they are seemingly nothing more then void strewn chaos?

Sorry, again, a bad use of language on my part. The bright lumps that you see inside of the filaments are the superclusters, while the filaments themselves can be imagined as big long streamers of superclusters.

If they are composed of clusters etc then they would by definition be structured and organized, and if they were not, then how could they be coming together in patterns in pockets of gravity, if, in fact, these superclusters are nothing more then void space?

Gravitational centres of mass, not pockets of gravity. If you have a big enough lump of stuff in the middle of a large amount of smaller stuff, it will eventually begin to gravitationally interact, pulling the smaller bits into orbits and pulling debris into lanes. It's roughly analogous to the nebulas in which stars form; the protostars begin to pull on the gas around them, forming big filaments and pushing away debris.

If it was void space then there wouldnt be much of nothing to connect to to form these pockets, and if there were even the slightest amount of cluster or material in these filaments, then by coming together in these pockets would cause them to naturally collide and assimilate to form organized structures, as gravity would act upon them to either come together, or separate.

I'm sorry, but I didn't quite understand this bit. Could you please rephrase it? I assume you're talking about the voids, in which case you can think of it as simply an absence of matter, not as a particularly unique structure; most of the matter in the universe is semi-coagulated into these superclusters, and any floating matter in the areas which would become voids falls inward into the superclusters, forming 'bubbles' of nothingness.

Looking at the examples you give, zooming out more and more and comparing it side by side with other universal screenings, it only continues to reinforce my idea that the universe is ordered, organized, and structured very meticulously, either naturally or through divine means. (Which some would argue that both are one in the same.)

Whatever floats your boat, really. I think it might be beneficial for you to listen to someone that actually knows what he's talking about, unlike me, an informed layman, so here's a link to a lecture by Dr. James Peebles, a cosmologist at the University of California-Berkeley, on the subject of the large-scale structure of the universe, who can explain it much, much better than I. It runs at about 50:00 minutes long, so you may want to bring a snack.

[Terraius]

I haven't used it to debate religion, really. I can't speak for anyone else, but to me, it really only works as an argument against literalist creationists, like the kind who believe in the Noachian flood and the creation of the universe in seven days. I mean no offense by this, but the vast majority of the usage of the big bang in the creationism vs. naturalism debate that I have seen have been by the creationists, not be the naturalists.

The perception of time is within the universe and only within the universe as a 4th dimension of sorts.. which as someone who seems to know a bit about it I thought you would have known that

God is not chained to time as we perceive it. He is not of this world, so he is not bound to the essence of time as we are. To him time is all at once as he wills it. 7 days as he saw the creation is to mankind billions of years of ordering, structuring, and the things put in motion for humans to develop and come forth from nothingness. And on that note, just because computer generations and pictures don't give the traditional sense of 'ordering' doesn't mean that the universe isnt ordered in a specific manner. The inside of a clock for example; chaotic at first glance, as gears and springs clutter every which way, with pockets of space which nothing occupies.. but the bigger picture shows that the parts come together to function as one, despite not being ordered as we traditionally would call 'order'.

The book of Genesis is word for word, fact. God created the heavens and earth, and in the void of space he gave the spark of light which put forth mankind's eventual development. The story of Adam and Eve can be best described as Earth history from the time of the first established civilization to the time of now, thousands of years compact; Man and Woman alike deceived by the false promises that is the serpent, banished from the garden and grace of God, to forever live in exile of his kingdom, to forever sin and make appraisals for our disobedience. It is the most important lesson in the book, for it details how mankind turned its back on God, how we choose to believe Lucifer over God, and how we struggle to this day to maintain a sense of morality and humility in a world otherwise bent on the destruction of religion, morals, and the very fabric of society as we see it.

