Pissed off Roman Catholics

[dreamer20]

... In which case I'd better go and ask my parents and my 13 brothers and sisters if we are Catholics?
As for the Davinchi Code I think this is the last place I'd like to find free adverts for it...

Dan

Although you personally don't like the ad being here for the "Code" Dan, this thread has been viewed at least 554 times since yesterday. So when it comes to free publicity this thread has done the movie a great service. I'm even curious to see the picture, especially if the Church objects to it. I am glad that "Dogma" was released without all of this fuss and bother. Now wasn't that peculiar.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120655/

lol dreamer20

 

[B_Danceswithlamps]

I can't say much here. I haven't read the da vinci code. I will see the movie.

The catholic church is very conservitive, and doesn't like to be bothered with. It is an old church with many ingrained traditions. I don't go along with many of the things it believes in. I AM however, a devout Roman Catholic.

 

[faceking]

Perhaps a good shot in the face would wake you up?

yeah, me thinks you've not only watched that once, but for some reason you revisit it each time you are about to repsond to me in this angered crush. 6,000 + views had to come from somewhere... guessing the bulk is from you sweetcheeks.

 

[Matthew]

well, i've never been wrong ... so i guess that makes me right


pay up

If lovin you is wrong, I don't wanna be right.




But I am.

 

[BigCollege_Cock]

I'm Roman Catholic :redface: but I don't agree with some of the things in our church (by church I mean the universal Catholic faith)

 

[GoneA]

If lovin you is wrong, I don't wanna be right.


But I am.

for no reason at all, this made me think the poster was a woman:

i've been to Mass in three different continents, under Priest, Bishop, ArchBishop and Cardinal, and i'm NOT "SPOON FED" a damn thing, you may feel neglected and unguided, but to me, i feel my religion and more importantly, my FAITH, in my soul, and no "hysteric" (for the contrary) like YOURSELF will have any sway in that matter, MON AMI!

maybe cos it has a sentimental air to it ... not saying that men can't be sentimental :redface:

. I don't go along with many of the things it believes in. I AM however, a devout Roman Catholic.

I find it interesting that many (very nearly all, actually) of the Catholics I know echo this very same sentiment.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I'm Roman Catholic :redface: but I don't agree with some of the things in our church (by church I mean the universal Catholic faith)

Simply for clarification:

I was raised Church of England (actually the American version; Episcopalian). In our ritual we refer to ourselves as the Holy Catholic Church. So I always specify those who adhere to Rome (or as some family members call them "Papists") as Roman Catholics.

The adjective "catholic" means: comprehensive, universal, and broad in sympathies. So in that sense I do not think it applies to that phenomenon we know today as the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[B_Stronzo]

yeah, me thinks you've not only watched that once, but for some reason you revisit it each time you are about to repsond to me in this angered crush. 6,000 + views had to come from somewhere... guessing the bulk is from you sweetcheeks.

well trust me in this facequeen. I watched it once and stopped it after about 15 seconds. That was plenty for this homosexual.

**nausea emoticon.

Just cuz it's male don't make it attractive....

 

[Shelby]

Kinda veering here but I just want to give the Catholic church big props for giving us truly perverted ho's to bang via its twisted and oppressive teachings on sexual morality.


​

 

[B_Stronzo]

Kinda veering here but I just want to give the Catholic church big props for giving us truly perverted ho's to bang via its twisted and oppressive teachings on sexual morality.




​

That's odd Shelb. Back in college when I was fucking girls I found the parochial Roman Catholic variety largely wanting to get laid promiscuously but not terribly able to enjoy themselves due to monstrous after-guilt.

Now my minister's daughters? That's a wholly (!!) (holey?) (Holy???) different story. :biggrin1:

 

[dong20]

Simply for clarification:

I was raised Church of England (actually the American version; Episcopalian). In our ritual we refer to ourselves as the Holy Catholic Church. So I always specify those who adhere to Rome (or as some family members call them "Papists") as Roman Catholics..

The adjective "catholic" means: comprehensive, universal, and broad in sympathies. So in that sense I do not think it applies to that phenomenon we know today as the Roman Catholic Church

Me too, I was raised C of E. As I recall Catholics used to burn Protestants here in England (note to solong: England not Britain), well pretty much anyone they took a dislike to actually. Protestants tended to hang Catholics for 'religious treason' which is of course much more civilised although the end result is the same.

I guess even then, as today they hadn't read the 'definition' of Catholicism...but, to this day Catholics do get 'payback' in the town of Lewes every November 5th.

I say what goes around comes around and the RC Church has it coming.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I say what goes around comes around and the RC Church has it coming.

dong,

You do realize how dreadfully Protestant (socially) we sound right now don't you?

I'll give us C. of E'ers one thing; we have (some of us anyhoo) women priests and (at least in New England) homosexuals are welcomed into our congregations.

 

[dong20]

dong,

You do realize how dreadfully Protestant (socially) we sound right now don't you?

I'll give us C. of E'ers one thing; we have (some of us anyhoo) women priests and (at least in New England) homosexuals are welcomed into our congregations.

Yeah...but this thread is about Catholics and for once I am trying to keep on topic in one your threads! I thought about adding C of E in but got nailed by the time out.

The history of the C of E has been pretty shameful but I would say on balance probably a tad less ruthless than the RC church. They had their own secret police and death squads and everything so I give them extra credit for taking it so seriously...

 

[BigCollege_Cock]

Simply for clarification:

I was raised Church of England (actually the American version; Episcopalian). In our ritual we refer to ourselves as the Holy Catholic Church. So I always specify those who adhere to Rome (or as some family members call them "Papists") as Roman Catholics.