[Terraius]

Also I skimmed through the video and read the transcript. He only discussed the universe (T:+1~) which is nothing I haven't heard before. Quantum physics and the theories surrounding them are not hard to get as concepts when you break them down to the bare principles, but the fact of the matter remains is that they only explain the effect of creation, not the causes. This is why Im very wary when I talk to anyone in the science field because they try to use their 'effect' as grounds for the 'cause', which is irrational as after a rifle is fired, the possibilities of how it was, by whom it was, why, when, where, are endless, and nighinfinite, and impossible to prove, but people like Dawkins and other Scientific theocrats as I call them would take the effect and eliminate all the unfavorable causes in an attempt to define the rationality of creation rather then perceive it for what it is.

[Batuni]

In Leviticus, Pre-Christian, alongside stuff like mandatory circumcision, bias against the disabled, stoning children for insulting their parents, and other fun stuff.

Unless Christ directly or indirectly spoke out against it in his reformed teachings then we follow it. If anything he enforced it when he said that marriage is that of a husband and wife coming together in their love in which he has bestowed upon the world, effectively bringing them closer to god.

So, did Christ speak out against the circumcision thing? Honest inquiry, 'cause as far as I'm aware Catholics don't follow that one, do they?

So... why just this small part?
Also, so much for 'All-encompassing.'

Because, we dont. We do not conduct same sex marriage. I dont think thats so hard to get. If you dont like it then dont become a Catholic.

You didn't because Christ didn't speak out against it? How many other things did he not speak out against do you ignore?
... Okay, that question's a little snarky.

Actually not ironic.
Also, please define 'sexual promiscuity', I presume monogamous same-sex relationships are fine, then?
So why not marriage?

Sexual promiscuity as spoken in biblical terms to be any act of sex outside of a lawful matrimony.

Yes, marriage may well have originated as an institution of faith (although I haven't seen any evidence for that).
Just not the Christian faith.
So what gives Christians the right to dictate who gets to marry whom?

Marriage is a sacred rite in many religions. I didnt say it was only ours to keep. The Government has no right to tell any religion how marriage should be dictated to the lay people of any religion. And theres plenty of evidence, google history of marriage and see. It started out as a bond in many religions and eventually became standardized amongst them, varying from each religion but still the same principle being there.

Therefore, no religion has the right to tell the Government how marriage should be dictated to the people. Yet when someone tries to legalise gay marriages, even civil ones, they are usually the most outspoken critics.

And there you go, the concept of marriage has changed before. So why can't it change again?
After all, the principle is two people in love making a commitment to each other.
Or, wait, is it one person becoming the property of the other?
Or is it forging political or economic ties?
Or marrying several people at once?

... What was that principle again?

Incidentally, thanks for the google suggestion, it led to an interesting tidbit about same-sex marriages in ancient times.

e) Again, the Church condemns those who bash gays or target gays for violence, and we believe this to be a mortal sin to act out of such hatred and anger. This does not mean we do not condone their behavior tho. We are not here to judge, but to offer guidance. Our guidance is just as the doctrine says: A man and a woman are to be bound in the sacrament of marriage to eachother and to Jesus (Because marriage in the Church is a sacrament in which two are brought closer get Jesus through love for another and God) and only a man and a woman.

WHO EVER APPROVES OF HARMING GAYS, EITHER PHYSICALLY, MENTALLY, ETC, ARE NOT CHRISTIANS BY PRACTICE.

It is our job to help these people and to love them as Jesus would expect us to, not strike out at them.

My emphasis, along with yours, adds up to all kinds of tragic funny.

Do please elaborate, Im dieing to hear how your about to rationalize that by not approving of their lifestyle or ideology means that we are automatically gay bashing and anti gay and advocates of violence. I need a good laugh.

Perhaps I'm mis-reading your paragraph, because as it is written, the subject of the sentence 'This does not mean we do not condone their behavior tho' refers to 'those who bash gays or target gays for violence.'
Perhaps you meant to say that 'This does not mean we do not condone the behaviour of homosexuals?' If so, my apologies.

But, if you actually disapprove of their lifestyle or ideology (wait, what?), then yeah, that's kinda anti-gay.

We'll leave aside the whole 'condemning people is judging them' thing.

[Terraius]

So, did Christ speak out against the circumcision thing? Honest inquiry, 'cause as far as I'm aware Catholics don't follow that one, do they?

Circumcision is a matter of personal hygienic choice. I am circumcised and I will have my children circumcised for hygienic purposes; the Church does not have a stance on it because it is irrelevant in the present and doesnt effect a persons faith one way or another.

You didn't because Christ didn't speak out against it? How many other things did he not speak out against do you ignore?
... Okay, that question's a little snarky.

What the hell.. I dont even understand you. I just said, we do not conduct same sex marriages, because Christ said that marriage was with a man and a woman committing to each other a selfless act of love, indirectly bringing them closer to Jesus himself.

There is no issue that as a Catholic that I can be divided on. If there was an issue in which Jesus did not speak out against, then somewhere in his life, he offered wisdom to guide us on the matter. This is, however, completely irrelevant, as now your getting into the morality of Catholics and the Church, and if you want clarification on that then read the Catechism of the church and see what it says on scripture and interpretation on issues, because thats way to much for me to type by memory.

Therefore, no religion has the right to tell the Government how marriage should be dictated to the people. Yet when someone tries to legalise gay marriages, even civil ones, they are usually the most outspoken critics.

I said it the other way around. You misread, again. The Government does not have a right to define marriage, nor does it have a right to define God, or anything pertaining to religion for that matter. I dont want the government to tell me that the Sacrament of Marriage is between Man, Woman, or Man and Man/Woman and Woman when my creator, who I must answer to at the end of days has commanded and said otherwise to the fact.

And there you go, the concept of marriage has changed before. So why can't it change again?
After all, the principle is two people in love making a commitment to each other.
Or, wait, is it one person becoming the property of the other?
Or is it forging political or economic ties?
Or marrying several people at once?

... What was that principle again?

You merely proved my point that government intervention has done nothing but turn marriage into a materialistic legality that means nothing. Telling Catholics that marriage is now between any sex is just kicking us while we are down. Im fully against marriage as a governmental institution. Partnerships to establish joint ownership, income, etc, should be put in place, and marriage left where it originally was: In the church as defined by the church and the clergy as they saw fit.

Incidentally, thanks for the google suggestion, it led to an interesting tidbit about same-sex marriages in ancient times.

Since the dawn of man there has been homosexuals. Im surprised your just now learning this.

Perhaps I'm mis-reading your paragraph, because as it is written, the subject of the sentence 'This does not mean we do not condone their behavior tho' refers to 'those who bash gays or target gays for violence.'
Perhaps you meant to say that 'This does not mean we do not condone the behaviour of homosexuals?' If so, my apologies.

You did indeed misread, again, however this time it was indeed my fault, the wording was very misplaced and confusing.

But, if you actually disapprove of their lifestyle or ideology (wait, what?), then yeah, that's kinda anti-gay.

Your being too vague. Gay = the gay lifestyle and ideology or gays as people?

We are anti-Gay lifestyle, Gay advocacy, Gay ideology.

We are NOT Anti-Gay people, Gays having less rights then anyone else, etc.

This concept should not be that hard to get. You, the person, have a formed idea that I don't agree with. This does not mean I have a personal vendetta against you, the person, and to think that is ignorant. We do not have Gay people, we treat them with dignity and respect as any other human being. And I swear that is the last fkin time Im going to say that. I feel like Im being trolled almost, Ive been asked and accused of this same thing at least four times now. If anyone else is confused about the concept of not approving of homosexuality the concept or lifestyle then you can google it, dont ask me. Im worn out on trying to get the point across.

We'll leave aside the whole 'condemning people is judging them' thing.

Is not, just because your father does not approve of you going out late at night does not mean he is passing judgment on you. To draw that conclusion is ignorant and a complete butchery of literal comprehension. 'Judgment' is not a word to be taken lightly and just because one does not approve of something or deem it fit to persist morally does not mean that we are passing final judgment on anyone's soul or person. We will let the King take care of that when he makes his way down here, its not our place nor job to judge.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm briefly locking this while I go through for flaming and other violations.