The adjective "catholic" means: comprehensive, universal, and broad in sympathies. So in that sense I do not think it applies to that phenomenon we know today as the Roman Catholic Church.

huh?

 

[solong]

dong,

You do realize how dreadfully Protestant (socially) we sound right now don't you?

I'll give us C. of E'ers one thing; we have (some of us anyhoo) women priests and (at least in New England) homosexuals are welcomed into our congregations.

Homosexuals should not be "welcomed" into ANY congregation. Here's why: It's none of their damned business, one way or the other! If you THINK you have a problem, then that's YOUR PROBLEM. They have problems they don't share with you, don't they? And whether they may or may not think that they have any problems, you have you OWN opinions, as far as they are concerned, don't you?

Of course you do. You've expressed them, ad infinitum! So were we to stop labeling people as "They who accept homosexuals," versus, "Those who hate homosexuals," and instead start thinking about people as "JUST PEOPLE," and stop expecting the judgment of God Almightly from them, then I think you are going to come away with a little different outlook.

If I were you, I would NEVER choose a church onthe basis of a congregation that "accepts homosexuality." If there was ever a perfect example of "judging the outward appearance," that's it!

I would choose a church on the basis of how they obeyed the Word of God in the actual Bible, itself. And if you don't think much of them on THAT BASIS, then I'd say, "Bye-Bye."

 

[Lex]

Or don't choose a church at all.

There is an inherent danger in labelling every religious conservative person as a "fundamentalist." I think that the danger there is that there are plenty of people who use their religion to marginalize others who the fundamentalists themselves would not own as they are not outwardly "fundamental enough" (if that makes sense).

There is also a danger in saying "just live as the Bible says is" in that, at the end of the day, it is a book that was written by men and is interpreted by man (with all the inherent baggage of the human condition). And as a book, it contradicts itself and is open to wide intepretation. Following it to the letter is as dangerous and librerally interpreting it ad nauseum.

I am mature enough to see and man enough to admit that the manner in which my faith has been practiced is beyond flawed and apply and see those similarities in our faiths without jockeying them for comparative superiority (or stupidity). Religion is as flawed a belief system as any--its just that it's application has historically had immeasureable and far-reaching effects.

 

[dong20]

Homosexuals should not be "welcomed" into ANY congregation. Here's why: It's none of their damned business, one way or the other! If you THINK you have a problem, then that's YOUR PROBLEM. They have problems they don't share with you, don't they? And whether they may or may not think that they have any problems, you have you OWN opinions, as far as they are concerned, don't you?

.....

I would choose a church on the basis of how they obeyed the Word of God in the actual Bible, itself. And if you don't think much of them on THAT BASIS, then I'd say, "Bye-Bye."

Good points solong, generally speaking I'd say problems often only exist in the pysche of the holder, though I do have a couple of comments:

1) The 'Bible' (and other religious core documements condemn Homesexuals, unconditionally and without ambiguity so choosing a church on the basis of strictly obeying 'Gods word' would surely be to choose one that would condemn Homesexuals to eternal damnation or worse...surely that's not a good thing?

2) I can't speak for Stronzo and I could be wrong, but I understand him to mean that by being 'welcomed', Homosexuals are not actively 'ostriced' or excluded for being Homosexual nor are they actively solicited and feited with flowers at the door but merely accepted as people.


I think that if any faith is willing to accept that a literal interpretation of some of their ancient 'religious directives' is entirely inappropriate today and is able to look beyond religious dogma and accept people for who they are as human beings regardless of their sexual preference (for example), then surely that has to be a good thing.

I know many will disagree with me, and I respect their right to do so just as they must accept mine to disagree with them. That's how it's supposed to be.

The problem is the extremists of all flavours who are unable to resist reacting to such statements without hysteria and all too often violence, and yes I do include Islam (especially in the case of Homosexuality..look at Iraq) et al in this comment.

I know it's a broad brush but sometimes you need a broad brush to cover a lot of crap.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Homosexuals should not be "welcomed" into ANY congregation. Here's why: It's none of their damned business, one way or the other! If you THINK you have a problem, then that's YOUR PROBLEM. They have problems they don't share with you, don't they? And whether they may or may not think that they have any problems, you have you OWN opinions, as far as they are concerned, don't you?

Now you're simply being argumentative to be argumentative. I used the word advisedly since it's the exception rather than the rule. Clear? Ah good.

Of course you do. You've expressed them, ad infinitum! So were we to stop labeling people as "They who accept homosexuals," versus, "Those who hate homosexuals," and instead start thinking about people as "JUST PEOPLE," and stop expecting the judgment of God Almightly from them, then I think you are going to come away with a little different outlook.

You start the new world order of 'not labeling' and I'll be the first to sign up. :wink:

If I were you, I would NEVER choose a church onthe basis of a congregation that "accepts homosexuality." If there was ever a perfect example of "judging the outward appearance," that's it!

I didn't say I "chose" it. I implied it was one of the more advanced and I was pleased since it was the one I happened to be born into. Are you reading disabled?

I would choose a church on the basis of how they obeyed the Word of God in the actual Bible, itself.

Then I suggest that's precisely how you choose your church.

Personally, I 'choose' no church at all.

You utterly missed the point of everything I wrote. Was it by intent or mere stupidity??

 

[B_Stronzo]

I can't speak for Stronzo and I could be wrong, but I understand him to mean that by being 'welcomed', Homosexuals are not actively 'ostriced' or excluded for being Homosexual nor are they actively solicited and feited with flowers at the door but merely accepted as people.

Yeah you can. I give you Divine permission. And you just did perfectly.

Solong's just being a dink.

 

[B_Stronzo]

huh?

Tell me which part are you having trouble with BCC and I'll be glad to explain it.