I will unlock - apologies for the inconvenience.

[The Archregimancy]

Hearken unto me, my brothers and sisters, for I bring you good news!

This, remarkably, is one of the best-behaved religion threads I've ever come across in NSG. Atheists and Theists have largely managed to avoid flaming, trolling, or flamebaiting each other. Well done (can you tell I'm marking/grading undergraduate essays this week?)

In 13 pages, there are only two incidents of rules violations, one of them slightly less clearcut than the other.

I wasnt trolling. Your a faggot. End of story.

Jostedule, *** warned for flaming ***.

I am Evangelical. Yup.

Evil... Evil... EVIL... EEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

This thread makes me proud to be a Christian.

Evil... Evil... EVIL... EEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

EEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watch this video. Still proud to be a Christian? You got problems.

The Rich Port, you're less clearcut. But given the growing size and scale of those 'Evillllllls', I think you moved beyond what might have been tongue in cheek sarcasm drawing on a Youtube clip (the clip itself very much not being actionable) in the first post into flamebaity spam in the second. On which basis I'm going to *** warn you for flamebaity spam ***. This is slightly disappointing since the rest of your contributions to this thread have been constructive, and I'd like to ask you to continue in the manner of the majority of your posts here.

[Risottia]

-What is your religion or lack thereof?

Agnostic atheist: basically I think that the very concept of deity is fallacious.

-What major issues do you have with certain denominations, or with Christianity as a whole?

Well, some:
1.with Christianity as a whole: the same issue I have with all religions.
There's no possible logical way of proving your claims - so don't brag about them, don't try to enforce your morality on me, and don't try saying that your claims are as good as a scientifical theory. If you agree to that, then we can be best buddies. (Hey, after all my fiancee is a Christian).

2.with the RCC clergy: living in Italy MEANS having issues with the RCC.
Starting with the huge 'privileges given to RCC clergy and organizations... then about the indoctrination of kids into being Catholic - managed by the RCC but paid for by the Italian Republic... and I could go on, and on, and on...

3.with non-lapsed Catholics: a necrophagous bunch (see the trinity dogma and the transubstantiation dogma).

[Batuni]

So, did Christ speak out against the circumcision thing? Honest inquiry, 'cause as far as I'm aware Catholics don't follow that one, do they?

Circumcision is a matter of personal hygienic choice. I am circumcised and I will have my children circumcised for hygienic purposes; the Church does not have a stance on it because it is irrelevant in the present and doesnt effect a persons faith one way or another.

Whether circumcision actually has any hygienic properties is a matter of some debate, with many studies reaching differing conclusions.
But this thread isn't really the place for that.

You didn't because Christ didn't speak out against it? How many other things did he not speak out against do you ignore?
... Okay, that question's a little snarky.

What the hell.. I dont even understand you. I just said, we do not conduct same sex marriages, because Christ said that marriage was with a man and a woman committing to each other a selfless act of love, indirectly bringing them closer to Jesus himself.

There is no issue that as a Catholic that I can be divided on. If there was an issue in which Jesus did not speak out against, then somewhere in his life, he offered wisdom to guide us on the matter. This is, however, completely irrelevant, as now your getting into the morality of Catholics and the Church, and if you want clarification on that then read the Catechism of the church and see what it says on scripture and interpretation on issues, because thats way to much for me to type by memory.

Therefore, no religion has the right to tell the Government how marriage should be dictated to the people. Yet when someone tries to legalise gay marriages, even civil ones, they are usually the most outspoken critics.

I said it the other way around. You misread, again. The Government does not have a right to define marriage, nor does it have a right to define God, or anything pertaining to religion for that matter. I dont want the government to tell me that the Sacrament of Marriage is between Man, Woman, or Man and Man/Woman and Woman when my creator, who I must answer to at the end of days has commanded and said otherwise to the fact.

No, I didn't misread, I'm turning your sentence around. Governments have just as much right to define marriage as anyone does. It just depends on what they're able to get away with. Marriage isn't something that society adopted from Christianity, it's something Christianity adopted from others.

And there you go, the concept of marriage has changed before. So why can't it change again?
After all, the principle is two people in love making a commitment to each other.
Or, wait, is it one person becoming the property of the other?
Or is it forging political or economic ties?
Or marrying several people at once?

... What was that principle again?

You merely proved my point that government intervention has done nothing but turn marriage into a materialistic legality that means nothing. Telling Catholics that marriage is now between any sex is just kicking us while we are down. Im fully against marriage as a governmental institution. Partnerships to establish joint ownership, income, etc, should be put in place, and marriage left where it originally was: In the church as defined by the church and the clergy as they saw fit.

I'm proving your point by using the google search you recommended, to point out that historically the various reasons I mentioned above predate Christianity? As does marriage itself? Or that even within the church, marriage has been redefined over time? Basically, no one, whether they be Catholics, or Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or Governments, no one owns marriage.

Incidentally, thanks for the google suggestion, it led to an interesting tidbit about same-sex marriages in ancient times.

Since the dawn of man there has been homosexuals. Im surprised your just now learning this.

I didn't say homosexuals, I said same-sex marriages.

Perhaps I'm mis-reading your paragraph, because as it is written, the subject of the sentence 'This does not mean we do not condone their behavior tho' refers to 'those who bash gays or target gays for violence.'
Perhaps you meant to say that 'This does not mean we do not condone the behaviour of homosexuals?' If so, my apologies.

You did indeed misread, again, however this time it was indeed my fault, the wording was very misplaced and confusing.

But, if you actually disapprove of their lifestyle or ideology (wait, what?), then yeah, that's kinda anti-gay.

Your being too vague. Gay = the gay lifestyle and ideology or gays as people?

We are anti-Gay lifestyle, Gay advocacy, Gay ideology.

We are NOT Anti-Gay people, Gays having less rights then anyone else, etc.

This concept should not be that hard to get. You, the person, have a formed idea that I don't agree with. This does not mean I have a personal vendetta against you, the person, and to think that is ignorant. We do not have Gay people, we treat them with dignity and respect as any other human being. And I swear that is the last fkin time Im going to say that. I feel like Im being trolled almost, Ive been asked and accused of this same thing at least four times now. If anyone else is confused about the concept of not approving of homosexuality the concept or lifestyle then you can google it, dont ask me. Im worn out on trying to get the point across.

Except that there is no single, defined gay 'lifestyle' or 'ideology'.
There are people who are gay, meaning they are attracted to members of the same gender, but act differently on it.
Just as there are people who are Christian, meaning they follow the teachings of Christ, but worship differently.

We'll leave aside the whole 'condemning people is judging them' thing.

Is not, just because your father does not approve of you going out late at night does not mean he is passing judgment on you. To draw that conclusion is ignorant and a complete butchery of literal comprehension. 'Judgment' is not a word to be taken lightly and just because one does not approve of something or deem it fit to persist morally does not mean that we are passing final judgment on anyone's soul or person. We will let the King take care of that when he makes his way down here, its not our place nor job to judge.

I said I'd leave that issue aside, so I will. Aside from that, if I recall correctly, the 'judge not' bit goes on to also say 'condemn not, lest ye be condemned.'

[Terraius]

Well, some:
1.with Christianity as a whole: the same issue I have with all religions.
There's no possible logical way of proving your claims - so don't brag about them, don't try to enforce your morality on me, and don't try saying that your claims are as good as a scientifical theory. If you agree to that, then we can be best buddies. (Hey, after all my fiancee is a Christian).

Curious, what ground shall one base their laws, morals, and codes, integral into society, to maintain law and order, a sense of justice, and peace of the land?

How is a Religion, a Theocratic Theory if you will, with thousands of years of written and oral history, with very debatable ideas of its own, when compared to a Scientific Theory, any lesser? If you have any evidence to prove what the universe did/was before the first second of time passed, then by all means reveal it! The same could be same for religion. Neither can effectively produce physical evidence on what caused the effect of creation-- the only difference is religion requires faith while science continues to pick and pick to try and explain a world or place that was in theory non existent before the first second of time and the formation of the universe, therefore creating a paradox within itself.

2.with the RCC clergy: living in Italy MEANS having issues with the RCC.
Starting with the huge 'privileges given to RCC clergy and organizations... then about the indoctrination of kids into being Catholic - managed by the RCC but paid for by the Italian Republic... and I could go on, and on, and on...

If you file your taxes yearly with the Italian government you would know that this is completely bogus and that you can designate where allocated funds go to as far as religion or the state for that matter. Your simply implying that because Italy is the homeland of the Romans, the converted people and founders of the first established church, and the native population has a natural tie to the RCC, that the RCC tends to get more funds. Well, this is very true, but what more can you expect in the homeland of the faith? Why are you surprised in the least that the people would naturally opt for the RCC To receive the funds they opt in their taxes?

3.with non-lapsed Catholics: a necrophagous bunch (see the trinity dogma and the transubstantiation dogma).

A Catholic who does not take the Eucharistic Adoration with the intent of honoring Jesus as his apostles did at his last supper are not true Catholics. This is probably one of the biggest pillars in the church!

Jesus Christ, our Lord, our Master, our Creator, rightful ruler of all things down to the last elementary particle, is about to be crucified on the cross, to hang and suffer for the sake of mankind. To think a creator so loved his creations he would suffer endlessly for them to be spared. The love Jesus Christ has shown the world is beyond what any mortal could ever conceive of doing; and for that, we honor him at every Mass through the Communion of his body.

It is his blood, his body, and the trinity justifies this very simply;

The Father, Son, and Spirit, are one and all. Always now and forever.

The Father is the Creator, the omnipresent force that exists in the dimensions beyond the universe. He is not a physical entity but one of other worldliness.

The Son is the Son of Man, the physical manifestation of God to Mankind, 'For those who have seen me have seen the Father',

The Spirit, in all things, alive or not, for God created everything in the universe in his likeness, every inch, every particle, was shaped perfectly as he intended and in his image. All things receive the Spirit of God; the question of if they choose to accept it is another discussion;

All that taken into account, Jesus giving the bread and wine to his apostles as his body and blood make perfect sense. The Holy spirit is in all things, for all things are endowed by their creator. The trinity states that the Spirit, Father, and Son are always one, never separate. When we take the bread and wine, we are accepting the Holy spirit and recognizing the significance of the sacrifice our Lord made for us; and through that we show our greatest embrace of love and appreciation by accepting Jesus Christ into us, physically, and spiritually. To call it 'Necro' is an insult to him for he is not man, he is without sin, for all man is with sin. He is the Lord, God almighty, and comparing him to dust and ashes that is us mortal men is a literal slap in his face. He was but a manifestation of God in the likeness of Man so he could come to us and teach us, educate us, guide us, love us. To accept his blood and body is not to accept a literal body but a celestial, holy body that we are all destined to shelter in after our deaths.

[Terraius]

No, I didn't misread, I'm turning your sentence around. Governments have just as much right to define marriage as anyone does. It just depends on what they're able to get away with. Marriage isn't something that society adopted from Christianity, it's something Christianity adopted from others.

Ok Obama, relax. Dont tax me bro.

In all seriousness, awarding the government the ability to dictate religion is downright wrong. And Christianity in its root early form could be seen as 'Reformed Judaism', and the roots of our faith have been long established since nationstates or countries. Originally nonsecular states adopted marriage into law because the church and state did not have clear boundaries. This only spread and continued in practice, and continues in practice even though the modern age sees the rise of the Atheists' God of self fulfillment take dominance over all others rather then equal standing as secularism so hardily preaches. It was taken from religious practices and turned into nothing more then a near meaningless legality meaning you get to file joint income taxes and have joint ownership of property. Joy.

In a nation where the so called official policy is division of Church and State, the government continues to render marriages through priests and churches. They need to decide either the churches handle marriages as was original or the state butt out, because now, when they define marriage as something and impose it on all, churches who refuse to recognize or marry same sex couples run the risk of being persecuted for refusing their civil rights, when, it was not their right in the first place to impose their own definition of marriage as they please.

Thats about as far as Im going into that, ive explained it as much as I can.

I'm proving your point by using the google search you recommended, to point out that historically the various reasons I mentioned above predate Christianity? As does marriage itself? Or that even within the church, marriage has been redefined over time? Basically, no one, whether they be Catholics, or Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or Governments, no one owns marriage.

..That wasnt the point. The point had to do with secular government ruining the importance of marriage in the nation and in family for that matter.

Yes, Sin predates Christianity. Sin predates alot of things, and probably was one of the first things to ever come about after man had fully evolved as God had set forth to be. Marriage also predates Christianity, yes, that is also true. Ive said many times that marriage was not Christian inclusive, that it was religious inclusive, that it was originally a religious rite that developed through Judaism and other religions. Through the years when nations developed and religion and the nation were one, marriage become a legal institution, but in a nation where religion and state are supposedly separate, the state regulates marriage.

The Sacrament of Marriage cannot be owned by one person, that is obvious, but as a religious rite of Christians and various others, it should not be forced upon us to redefine what marriage is. It is our faith, not theirs. They dont have a right to my faith and its sacraments. Legalizing same sex marriage would only make Catholics targets of further persecution in a nation where we are already a minority and hated by many, Atheist and Protestant alike.

Except that there is no single, defined gay 'lifestyle' or 'ideology'.
There are people who are gay, meaning they are attracted to members of the same gender, but act differently on it.
Just as there are people who are Christian, meaning they follow the teachings of Christ, but worship differently.

Stop taking my words for literal.. You knew exactly what I meant: Lifestyle of Homosexual tendencies that we were commanded not to tempt into. That is what I meant when I said lifestyle/ideology.

Yes, there are people who are Christian who are not Catholic, and we call them heretics, and in the USA they encompass the majority of the Christian community. The Protestants do not have a central authority on doctrine or discipline as Catholics or Orthodox do, so they tend to be divided and radical, naturally being unchecked. These are the people you want to be concerned about when it comes to anti-gays and gay bashing, not the RCC Which has only upheld the rights of minorities and the oppressed with no voice. We seek to elevate them, even the Gays, because we are in spirit here to do God's work, and that work would be to guide and love them so that they can see the error of their ways. If they dont want to accept the guidance, then we can only pray. However, we believe marriage does not belong to anyone else besides a Man and a woman, plain and simple, because our Lord commanded us. Again, for the 10000th time, this does not mean we hate gays or are seeking to persecute them. This is not the case, and if they wish to remain gay then by the grace of God do so, for they have the free will to do against his word as they please. Remember, In the end, its not what you think, its not what I think, its what he thinks, and what he says goes, plain and simple.

I said I'd leave that issue aside, so I will. Aside from that, if I recall correctly, the 'judge not' bit goes on to also say 'condemn not, lest ye be condemned.'

One should not take it for literal meaning, as condemn in biblical times carried a much harsher effect to sentencing to death or other punishment. The modern sense of condemn is 'To not approve of', and Jesus never said we had to approve with everything, especially things that go against our church doctrine.

No offense Batuni, but I feel myself repeating stuff to you. Can you try to not talk circles in your points so we dont end up right back at the same points we are trying to make/bring up to eachother? Your killin me over here *pant*

[Innsmothe]

Yes, there are people who are Christian who are not Catholic, and we call them heretics, and in the USA they encompass the majority of the Christian community. The Protestants do not have a central authority on doctrine or discipline as Catholics or Orthodox do, so they tend to be divided and radical, naturally being unchecked. These are the people you want to be concerned about when it comes to anti-gays and gay bashing, not the RCC Which has only upheld the rights of minorities and the oppressed with no voice. We seek to elevate them, even the Gays, because we are in spirit here to do God's work, and that work would be to guide and love them so that they can see the error of their ways. If they dont want to accept the guidance, then we can only pray. However, we believe marriage does not belong to anyone else besides a Man and a woman, plain and simple, because our Lord commanded us. Again, for the 10000th time, this does not mean we hate gays or are seeking to persecute them. This is not the case, and if they wish to remain gay then by the grace of God do so, for they have the free will to do against his word as they please. Remember, In the end, its not what you think, its now what I think, its what he thinks, and what he says goes, plain and simple.

HAH!
Catholicism only act's just when it is convenient, it had no qualms with the murders of the pagans in the north and lithuania, the massacres of civilians in Spain and the blood lust in the Holy Land. They had no qualms in violently murdering Lutherans and other protestant groups.

The faith of Rome is no more just and righteous than a murderer who commits an act of heroism to save himself from Gaol.

[Terraius]

HAH!
Catholicism only act's just when it is convenient, it had no qualms with the murders of the pagans in the north and lithuania, the massacres of civilians in Spain and the blood lust in the Holy Land. They had no qualms in violently murdering Lutherans and other protestant groups.

The faith of Rome is no more just and righteous than a murderer who commits an act of heroism to save himself from Gaol.

Because the RCC Was the only force at play in those times fighting wars, battles, etc. Of course. There was never some sort of Islamic force, Khan force in the East, Pagan Barbarians, no, just the lone RCC.

What Rome did in the past wasnt right, and we have recognized our wrong doings and the fact that we can still mess up and arnt perfect, but placing blame on Rome for engaging in questionable wars in Medieval times is like trying to punish a Horse for eating hay, if you get the analogy. The Medieval times were some fucked up times for all parties involved, and there was hardly a neutral force out there. Yes, the RCC shouldnt have gone to some of the extremes it did, but to condemn them for fighting when the entire world was one giant warfield (which could sum up the dark ages pretty niftly) is not fair. Even your beloved Lutherns are not without blood on their hands, as many a Protestant revolt turned violent and bloody. Trying to claim moral high ground in darker times is moot.

[Innsmothe]

HAH!
Catholicism only act's just when it is convenient, it had no qualms with the murders of the pagans in the north and lithuania, the massacres of civilians in Spain and the blood lust in the Holy Land. They had no qualms in violently murdering Lutherans and other protestant groups.

The faith of Rome is no more just and righteous than a murderer who commits an act of heroism to save himself from Gaol.

Because the RCC Was the only force at play in those times fighting wars, battles, etc. Of course. There was never some sort of Islamic force, Khan force in the East, Pagan Barbarians, no, just the lone RCC.

What Rome did in the past wasnt right, and we have recognized our wrong doings and the fact that we can still mess up and arnt perfect, but placing blame on Rome for engaging in questionable wars in Medieval times is like trying to punish a Horse for eating hay, if you get the analogy. The Medieval times were some fucked up times for all parties involved, and there was hardly a neutral force out there. Yes, the RCC shouldnt have gone to some of the extremes it did, but to condemn them for fighting when the entire world was one giant warfield (which could sum up the dark ages pretty niftly) is not fair. Even your beloved Lutherns are not without blood on their hands, as many a Protestant revolt turned violent and bloody. Trying to claim moral high ground in darker times is moot.

Love no sect of Christianity, I just thought that the most powerful and centralised force at the time would have shown some means of personal responsibility and maturity..

[The Archregimancy]

Love no sect of Christianity, I just thought that the most powerful and centralised force at the time would have shown some means of personal responsibility and maturity..

More powerful and centralised than Song China? Really?

And for the record, the Papacy arguably wasn't even the most powerful and centralised force in Christian Europe at the beginning of the Crusades.

Not that I'm defending the Crusades (<cough> 1204 <cough>), merely adding some historical context.